There is very little said about Melchizedek in the Old Testament and not much more in the New Testament, but what is said is of great importance. One can gain an understanding of him by careful study of the little that is reveled.


First consider Gen 14:18 (NIV) “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High”. He was a priest of God before Aaron, who was the first priest that God appointed from His people Israel.


Then we jump to Psalm 110 where God is speaking through David about Jesus. We know it is Jesus that is being spoken of, because of the phrase “The LORD says to my Lord”. If the one spoken of was Lord of David he would have to be King of Kings, or Jesus. This is affirmed in Hebrews chapter five. God says that Jesus is a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. Turning that statement around we can see that Melchizedek never dies, because if he did his priesthood would die with him.


So we have two High Priests who are priests for ever. Melchizedek was the only priest that lives forever until Jesus was made perfect and before Jesus the law condemned everyone, so it should be obvious that Melchizedek was the High Priest of the Law. When Jesus was made perfect he also became a High Priest. I would say that he is High Priest of Mercy, but that phrase is not used in the Bible so don’t quote me on that. Anyway it is apparent that there are two such Priests who are High Priests at the same time (Heb 7:3). This makes sense because the law is still valid. Those who will perish will do so because they have not kept the law and those who will live will do so because Jesus paid the penalty of the law for them. Both the law and mercy exist at the same time and there is a Priest for both at the same time.


Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” (Heb 7:2). Now, I don’t know if you realize it, but God’s law is peace. If everyone could obey the law there would be peace throughout the whole world.


There are only two royal laws from which all of the Ten Commands come from. (Mark 12:29-31 NIV)  “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”


If we could obey the first law we would be at peace with God and if we could obey the second we would be at peace with all men: if they also obeyed. There would be no murder, thefts, infidelity, or any strife, because you would not do anything to them that you would not want done to you.


Then there is (Heb 7:3 NIV)  Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Or as the KJV says (Heb 7:3 KJV)  Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. If he had no beginning and has no end then he either is God or came directly from God.


Here is another statement that you will not find in the Bible and it is only a way that I view Melchizedek. I am not trying to add anything to the Bible, but let me say this, If Jesus is the only son of God born as a man, then Melchizedek is the only son of God born of Spirit. Please don’t throw rocks at me. It just seems right to me. If I missed something then please explain it to me. Be very critical of me it will benefit all of us.


Once you understand that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit, spoken of all through the Bible, you can see that he is one of the two witnesses reveled in Revelation. Well, that is better left to another post.








  1. JR Lynn says:

    After studing the bible for some time, I beleive the Holy Spirit was in Melchizedek. Also, Simeon (Luke 2:25) the Holy Spirit was there in him, and the Holy Spirit was with Jesus all the time even at his death. Look at Luke 11:13 no one asked him about the Holy Spirit, but Jesus says ask for the Holy Spirit and He will be given until you, but who know the Holy Spirit at that time, but Jesus and the most holy of men. I see nothing happen until the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles at penicost and then the church was establed and grew.
    Best wishes in Jesus,

  2. astudent says:

    JR Lynn,

    Melchizedek was not a man. He was (Heb 7:3 NIV) Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
    If He had no father or mother and had no beginning or end of life He could not have been man. Only God has no father or mother and no beginning or end of life. The Holy Spirit wasn’t in Him; He was or is the Holy Spirit!

    Though I might agree that the Church was established at Pentecost all things didn’t start to happen with Pentecost. They started with Geneses 1:1!

    I believe God gave us both Testaments so that we might better understand. It would limit our understanding to ignore the Old Testament.

    That is how I understand, but then I am only a student.

  3. Sandip says:

    I dont think just because Melchizedek had no beginning of days and ends of days recorded makes him equivalent to God !

    He was a priest and Jesus was compared to him for the precedence for Jesus’ priesthood and thus Jesus can be a priest and a king and law of Moses is not compromised.

  4. astudent says:


    You have added the word recorded and changed the phrase ‘end of life’ to ‘ends of days’. The Bible does not say Melchizedek had no beginning of days and ends of days recorded. It says without beginning of days or “end of life” and without father or mother, without genealogy. No man can fill those shoes. Even Adam who had no father or mother had an end of life.
    If Melchizedek is a man then how could that be? What man could qualify as Melchizedek?
    The Law of Moses was not compromised because Jesus fulfilled it perfectly. Jesus became a priest when he allowed himself to be sacrificed for all mankind and there was no precedence for that.
    However if you think about it Melchizedek was a divine priest and that would be a precedence for one like him. So perhaps I can agree with you about precedence.

  5. Sandip says:

    Thanks for pointing the misquote of the text but the overall reasoning of mine remains the same.

    (YLT) Hebrews 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being made like to the Son of God, doth remain a priest continually.

    Melchizedek lacked records of things which a king generally have! (Jesus does have such records and genealogy reaching to Adam but still both were compared. The question is why? For precedence and thus justifying Jesus’ sacrifice and role as highpriest!)

    Here “end of life” does not mean eternal life as it is amply clear from the context of the text. The priesthood of Melchizedek is continuous just like ours who will have eternal life.

    To consider that Melch was divine then it can be said that God already had His Kingdom (eternal? transient? visible???) on earth much before Jesus, the Messiah started His reign. All can specualte as they like.

    I see no valid reason for God to take a human form as that of His own priest when HE could have asked Abraham to make an alter!

    These are my views but anyone can differ. Thanks for allowing me to share my views on your blog.

  6. astudent says:


    My overall reasoning also remains the same.
    There is a record of Melchizedek and it is the same record of the life of Jesus and that is the Bible. There can be no record of the genealogy of someone that had no father or mother. No genealogy of someone who had no beginning of days. Personally if Melchizedek was someone that merely lacked records I believe that is how it would be said. The verse doesn’t say the records were lost and I would not have known anything about Melchizedek if I had not read the record of him.
    We will all reach an end of this life Heb 9:27. Even Jesus, the man, died, but not Melchizedek.
    Well, as far as God already having His kingdom on earth, hasn’t God always been here? Isn’t He taking care of us now, and wasn’t He always, and will He not continue?
    Thanks for sharing your views. Christians do not always agree and I don’t think we should. Disagreements are usually only the result of different people viewing the same thing from different angles and it really doesn’t matter in the long run anyway.
    The only things that really matter are the two royal laws.

  7. sandip says:

    I share gospel with Muslims and once I was asked that how many (human) gods do you have? The question was not aimed to trinity or Jesus but towards Melchizedek.

    We Christians believe that God visited Abraham, wrestled with Jacob and talked with Moses but everytime we cannot ascribe a permanent figure to such visitations. Everytime we cannot say, “HE was a person of God and the other one was also a person of God and Jesus is also a person of God.”

    Christians are “making” gods and making a pantheon out of persons of God without confessing it !!!

    You can see Melchizedek as Holy Spirit or God and thus may stay within the limitation of the trinity =Three persons. While I can see such attempts as converting trinity into Quadrity!

    If you had read my blog then you would have read how we can interpret terms used for Melch as reference to the records of a king and not to divinity!!! The humanity of Melch provides precedence for Jesus to be a high priest without compromising the laws!

    The interpretation of Melch as some kind of divine person results in much more confusion in already mysterious concept of Trinity but if you like to make quadrity then no one can stop you. In fact, you can justify it… God revealed Himslef as four persons ! How about adding the God who wrestled with Jacob? We have Pentity!!! and all these with one God. Please forgive me for thinking more in your line of interpretation and possibilities it opens.

    The matter is not of interpretation but whether can we grasp the truth? If information is less then it is better not to derive things which needs more interpretations. In Science, the simpler theory is accepted as nearer to the truth.

    Have a great day, brother !!!

    (Pnetity reminds me of Mr Benny Hinn who once said that each person of Trinity has his own trinity and thus Godhead has “9 of them”… Nanity !??!?!? Any way, Mr Benny later changed his stand but Google and find more about his interesting revelation from “Holy” Spirit to him (as per his claim) which didnt materialised… but that is a different story)

    Thanks again for your kindness. PEACE !

  8. astudent says:


    First I want to thank you for your comments. You have caused me to wrestle with God over this subject and I have found that though I never win I still come knowing more than when I started.

    Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe there is only one God. It seems only Christians have difficulty with this fact. Maybe it is because we have more information about God and sometimes it confuses us and then we proceed to confuse everyone else.

    I am not a teacher. I am only a student, but let me explain how God has eased my mind about what seems many Gods when the Bible says there is only one God. Let me use a worldly example to explain spiritual things, if I may.

    Suppose you met me along time ago and you have walked and talked with me many times. You have become accustomed to my voice and would know it anywhere. If I stand in front of you and say here I am, you know it is me, but suppose I stand at your door and open it just enough to slide my hand around it. Though you can see my hand you do not know it is me. Our bodies have many members (Rom. 12:4) and at that time you can see only one of them. That does not change the fact that it is me and you would not know it was me if I didn’t speak up and tell you it was.

    If we are made in the image of God and we have many members then wouldn’t it seem logical that God also has many members? Because God is spirit and not flesh it would also seem logical that His members do not resemble ours.

    If God would stand in Heaven and slide His hand around to earth we would not know it was His hand unless He told us and He did tell us it is His hand. Read His word just as it is written, without trying to change it to appease those who do not believe in the true God. The “King” of righteousness and the “King” of peace can be no other than God! Listen to His voice: it is the Word of God. Believe Him and not man and that includes me. You can learn nothing from me, but everything from God (John 14:26).

    I have more to say about this, but I think I will write a post as some do not follow comments and I would like to explain this to them also.

    By the way, you were correct, I didn’t read your blog before my comment and I have corrected my mistake.

    I hope I don’t lay any eggs as large as the Hinn you compared me too. I hope all my eggs are golden ones, but they did kill the goose that laid those, didn’t they?

  9. sandip says:

    Dear Brother in Christ,

    Thanks for publishing my comments.

    I am not a teacher myself but defender of truth of Jesus Christ. In my journey, I was told the truth by many and I corrected myself accordingly.

    I had explained the problem we are creating when we ascribe divinity to Melchizedek. I hope my comments were useful to you.

    Now, as Christians we believe in the Trinity but many scholars called it a mystery. I personally disagree to that. The Trinity is easy to understand and transferable truth.

    As I share gospel with Muslims, the trinity will alwasy pop up in the discussion. So I wrote a small booklet with enough examples to grasp the truth. A part is found at above link.

    What you suggeted as many members of the body for the trinity does make sense as I also had used such an example but in a different way.

    I will comment on your post about Trinity when you will have one.

    God bless you…
    Have wonderful days full of love and joy…

  10. Yes Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit. As the Lord Jesus Could not be a High Priest after the Order of Levy because He was born into the tribe of Judah which excluded Him from holding that office by law which was terminated by death. He was Born Into the eternal order of the Holy spirit which could never be terminated A High Priest after the Order of Melchisedek. Another Thought to be considered is that All three members of the Holy Trinity appeared on earth at some time as man. Abraham met with Melchizedeck and paid him his tithing. Then Eli-jah (Eli meaning Father and Jah his name so Father Jah performed all the miracles that the lord Jesus performed and wait for this I know that this truth will shake your foundations, Elijah was taken up into heaven. ‘AND NO MAN HATH ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN EXCEPT HE WHO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. THAT VERSE COMPLETELY DISPELS THE CHURCH LIE THAT MEN GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE. HOW GREAT TO FIND SOMEONE THAT THINKS OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH BOX. XXXX PAM

    God is the collective title for all three members of the Trinity. When you say “God help me” you are using shorthand you actually saying Father Son and Holy Spirit help me. Each member of the Trinity has the offcial title of God, although each member holds a different office and has their own name and a specific work to perform, Together as God they created and then the reigns were handed over to The Lord God in Genisis 2 who is not the Father, but is in fact The Lord Jesus Christ. His work started in the Book of Genesis and will carry on till he has restored all to the original plan and then Jesus will hand over to God the Father, then and then only will the saved be introduced to God the Father for their reward and others will meat Him in his Work as supreme Judge, until then The only name under the Sun is Jesus Christ who rules the Old and new Testament. Not as confused pastors ect. who mix up the Father with the Son. Love Christianity toss out churchianity with love of the truth Pam

  12. astudent says:

    Pamela Cornah,

    I am indebted to you. You have showed me Scripture that seems to contradict Scripture! I believe all Scripture is true, therefore if any Scripture seems to contradict other Scripture and I cannot reconcile the two, then I know that I have something more to learn. I love it when someone brings up a question that I have no immediate answer too.

    We know that Scripture says Elijah was taken up to Heaven and yet, as you pointed out John 3:13 says, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.” (NIV)

    There are other verses that speak of others ascending into Heaven and I believe the answer lies with 2 Cor 12:2, where Paul was speaking of John. 2 Co 12:2(NIV) “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.”

    If there is a third Heaven then logically there must be a first and second heaven. Now, because the Bible does not list one & two, or perhaps the Spirit that is within me has not pointed them out to me, I will not state this as fact, only a possibility.

    The first Heaven is where God lives. He can and does step into the other two heavens, but the third Heaven is His home. The second Heaven, as I see the three, is where Jesus and the Holy Spirit live. They, because they are sinless, may step into either Heaven. The third Heaven would be the one that we, those whose sins are covered can enter.

    If I view Heavens this way then I have no contradictions.

    Also, in Revelations there are many in Heaven that have washed their robes in the blood of Jesus and that was in the third Heaven.

    I do think that we go straight to Heaven with out going to the grave first. We already have gone to the grave in baptism and we have been raised a new being and we cannot die again, so if we were to be buried it would mean that we would be buried alive. That is not my best thought.

    I would say that the “need” for a Savior started in Genesis, not the work of Jesus. However if I look at it from another angle I suppose the work of Jesus would begin with the need for him.

    I see that you do your own searching for the truth. What a blessing that you do not depend on an earthly teacher. That, it seems to me, is the main error of the church today. Everyone believes the preacher has all of the answers and they look to him instead of looking to the Spirit: which really does have all of the answers.

    Thanks again for making the effort to point out your understanding. It has greatly pleased me. If I could do a back flip, I believe it would be the appropriate time. Well, I may not be the smartest man in the world, but I am smart enough not to try a flip.

  13. Ben_Metatron says:

    This same principle (2 in 1, male and female) was demonstrated in the BEGINNING: ELOHIM -made up of “ELOH” -FEMININE singular for GODDESS and the MASCULINE ending “IM.” The word (Elohim) could be translated as either God or GODDESSES, either masculine or feminine form of ONE word, Elohim. Thus God (Elohim -PLURAL) made Adham (the word for “human being”) in THEIR IMAGE, male and female, two, “AS one” -Gen. 2:24. Still further, this principle is manifest in the word Melchizedek, which contains both the masculine and feminine principle. In the original unaccented Hebrew, almost all root words were composed of three consonants; the word for king or queen was the same, MLK. Hebrew nouns have gender. Such words as “city” and “righteousness” are feminine nouns. “Righteousness” in Hebrew is “Zedek.” Hence, in the original Hebrew MLK -Melchi. (king or queen) zedek (righteousness) is Melchizedek (king or queen of righteousness). In 1956 in the Qumran Cave 11, a parchment about Melchizedek was discovered which revealed that “Melchizedek as ELOHIM (feminine-masculine) has a place in the divine assembly” (The Melchizedek Tradition, p. 77, by Fred Horton), and it also speaks of the “antecedent of the FEMININE singular suffix . . . and the person addressed seems to be Melchizedek” (Ibid.). “MELCHIZEDEK . . . .’Zedek’. . an ancient NAME oferusalem. . .” -Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 450, under “M.”erusalem being the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26) and Her name being HIDDEN in the name, MelchiZEDEK, one would naturally conclude that “Zedek” (feminine noun for righteousness) would indicate Jerusalem, the “Mother” of us all, the Holy Spirit, the Branch She, the Lord (Queen-MLK) our Righteousness (zedek) Melchizedek. The description of Melchizedek could only pertain to a member of the Godhead. . .”without father”. . .”without beginning” or “ending”. . . of HEAVENLY ORIGIN, the original QUEEN OF HEAVEN! Conclusively, then, Melchizedek, our Mothererusalem, is a symbol of the Holy Spirit -Melchizedek, King (Queen) of Peace.

  14. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    That is very interesting. I did not know the words included both male and female roots (if that is the way to say it).

    It makes sense because God created Adam and brought him forth as well. It seems to me that the male creates life and the female brings that life into the world and God did both.

    Jesus said Mat 12:48-50 (NIV) “He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

    I believe the will of God is that He wants all saved and when someone tells another about Jesus or raises someone out of the baptismal waters, they are performing the duties of a mother.

    Melchizedek is indeed the mother/father of peace, because he brought forth the law and if everyone obeyed the law, there would be peace for all.

    That is the first time I heard the idea that the image used in Gen 1:26&27 meant male and female. It seems inconstant with the previous verses, where all the creatures were made, “according to their kinds”.

    It also does not fit with Gen 9:6 (NIV) “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” It seems to me that this verse is clearer when compared to the Hebrew words.

    Having said that, I admit that language is Greek to me.

    Thanks for your comment. Though I somewhat disagree with part, it has enlightened me a bit about the words of Scripture.

  15. Ben_Metatron says:

    In order for Elohim to make man in their image and to make the image of man male and female would only reveal that the image of the Elohim is male and female. If you look into the Genesis 1:21-25. The animal creation although referred to after his (masculine) kind, were created masculine and feminine. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Gen 9:6 the world here should be mankind. Simply because it says man does not mean there is not a female present. See Genesis 1:26, & 27. The Elohim makes man male and female. Another thing is this notice in Genesis 1:26 how the Elohim say let Us (plural) make man (singular) in Our (plural) image after Our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural)……..As you see man a singular word is reffered to as them, a plural word. Genesis 1:27 So Elohim created man in his (singular) own image, in the image of Elohim created he (singular) him; (singular) from the text it would seem that the Elohim created just him (masculine, male) however we see if we read further “he and him” are actually plural… Genesis 1:27 ………male and female (plural) created he them. (plural) This would explain the seeming contridiction in Genesis 1:26 in which the Elohim seem to be plural (And The Elohim said let Us. And 1:27 where the Elohim appears to be singular. (So the Elohim created man in his….. In these verses and in other verses, man, he & his which seem to be singular are actually plural and they denote a male and female.

  16. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    I see the error and it is mine.

    I committed the error of placing the wrong idea or definition on just one word in your first comment. When you said “THEIR IMAGE” my feeble mind thought you were referring to man. Yes, I see that you clearly meant God.

    How easy it is, to apply the wrong definition to a word. Just one word can change a sentence; one sentence can change a paragraph, one paragraph a page, a chapter, a book–

    Anyway, I understand and I see that god has blessed you with a revelation. I am blessed because you shared and perhaps many others will be blessed. The more we understand about Scripture the more we can learn.

    Thank you Ben.

  17. Sandip says:

    Elohim for God is a name and thus it means singular God. Word elohim is plural.

    The Bible does not teach that Melchizedek was the God but many Christians pick up a button and knit a coat around it.

  18. astudent says:


    Heb 7:1-3 NIV, “This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

    Who but God had no father, genealogy, or beginning of days?

  19. Ben_Metatron says:




    “The order of” Melchizedek . . . . . . . . “After” the order of Melchizedek

    Eternal Life without death . . . . . . . . Eternal Life through death

    An High Priest (IN THE SPIRIT) . . . . . . An High Priest (IN THE FLESH)

    Holy Spirit – Incense . . . . . . . . . . .Christ – The Blood

    A King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not a King of kings yet!

    King of Peace (Salem) . . . . . . . . . . .Prince of Peace

    Advocate of the Spirit World . . . . . . . Advocate – Human World

    Without Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A father, David

    Without Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary, His mother

    Without descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . .From Tribe of Judah

    No beginning of days . . . . . . . . . . . Born in Bethlehem

    No end of days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Died in Jerusalem

    No record in earth . . . . . . . . . . . . Name recorded in Earthly Sanctuary

    No name recorded in history . . . . . . . .Life and death recorded in history

    Not written down in Heaven . . . . . . . . Name recorded in Heavenly Sanctuary

    The UNwritten Word . . . . . . . . . . . . The Written Word

    The Author of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Book

    The Recorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Record

  20. Ben_Metatron says:

    ELOHIM – made up of “ELOH” – FEMININE singular for GODDESS and the MASCULINE ending “IM.”

    The word (Elohim) could be translated as either God or GODDESSES, either masculine or feminine form of ONE word, Elohim.

    Thus God (Elohim – PLURAL) made Adham (the word for “human being”) in THEIR IMAGE, male and female, two, “AS one” – Gen. 2:24.

    Still further, this principle is manifest in the word Melchizedek, which contains both the masculine and feminine principle.

    In the original unaccented Hebrew, almost all root words were composed of three consonants; the word for king or queen was the same, MLK. Hebrew nouns have gender. Such words as “city” and “righteousness” are feminine nouns. “Righteousness” in Hebrew is “Zedek.” Hence, in the original Hebrew MLK – Melchi. (king or queen) zedek (righteousness) is Melchizedek (king or queen of righteousness). In 1956 in the Qumran Cave 11, a parchment about Melchizedek was discovered which revealed that “Melchizedek as ELOHIM (feminine-masculine) has a place in the divine assembly” (The Melchizedek Tradition, p. 77, by Fred Horton), and it also speaks of the “antecedent of the FEMININE singular suffix . . . and the person addressed seems to be Melchizedek” (Ibid.).

    “MELCHIZEDEK . . . .’Zedek’. . an ancient NAME of Jerusalem. . .” – Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 450, under “M.”

    Jerusalem being the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26) and Her name being HIDDEN in the name, MelchiZEDEK, one would naturally conclude that “Zedek” (feminine noun for righteousness) would indicate Jerusalem, the “Mother” of us all, the Holy Spirit, the Branch She, the Lord (Queen-MLK) our Righteousness (zedek) Melchizedek. The description of Melchizedek could only pertain to a member of the Godhead. . .”without father”. . .”without beginning” or “ending”. . . of HEAVENLY ORIGIN, the original QUEEN OF HEAVEN!

    Conclusively, then, Melchizedek, our Mother Jerusalem, is a symbol of the Holy Spirit – Melchizedek, King (Queen) of Peace.

  21. Sandip says:

    you said:

    Heb 7:1-3 NIV, “This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

    Who but God had no father, genealogy, or beginning of days?

    Brother, I already have posted my response and explained that no genealogy does not mean anything…

    You can search this page with “sandip” and you will find my posts in 2009 and my views.

    Have a blessed day…

  22. astudent says:


    Please forgive me, but I do not see where you explained that ‘no genealogy does not mean anything.’

    Perhaps you have not understood me. I am not saying there are three Gods. I have a way of explaining my understanding of the Trinity using water, as you use air. Water can be in three forms and is at all times on the earth: ice, water, and vapor.

    I do not understand how one can say that the statement ‘Without father or mother, or genealogy can refer to anyone other than God. Even Adam and Eve had a father.

    Perhaps I have a mental block, or perhaps I have somehow missed your explanation.

  23. Sandip says:

    I think we had a good discussion in 2009 about Melch etc.

    Without father, mother, poor Melch does not even have a genealogy to know his roots. A king without pedigree!

    As you can see that how you want to read the text. Bible is not trying to suggest that God actually visited Abraham. It is simply recording that Melch was a successful king without great ancestors and yet following the true God.

    Adam and Eve didn’t have father or mother. Why are you confusing yourself? If an orphan does not have father and mother or any genealogy, then they are not holy spirits. We as Christians have to learn to control our urges to make things supernatural.

    The teaching about Melch and his being Holy Spirit/ God is nothing but an attempt to knit a coat around a button. I have heard big preachers teaching such about Melch and i have seen big preachers teaching wrong.

    Regarding trinity, the example of water is good but for me, it is not convincing. Even though water, ice and vapor are H2O but they are not the same ice is not vapor etc whereas as air, wind and breeze are nothing but the same air with different characteristics. They do not lose their identity even with different characteristics. They are all the same air all the time. Second, we can say that AIR is greater than wind and yet wind and air one. (Father is greater than I; I and Father are one)

    All illustrations are tools to convey the concept. If you can successfully use water to help someone understand trinity then it is good. For me, example of air works very well among Muslims. It is simple and easy to understand and it addresses the concern very effectively. Only a blind can continue arguing against concept of trinity after listening example of air.

    Let me know if I miss addressing any of your point.

  24. Ben_metatron says:

    Kenan was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God. Luke 3:38 So we see From Scripture that Adam is the son of the Elohim (God) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Genesis 5:1 So now we also see that Adam has a geneology. Another thing is this. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Melchizedek has no beginning of days. Adam and Eve had beginning of days as Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day of creation. He also has no end of life. Adam died, Yashua (Jesus) died and was ressurected. So the have had and had an end of life.

  25. ben_metatron says:

    We also see that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God. Well how was the Son of God made? Thus also it is written: “Adam the first man was a living soul; the last Adam – The Life Giver Spirit 1 Corinthians 15:45 The first man was dust from the ground; The second man, THE LORD JEHOVAH from Heaven. Just as he who was a being of dust, so also is that which is of the dust, and just as he who is The Being from Heaven, so also is the Heavenly 1 Corinthians 15:47,48 So we see that Melchizedek was made like the Son of the Elohim whom was spirit before He became flesh. There is no adding to or taking away from this fact. Melchizedek was not a human being. Melchizedek is a spirit being. And as translated prior. Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit.

  26. Sandip says:

    Well I already have my views in my post dated December 15, 2009 at 5:08 pm.

    We christians are tempted to create persons of God. If Melch was (person of) Holy Spirit then we have qaudrity instead of trinity.

    Anyway, people can run with all kind of interpretations and satisfy their souls. It is like a person sees a button and imagine that it is from a coat and so knits a coat for that button whereas another person sees the same button and imagines that it is from a sweater and so he knits a matching sweater. Now they are fighting for the button. The observers join in the tug of war and everybody forgets that it was just a button without traceable origin.

    I can see a button and i leave it to that. what about you?

    Have a blessed day…

  27. ben_metatron says:

    Still further, this principle is manifest in the word Melchizedek, which contains both the masculine and feminine principle.

    In the original unaccented Hebrew, almost all root words were composed of three consonants; the word for king or queen was the same, MLK. Hebrew nouns have gender. Such words as “city” and “righteousness” are feminine nouns. “Righteousness” in Hebrew is “Zedek.” Hence, in the original Hebrew MLK – Melchi. (king or queen) zedek (righteousness) is Melchizedek (king or queen of righteousness). In 1956 in the Qumran Cave 11, a parchment about Melchizedek was discovered which revealed that “Melchizedek as ELOHIM (feminine-masculine) has a place in the divine assembly” (The Melchizedek Tradition, p. 77, by Fred Horton), and it also speaks of the “antecedent of the FEMININE singular suffix . . . and the person addressed seems to be Melchizedek” (Ibid.).

    “MELCHIZEDEK . . . .’Zedek’. . an ancient NAME of Jerusalem. . .” – Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 450, under “M.”

    Jerusalem being the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26) and Her name being HIDDEN in the name, MelchiZEDEK, one would naturally conclude that “Zedek” (feminine noun for righteousness) would indicate Jerusalem, the “Mother” of us all, the Holy Spirit, the Branch She, the Lord (Queen-MLK) our Righteousness (zedek) Melchizedek. The description of Melchizedek could only pertain to a member of the Godhead. . .”without father”. . .”without beginning” or “ending”. . . of HEAVENLY ORIGIN, the original QUEEN OF HEAVEN!

    Conclusively, then, Melchizedek, our Mother Jerusalem, is a symbol of the Holy Spirit – Melchizedek, King (Queen) of Peace

  28. ben_metatron says:

    So as we see. It is not about creating a new member of the Trinity. If that’s what you want to call it. This member already exist and is the Holy Spirit (Ruah) We must have the proper interpretations and the proper knowledge. And not merely guess at the matter. We must go to the root of the whole matter and not merely scratch the surface. The truth of the Elohim is hidden in a mystery. So you may open up your European Bible and try to explain away Your Western mentality on the Hebrew Elohim however we must search the truth of the matter. The proper interpretation. I have given you facts and not mere speculation as the Bible instructs us to prove all things. The fact that the Holy Spirit is revealed as Melchizedek does not add to the trinity. (If that’s what you want to call it) It merely states whom Melchizedek is.

  29. Sandip says:

    1. The parchment of Qumran contains opinion of the author.
    2. Zedek may be ancient name of Jerusalem but that that does not mean that it was ascribed such BEFORE Melch. So when Melch was named it was neither a prophecy nor name of a city. As you can see that your arguments reveal so much of “mystery” but to me it is nothing but spinning a yarn.
    3. Your arguments are suggesting that you are calling Melch as avatar of Holy Spirit just like Hindu gods came to earth as avatar. Why avatar of Holy Spirit and why not God, the Father or God the Son? Throw a spin…
    4. In line of avatar we do not even need concept of trinity. Jesus can be avatar of God Himself, and Melch can be other and so forth.
    5. You dissect name and derive too much. My name is Sandip which means Lamp of Truth but that does not mean I always speak truth or give light of truth. It is JUST a name.
    6. Christians see Elohim and confuses it with elohim and see plurality. This is similar to what you are doing with the name of Melch.
    7. You can be happy with your coat but I am fine with my button.

  30. ben_metatron says:

    What you are failing to see is not what comes before nor after. The fact is this Melchizedek is not a human being as it has been revealed to you. Melchizedek is also not Yashua whom you call by the pagan name Jesus. Mechizedek is Priest of the Most High God. Whom is the Father, Therefore Melchizedek cannot be the Father. So being that Melchizedek is made Like the Son, who is the express image of God. It would only make Melchizedek God also. Apart of the Godhead. Melchizedek had no beginning of days nor end of life. Therefore the name Melchizedek (Melchizedek) existed throughout eternity. Therefore how can one come before the other when they coexist throughout eternity? We also know that Jeruselem on earth is a copy of the Jeruselem above. Therefore wether Melchi comes before or after Zedek does not make it cease to exist and it does not change the fact that the name Melchizedek is masculine and feminine and denotes the Holy Spirit who is in fact a female. Well the Female Hebrew Goddess.

  31. Sandip says:

    It is NOT fact that Melch was not a human being. You are imagining about him because you dissect his name and spin a yarn.

    Now Melch was priest and a KING… so what do you think, what happened to Melch and his people/subjects? Did Melch just disappear one day just like he appeared???

    Your idea of Holy Spirit as a female Hebrew goddess smells like anthropomorphism.

    Here is what Metthew Henry writes in his commentary, ” If men will not be satisfied with what is revealed, they must rove about in the dark in endless conjectures, some fancying him to have been an angel, others the Holy Ghost;”

    I agree with Matthew Henry and am satisfied with my button. You can fancy a coat.

    No offense…

  32. astudent says:


    There are things that cannot be said in all truth about human beings. One cannot say in all truth that a human being could be,” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life” That can only be said of God. Every human being had a father. Adams Father was God (Luke 3:38) and Jesus father was also God (Mathew 3:17). Every orphan had a genealogy, even if it is only God that knows it. They also had a beginning of life and will have an end of their physical life: they also have a mother and father.

    Do not think that I am confusing myself because you do not understand what I say. God confused language at the tower of Babel and it is still confused, so we have a difficult task of explaining what we know. Though it may seem that I am confused, I am definitely not confused.

    Scripture does not say that no one knew Melchizedek’s genealogy, it says that he had no genealogy. It does not say that no one knew when he was born, it says he had no beginning of days. I have no urges to twist Scripture to fit what I think it should say. I only want to understand it.

    It seems to me that one of the problems that is causing confusion between us is our different backgrounds and that has caused different views.

    Suppose there are two men standing on opposite sides of the road and a car comes from the north and passes them going south. After the car goes by one of the men says to the other, “Did you see that car” and the other man says, “Yes I did, it cam from the right and passed to the left”. The first man quickly answered, “No it didn’t, it came from the left and passed to the right”.

    Both men saw the same event and both men’s description of the event was true. They could stand and argue, all day, about the event and neither would learn, unless at some point they realized the confusion was a result of their point of view. In order to understand the truth, and it was the truth that the car passed both of them, they would have to first understand the concept of north, south, east, and west.

    We have a different view of this part of Scripture and we must try to view it from God’s point.

    Melchizedek was not an earthly king. He was/is the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (Heb 7:2).

    You say “Poor Melch”, but God says, “Just think how great he was”. Who is right and who is wrong?

    If you view the earth from space, looking at all of the water on the earth, then perhaps you would agree that water is in three forms, but you are correct, it is only symbolic and at some point any symbolism breaks down.

    My view of the Trinity is, there is one God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the mind of God, and there is only one man that was, is, or could be the perfect representation of the Father and that is Jesus. I think that you can see that my point of view of the Trinity is different than most. I do not see three Gods, or even three parts of God. I see two parts of God and one Lord. (1 Cor 8:6 NIV) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    I do not see either a button or a sweater. I see only Scripture and it is from God. I am not fighting anyone. I am only trying to explain how I understand Scripture. It may seem like I am fighting, but I am not. We both see Scripture and it is a good thing when we try to explain it as we view it.

    We both have the mind of Christ to teach us all things. We only need the questions and that is what we give each other. If I seem to argue that I am right and you are wrong, that is not what I am trying to do. Just as some things that I say seems wrong from your point of view, some things that you say seem wrong, as I see them.

    We both agree that the car went by us and that is truth and that is the most important part of the event. We both agree that we were lost, but now we are saved through the water and the Blood. That is truth and we both agree on truth.

    Perhaps I am guilty of quarreling about words and should just close the comments, to keep me from it.

  33. astudent says:


    I wrote my reply to sandip before I even read your comments. When I did read them I see that you had answered him and I thank you for the effort.

    I see Melchizedek just as you do and because we have traded comments before, I think I understand the concept of male and female that you often refer to.

    Anyway thanks for joining in the study. It is my goal to increase my understanding and I have learned from both of you.

    I might add that I learned by trying to see from your point of view, even though it may seem like I am only speaking from and about my own understanding.

  34. ben_metatron says:

    Sandip the translation for Holy Spirit in Hebrew is Ruah which in Hebrew refers to a female. Also keep in mind that in order for one to enter the kingdom of Heaven they must be born again. Being born is only done through a female. A male can never give birth and has never given birth to anything. Read the story of Nichodimas. He recognized that birth comes through a female. Yashua told him Nichodimas that he must be born again. And that which is born of spirit is spirit. And that which is born of flesh is flesh. However we all know that birth comes through a female. Even when the earth gives birth to plants, trees and various forms of vegetation. It is reffered to as Mother Earth. For this treatise, it is important that we look upon ourselves not only as male and female in the physical sense, but also as male and female in the sense that we are two aspects of the divine energy of Purpose. We should see ourselves as separated energies that are working toward union.

    Marriage, too, is much more than the joining of two physical persons; marriage is a universal order, a bonding relationship. It unites the male and female energies into a united whole. All male and female energies seek this marriage. everything which exist has a male and female counterpart. Even within the spirit realm. However it is alwayd the feminine aspect which gives birth. Another thing is this Melchizedek could not be an angel because angels are created beings. Therefore they have a beginning of days.

  35. sandip says:

    It is really funny that you want to make a case based on Holy Spirit as “female”. The very idea of male and female is human. God is beyond any gender but unfortunately it will dawn to you later, if not never.

    “Being born is only done through a female” is truly anthropomorphism as God’s nature does not support your views. Life is passed on without “female”. “Earth gives birth…” is hillarious as it seems you never heard about hydroponics or had never seen sprouted beans.

    It is seems it is your need to differentiate “divine” energy in to anthropomorphic sense so that you can “understand” what you already had concluded.

    As @astudent mentioned in his comment about Babel and problems of languages, you are victim of male and female words which you want to apply to energy.

    The Scriptures are not saying or suggesting Melch was an eternal being. You simply forget that Melch was a king and had subjects and a kingdom. You love to dwell on titles like king of peace/righteousness and raise Melch to level of female God based on titles. You do not want to see the verse in its context that Melch had an untracable origin and end. When Scripture said that Melch didn’t have father and mother, it did not suggest anything supernatural unless you are seeking it.

    @astudent, you forgot that God is not even two parts but He is three persons. Holy Spirit is not mind of God but HE is God himself (male/female/genderless). It is air we breath which sustains us but the windmill runs by the wind and not by the air.

    God and Jesus may seem two parts to those who do not want to understand the simple truth… When St Paul talked about Jesus and God, he deliberately marked the “differences” and guided us to approach Jesus (wind) for the power/salvation even though he knew that Yahveh saves.

    Anyway, Melch cannot be female God or God because Scriptures do not suggest that. Let me repeat what Matthew Henry said in his commentary about Melch,
    ” If men will not be satisfied with what is revealed, they must rove about in the dark in endless conjectures, some fancying him to have been an angel, others the Holy Ghost;”

    WE must understand that we cannot understand everything. Sometimes we need to leave it as button…

    Recently I realised that the thief who was saved by Jesus on the cross had no idea about who is Holy Spirit or what is the Trinity or no knowledge (but hope) of resurrection of Jesus and yet he is now in paradise.

    Our ignorance is not a stubling block if we have foudantion of faith in Jesus. From this secure position we should learn to differentiate between our speculations and the truth.

    As I said before, button is the truth and i leave it to that but you are free to speculate about sweater or coat.

  36. Ben_Metatron says:

    “And God said, Let US make man in OUR IMAGE, after OUR likeness: and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created MAN in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and FEMALE created he THEM.” Gen. 1:26, 27. “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the LIKENESS of God made he him; male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR NAME Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:1, 2.
    “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Rom. 1:20. Therefore, the first revelation of God on earth in Person was through the Divine Image in Adam and Eve, male and FEMALE. Thus, those who would accept the revelation of God “as a little child” would have no difficulty in thinking of God in terms of male AND FEMALE. From Isaiah (46:10) we learn the end “from the beginning;” that is, in the time of the end, we look back to the creation story to find how we will be restored, re–created, in the Divine Image–male and female–as it was in the beginning. Through the knowledge of how God was revealed in the beginning, we have the Divine Pattern by which to measure our earthly image in conformity to the original in Heaven.

    Those who would be led of the Spirit into “all truth,” however, will look to the Great I AM, the Revealer of secrets, for: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his SECRET unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). “And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.” Hos.12:13. The prophetic voice–Spirit of Prophecy–is Gods’ medium of revealing Themselves to mankind from the beginning in Eden where God–Elohim, plural–came to earth to speak (Gen. 3:8) to Adam and Eve, and where they will, again, dwell with the righteous who perfectly reflect Their image (Rev. 21:10; 22:3, 4).

  37. Ben_Metatron says:

    The story of Adam’s creation –”formed of the dust of the ground” mixed with water –(mist, a symbol of the Holy Spirit), prefigured the body created (fashioned) for the second Adam (Heb. 10:5) for a habitation of the Spirit. The water was defined by Jesus as “living water” to the woman at the well. The Son of God, “a celestial Being,” came down from Heaven and took a terrestrial body to demonstrate to mankind, on earth, how they could become “celestial beings” through an operation of the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:40). In the beginning Adam and Eve were created in the image of two celestial bodies, perfect and sinless, and dwelt in the supreme glory, the light of God’s Presence—immortal, to live forever. Because of sin their nature was changed and their bodies were subject to death after the Divine protection, their halo of light, was removed. The story of Eve’s creation prefigured the “celestial body” man was to have through an operation of the Spirit. She, unlike Adam (formed of the dust), was made from a part of Adam’s side of “living flesh and bone” and was his “second–self,” his “spiritual body.” Therefore, Eve was a HIGHER order of God’s creation, a second Adam (feminine) who made possible God’s command for THEM to “replenish” the earth, to “rule” and have “dominion” over it. Note: DOMINION was originally given to them BOTH. Adam was made in the masculine image of God the Father, and Eve was made in the feminine image of God the Mother. Adam prefigured Jesus, the second Adam (masculine). Eve, the feminine second Adam created in the image of God, the Mother, prefigured the Holy Spirit, “another Comforter” (or Messiah) to come in the masculine name of Jesus (John 14:26), though feminine in gender. Eve was called “Adam” by Elohim (Gen. 5:1,2). Before the fall, Adam –called her woMAN, but after the fall, he called her Eve, Chavvah (Hebrew) because she was the Mother of all living; a symbol of the ONE in Whose image she was made—The Holy Spirit Mother, everliving, no beginning, no ending. The second Adam created was Eve, a female who had a three–fold name—”woman,” “Eve,” and “Adam.” In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God is termed the irresistible Presence of the Divine Being Who hovered “as an eagle” over HER young to care for, and protect them. In the creation the Spirit quickens, makes alive, and transforms matter into a living world by breathing, moving upon the face of the waters. “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the LIKENESS OF GOD made he him; male and FEMALE created he THEM; and blessed THEM and called THEIR name Adam, in the day when THEY were created.” Gen. 5:1,2. King James Version. The Serpent said to Eve, the female image of God, “But God knows that whenever YOU eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like GODS by knowing good and evil.” Gen. 3:5. Gideon, Living Memorial Bible. “The Lord God said, ‘Obviously in knowing good and evil man has become like ONE of US.'” Gen. 3:22. Gideon, Revised Berkeley Version. The written Word is simple, self-explanatory, and denotes AT LEAST TWO PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD said, Let US make OUR image (male and female, Gen. 1:26, 27).

  38. Sandip says:

    You sound like someone with great knowledge and probably respected in your circle for knowledge of the Bible but you simply lack common wisdom. I have much less knowledge than you and yet I am closer to the truth than you.

    1. male, female and all words in our languages are based on our experiences and imaginations. Heaven and God are BEYOND our imagination and experiences and that is why whatever we are told is in human languages is EXTREMELY limited in truly representing what is spiritual. Unfortunately, you cannot grasp this little thing. e.g. mention of gold in heavenly Jerusalem does not mean it has gold with atomic number 79. For your ease, you can think about golden hair which are not made of gold and yet they are called golden.

    Dissecting words or basing your reasons on meaning of a word cannot always lead you to the truth.

    2. God created man in His image but it does not mean God is male-female. You are extrapolating with you whims. It simply means that God created Adam in a way that he can reflect God in some way or be able to house spirit of God. For you ease, think about image (idol) of God. The capacity of adam to house spirit of God reflects in God, the Son coming into human body. The creation of Adam in God’s image actually prophecies that God would come to earth one day. I can see foreshadow of God’s plan in the creation of Adam whereas you are stuck with male-female and applying it to God.

    3. Elohim is also used for non-God entities in OT. Second, you simply cannot understand difference between Elohim and elohim. The first is name -proper noun and thus represents SINGULAR God. Unfortunately, most Christians love the idea of plurality of elohim and apply it to name Elohim so that they can promote their notion of Trinity (plural gods) which they will reduce once again to singularity when confronted. Such attempts show their own lack of wisdom but they do not ever realise that !

    Anyway, if you can see then you should realise that your whole argument had basic flaws and so quotes from the Bible cannot support your ideas even though you act like a child or a servant/prophet.

    A button is a button, take it or leave it.


  39. Sandip says:

    I read your other portion of reply just now.

    1. so father is masculine, holy spirit is female then what about son? neuter to keep balance?

    2. is masculine god, feminine and neuter too?
    3. is feminie god, masculine and neuter, too?
    4. is neuter god, masculine and faminine, too?

    If so then how can be masculine be called masculine only?
    If not so then god/s must be united/joined together to form the whole God.

    Can you see your imagination is flawed from the beginning and you needs lots of patches and service packs like Windows?

    I read your imagination about water used in mud and Eve as higher order of creation and lot more…

    you have very creative imagination… and so you drift away from reality and truth…

    have a nice day…

  40. Ben_metatron says:

    God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:26, 27.

    “That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” Romans 1:19, 20.


    In the King James version of the New Testament, there appear the words “Holy Spirit,” and “Holy Ghost.” The words “Spirit” and “Ghost” are both translated from the same Greek word, pneuma. This has been a puzzlement to many students of the Bible; Why did the translators use the two different words “Spirit” and “Ghost,” for the one Greek word? The answer is rather simple, though understanding it may be a different matter.

    At the time the translation was completed the Protestant Reformation which had begun around a century before was still in progress. The translators were from a variety of backgrounds and had many different opinions which they had to bring into harmony with each other in order to produce the translation. When parts of the translation were completed they were read publicly, so that even the people themselves were affecting the process.

    There was a difference of opinion, and still is, as to the two phrases “Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9,14; 1 Corinthians 2:11,14;3:16, etc.), and “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11); Is there one Spirit or two? There was also the question, “Is the Spirit a person, or an influence, or both?”

    Among those who see the Spirit as an influence only, some believe that the Spirit came (or comes) forth from the Father only; others, that the Spirit came (or comes) forth from the Father and the Son, and others still, believe that the Spirit originated from the Father, yet is given through the Son. Many of those who see the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine Person whose power and influence may be sensed, and not merely as a force, have no idea where this Holy One came from, any more than they really know how Jesus was the Son of God before He created everything, and before He took on humanity. Neither can they say exactly what position the Holy Spirit has in the Family of God with the Father and Son (Ephesians 3:14,15). Some have the matter so confused that they believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simply three manifestations of the same Being.

    This was not a new problem for the translators, it existed from ages past. These diverse beliefs were a major contributor to the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. It began, basically, when the Roman Church added the word filioque (meaning “and from the Son”) to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, about the 7th century a.d. This doctrine of what has been called “the double procession of the Holy Spirit” had been discussed for centuries prior to this, with no apparent unification among those involved in the controversy. Arguments and debates abounded, but very little “taking it to the Lord in prayer” – which would have produced a definite answer to the question, completely in harmony with the Scriptures.

    This problem seems as if it is almost unimportant, as long as one receives the Spirit’s work in their life. And if this is all there were to the matter, that may be true. But the real heart of the matter is in the answer to the question, Is the Holy Spirit just a power, an influence; or a Person, from Whom comes the influence and power of the Truth? For those who do not spiritualize away the Personality of the Gods (Hebrew: Elohim – feminine base, masculine plural ending), including the Person of the Holy Spirit, this controversy takes on profound significance. This even more so considering that in Hebrew the word for Spirit (Ruach) is feminine.

    In light of the facts that the word which is used to describe the Creators of mankind is both feminine and masculine, and that the word for Spirit is itself feminine, it is easy for the honest at heart to see a family image in heaven as it is on earth (Romans 1:20). But considering that the Son also has His own Spirit, His own feminine counterpart, would lead one to conclude that there is also a divine Daughter. Thus we have the reason for the usage of the term Holy Ghost.

    This thought is also in harmony with the key texts which were presented at the beginning of this study. That is, that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made;” and that what was made to reveal God’s image and likeness was mankind, a male and a female “in his own image, in the image of God.” But even more of the revelation of the hidden things of God seen in the creation of Adam and Eve is revealed in Genesis 1:28, where we read “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply.” Thus the ability to multiply is also given to mankind to reveal the “invisible” things of the “Godhead.” As time has well shown, God’s image, male and female, is only fully manifested in the complete family image – father, mother, son, and daughter.

    “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.” Isaiah 28:9. This strong meat is not for babes, but is for those who use strong meat in due season. “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:13, 14).

    Today one can refer to many Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons, written by Christian and even some Jewish sources, which note that the Hebrew word for Spirit, Ruah, is masculine, or neuter. Then at the same time, many other credible sources by similar scholars say it is definitely, and only feminine. The very fact of this difference, should make it obvious that there is a definite effort to suppress the truth that there are feminine Persons in the Godhead in whose image and likeness mothers and daughters are made.


    In John 15:26, it is written that the Spirit “proceedeth from the Father,” and in John 8:42, Jesus says, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” Also, in John 1:14,18; 3:16,18, and 1 John 4:9, it is written that Jesus is the “begotten Son of God,” the Father. The word in Greek, gennao, which is translated “begotten” means exactly that – procreated. He could not be the divine SON of God if He were not BEGOTTEN, for all other sons of God are so by creation (as were the angels and Adam – Luke 3:38), or are adopted sons (as are the redeemed – Romans 8:15, Ephesians 1:5). Though the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father,” She was not begotten as was the Son. She came forth from the Father, as Eve came forth from Adam. Thus, “the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even …[the] Godhead!” Rom. 1:20.

    The testimony of Christ in Psalms 2:7 is, “the Lord [YHWH] hath said unto me, ‘Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee.’ “In Hebrews 1:1-5 and 5:5, this psalm is applied to Jesus, and is used to explain how He acquired His Divine nature – that is, by “inheritance.” The apostle John also makes it quite clear that Jesus was begotten of the Father, for he says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him [the Father] that begat loveth Him [the Son] also that is begotten of Him [the Father].” 1 John 5:1.

    The Hebrew and Greek words that are translated “begotten,” yalad and gennao, respectively, when applied to mankind, are understood to mean procreated. But when applied to the Gods (ha Elohim), people don’t want to apply the proper meaning of the words to the reality of the origin and existence of the “only begotten” Son of God. All living things that procreate do so “after their own kind.” So it is with God, the Father – His Son is “after” His “own kind,” divine. He has been begotten by The Father, not created. It is strange how students of the Word accept the reality that human beings come forth from human beings, but seem unable to believe that a Son who is also God came forth from Gods (the Father and Holy Spirit).

    “He [Jesus] hath by inheritance [heredity] obtained a more excellent name than they [the angels].” Hebrews 1:4.

  41. ben_metatron says:

    To truly understand the thoughts which are portrayed in the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament Hebrew, it is necessary to be true to the gender therein. Since there is no neuter gender in Hebrew, as there is in Greek and English, then whenever we read “it” or even “he” where the Hebrew reads “she,” we are losing some of the value of the truth as it was revealed. The gender of the Scriptures was not an accident, for our holy Gods had Their hand on every “jot and tittle” (Matthew 5:18).

    The Jews, generally, acknowledge that the Scriptures refer to the Gods, YHWH, not only in the masculine and feminine genders, but also in the singular and plural forms. But what they reject, along with most of the rest of the world, is that they themselves, male and female, parents and children, are literally, in form and feature, in the “image” and “likeness” of Gods, as stated in Genesis 1:26,27, and 5:1,2.4.

    Mainmonides, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers, says, “God is not a body, nor can bodily attributes be attributed to Him, and He has no likeness at all.” The Moslem belief, as stated in the Koran, is that “Allah does not beget, nor is begotten.” They believe that Jesus was a great prophet, but not the “begotten Son of God.” Therein lies the source of many of the identity crisis people are having today. The Bible says that they are in the “image”and “likeness” of Gods, but men tell them differently.

    In John, chapters 8-10, we see that it was after emphatically stating that the God which the Jews professed to serve was indeed, in reality, His Father, that the Jews picked up stones and tried to do away with Him. They believed themselves to be the sons of God (John. 8:41), but not literally, as Jesus was claiming to be. He was saying, “before Abraham was, I am” the begotten Son of God, My Father.

    Those who rejected Christ because of His claim to be the begotten Son of the Eternal God, found it necessary to hide the feminine representations of God in the Holy Scriptures that made it quite obvious that there was also a Mother figure in the Godhead, and that thus His claim could be substantiated by the Scriptures. This is most evident in the English translations of the 3 main Hebrew words which are translated God; El, Eloah and Elohim.

    The Hebrew word Elohim, which is translated “God” (singular) in most Bibles, is, in fact, plural in Hebrew, not singular. This hidden truth is somewhat revealed by the fact that the pronouns used in direct relation with it are all, themselves, plural. Actually, there isn’t any one English word which fully expresses the true meaning of Elohim. That’s because in Biblical Hebrew all words have gender assigned them, and some words, such as Elohim, contain an interplay of gender. English words, generally, don’t reflect these features. English is not alone in this inadequacy.

    The root word of Elohim is Eloah, which is feminine, and translates into English as Goddess. It is the feminine form of the masculine word El, which translates into English as God. The interplay of gender in Elohim comes with the adding of the masculine plural ending, im, to the feminine base of Eloah. Thus, that revelation of the Creators of mankind which is expressed in the Hebrew word Elohim – that is, the feminine/masculine/plural revelation – is not truly seen in the English words used to express “the Gods, the Living Ones” (ha-Elohim hayyim – Deuteronomy 5:26) who created gendered beings in Their image and likeness. The same is true in other languages, even those in which gender is a major factor.

    From the fact that the word used to describe the One(s) in whose image mankind is made is Elohim, the one with the feminine base and a masculine plural ending, rather than the singular masculine, El, or the singular feminine, Eloah, it’s clearly seen that He (She) is (They are) not singular, but rather, a united Family (Male and Female), as were Adam and Eve. That the word is not Elim (masculine base with the masculine plural ending) indicates that the Creators of mankind revealed in Genesis are not all masculine; that it is not Elohot (feminine base with the feminine plural ending) indicates that They are not all feminine.

    El, when used in referring to YHWH, or to a heathen deity, is translated correctly as God, or god – masculine in gender, singular in number. Eloah, according to the rules of Hebrew grammar is the feminine form of El and would thus be correctly translated Goddess. Strong’s and Englishman’s concordances both show Eloah rather than El as the root of Elohim (Gods).

    The most obvious evidence of the warfare against the truth of Christ’s begotten divinity (Godship) is in the translation of elohim. When it is used in references to heathen deities it is consistently translated gods (plural), but when referring to YHWH, it is translated God (singular). There is no justifiable grammatical reason for the inconsistent translations.

    Then again, when elohim is preceded by ha, it is translated “the gods” when referring to elohim (gods) other than YHWH. Yet, when ha elohim is used to refer to YHWH, the ha (the) is not translated, and “the Gods” plural becomes “God” singular.

    Some of the most obvious places where this inconsistency can be seen are as follows.

    “For God [elohim] doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [elohim], knowing good and evil.” Gen. 3:5.

    “Woe unto us! Who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods [ha Elohim, ha addirim – literally, “the Gods, the mighty Ones”]? These are the Gods [ha Elohim] that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.” 1 Samuel. 4:8.

    What is notable in the last text is that not only is elohim plural, but so is its modifier, addirim – mighty Ones. Among numerous other instances where plural modifiers are used in conjunction with elohim, most significant is the phrase, “living God,” which is translated from the Hebrew words, Elohim hayyim – literally, Gods, the living Ones. This phrase appears in Deuteronomy 5:26, Jeremiah 10:10, and 23:36, and in other places in the Old Testament.

    Not only is the plurality of YHWH revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, it has also been revealed in the Septuagint, the most prominent Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and even in the Greek New Testament, though none of the English translations of either of these correctly express this fact. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew words Elohim hayyim in Deuteronomy 5:26 reads, Theou Zontos – Gods, living Ones.

    But what is most revealing is the use of the Greek words Theou zontos (Gods, living Ones) in the New Testament. They are in Matthew 16:16, where we read,

    “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

    Therein the Greek actually reads “tov Theou tov Zontos” – literally, “the Gods, the living Ones.” This same usage appears in Matthew 26:63, John 6:69, Acts 14:15, Romans 9:26, 2 Corinthians 3:3, and 6:16. While the New Testament Greek has the article tov (the) preceding both Theou and Zontos, and the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text do not, such is not unusual considering the nature of both of those translations.

    In Old Testament Hebrew the article the (ha) was not always used, though it is commonly accepted that it was implied. Also, it has been well noted that there are numerous places in the commonly referred to version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic text, where that text does not read as do the more ancient manuscripts. This version was made between the 6th and 9th century a.d., well after the time of Jesus, and after the time the Jews had determined to reject the notion that the Gods, the Living Ones, could literally have a Son (John 10:32-36). It has been noted that there are around 200 changes from the feminine to the masculine in that version. The primary reason why there were changes and omissions in that translation was to obscure the fact that the Gods, the living Ones could have a literal Son – the truth could be sustained by the Scriptures as they originally read.

    In the work of the translation from Hebrew to Greek for the Septuagint there was another factor at play which affected the outcome. That is, that the translators were concerned about not appearing to be worshipers of multiple gods, as were the nations around them. Therefore, they avoided the usage of articles of speech which might imply that they were what has been termed Polytheists. Thus they also left off the implied (and formerly used) article the (tov). This should not seem so strange when we consider that the English translators have done the very same thing by translating the plural word Elohim in the singular, when it is in fact plural. But there is a deeper reason for this which will be discussed later.

    The New Testament writers were more faithful to their work than were the others. Though they often used the Septuagint as reference when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, they did not always follow that translation. This is evident from the way that their Greek wording of “the Gods, the Living Ones” varies from the Septuagint. The same cannot be said of the English translators. They have chosen to leave words out of their translations, thus obscuring the true sense of the words. The fact that tov Theou tov Zontos actually means “the Gods, the Living Ones,” (plural) may be further discerned by looking at Luke 24:5, 6:

    “And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:”

    The Greek version of the words in bold type reads, tov Zonta – the Living One (which refers to Christ). Zonta is the singular form, while Zontos is the plural form. These facts show us two things – the proper translation of tov (the); and that while this verse should read “the Living One” (tov Zonta), the places where “tov Theou tov Zontos” appears should read, “the Gods, the Living Ones.

    Daniel was shown an accurate account of the work of the power which has been suppressing these truths.

    “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god [El], shall speak blasphemies against the God [El] of gods [Elim], and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

    “He shall regard neither the God of [Elohi] his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god [Eloah – Goddess]; for he shall magnify himself above them all. But in their place he shall honor a god [Eloah – goddess] of fortresses; and a god [Eloah – goddess: Mary] which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.

    “Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god [Eloah – goddess: Mary], whom he shall acknowledge, and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.” Dan. 11:36-39. New King James Version.

    The major factor in the reasoning behind translating Elohim in the singular (God), is the misapplication of one Scriptural statement, “Hear O Israel: the Lord [YHWH] our God [Elohinu – literally, “our Gods”] is one Lord [YHWH].” Deuteronomy 6:4. The Gods were not telling Israel that He (They) was (were) one Being, but that They (the Godhead) were UNIFIED – ONE. This was contrary to all the other religions which surrounded them, in that all of the other “deities” were in opposition to, and even warring among each other. Polytheism wasn’t the problem, a divided or defaced Godhead, as portrayed by pagan religions, was. God is “one,” united, a Family.

    Since it is a commonly known fact among scholars that the word in Hebrew for Spirit (ruah) is feminine, many have no problem in seeing a MOTHER figure in the Godhead. This is true of Jews and Christians. The Jews, generally, do not believe that God (Elohim) has any form or likeness at all, so seeing the male and female qualities evident in the Scriptures presents no real problem to them.

    The problem that arises, though, for Jew and Christian alike is the notion of a Bride of the Messiah, a DAUGHTER of God, especially so since the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, speak of Her. The book of Revelation is an unfolding, revealing, of that which is hidden in the rest of the Holy Scriptures. It has been well said that “In the Revelation all the books of the Bible meet and end.” Since the Lamb’s Bride is portrayed in the Revelation, let us, therefore, examine some of the other Scriptures that speak of the Bride, which have been “hidden” (Rev. 2:17) until now. The first is Psalms 45, wherein is a description of the King and His Bride.

    “My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the King [Jesus]: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. Thou [Jesus] art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God [the Father and the Holy Spirit – Mother] hath blessed Thee for ever. Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and majesty. And in Thy majesty ride prosperously because of Truth and meekness and righteousness; and Thy right hand shall teach Thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under Thee. [see Revelation 19:11-16]

    “Thy throne, O God [Jesus], is for ever and ever: the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God [the Father and The Holy Spirit – Mother], Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. All Thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made Thee glad. King’s daughters were among Thy honorable women: upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen in the gold of O’phir.

  42. ben_metatron says:

    “Hearken, O Daughter [of God], and consider, and incline Thine ear; forget also Thine own people, and Thy Father’s house; So shall the King [Jesus] greatly desire Thy beauty: for He is Thy Lord; and worship Thou Him. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat Thy [the Daughter’s] favor.

    “The King’s [The Father’s] Daughter is all glorious within: Her clothing is wrought of gold. She shall be brought unto the King [the Son – Jesus] in raiment of needlework: the virgins Her companions that follow Her [wise virgins, Mat. 25 – the 144,000, Rev. 14:1] shall be brought unto Thee [Jesus]. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the King’s [Jesus’] palace [in the kingdom].

    “Instead of thy fathers shall be Thy children, whom Thou mayest make princes in all the earth. I will make Thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore, shall the people praise Thee for ever and ever.” Psalm 45.

    As Adam (the son of God – Luke 3:38) was presented with Eve, his bride (the daughter of God), so shall the Second Adam (Jesus, the Son of God) be presented with His Bride (the Daughter of God, The Holy Ghost – Psalms 45:14). She will leave Her Father’s house (Her dwelling place in heaven), and Her own people, those angels who remain in heaven to minister to the Father and the Holy Spirit, to dwell with the King (Jesus), on His throne, in the earth made new. (Ps 45:10).

    There is also Jesus’ own testimony of His Bride, revealed in the Song of Solomon. Solomon, the earthly son of David, wrote prophetically of the heavenly Son of David (Jesus), and His Bride.

    “My Dove, my undefiled is but one, She (the Holy Ghost) is the only one of Her Mother (the Holy Spirit), She is the choice of Her that bare Her.” Song of Solomon 6:9.

    Then there is Her very own testimony in Proverbs about Herself, and Her relationship to Jesus. We are admonished to “Hear ye the rod [the instrument of guidance and correction], and WHO hath appointed it.” Micah 6:9. Who hath appointed the prophets of God? The Holy Ghost!

    “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth Her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

    “Unto you, O men, I call; and My voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear, for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of My lips shall be right things. For My mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to My lips. All the words of My mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold…

    “The Lord [Jesus – YHWH] possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was. When there was no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no foundations abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth. While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep: when He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment: when He appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:1-9, 22-30.

    Since Jesus is the Creator of the world (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9), it is clear from the preceding verses, that there was One who “was there” when He created the worlds. This Holy One says that She “was brought forth” “before His works of old… When there were no depths… [etc.],” and “was by Him, as One BROUGHT UP WITH Him,” and “rejoicing always BEFORE Him.”

    The Hebrew word translated “was brought forth” is khool. It appears in Job 15:7, “… wast thou made before the hills?” and in Psalm 51:5, “… I was shapen in iniquity.” It also carries the meaning of the travailing that women go through in childbirth, as seen in Isaiah 66:7, “Before she travailed, she brought forth.” Another way of translating Proverbs 8:24, 25 would be, “I was travailed,” or, “I was birthed.” To be “brought up with” someone implies that the one which one is “brought up with” was also “brought up.” Before He created anything, Jesus was begotten by His Father and brought up by His Father and The Holy Spirit, His Mother. But He was not an only child. The Scriptures declare that He is the “only begotten Son,” but not the only begotten at all. His Sister, His Bride was there “as one brought up WITH HIM.”

    Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified of all Her children.” Luke 7:35.

    Why is the word “Wisdom” used to symbolize a Person, and a feminine One at that, and One who has “children?” The Hebrew word for “wisdom” is hookmah, and it is feminine in gender. What actually is “Wisdom?” Wisdom is Inspiration. To be wise is to be responding to Inspiration. Heavenly Inspiration comes from the Holy Ghost. Worldly wisdom comes from below, the devil. “…the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jeremiah 10:23. Everyone is either inspired by God or by the devil; there is no middle ground. You either have fellowship with the holy angels who bring the Truth as inspired by the Holy Ghost, or with the fallen angels who bring lies from the devil. This is why She, The Holy Ghost says.

    “Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:32-36.

    As in earthly things, children are nurtured and learn primarily from their mothers, so in the heavenly – Wisdom (the Holy Ghost) has many children. Psychologists acknowledge that many of the mental and emotional problems which exist in the world are a product of a bad relationship with one’s mother. As in the earthly, where a wise child is one who takes heed of his mother’s good counsel and prospers thereby, so in the heavenly. “Wisdom,” the gift of Inspiration, causes the children of the Holy Ghost to prosper. “… believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper.” 2 Chronicles 20:20. “… the Holy Ghost whom God hath given to them that obey Him.” Acts 5:32. “She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.” Proverbs 31:26.

    If Wisdom, the Holy Ghost (the Daughter), the Bride of Christ, is awaiting Her marriage how is She also a Mother (Luke 7:35)? Jesus, Himself, is called the “Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6). In Biblical Hebrew there is no word for grandmother or grandfather. One’s ancestors are called “fathers” and “mothers.” All Christians have been “adopted” (Romans 8:15) into the “family of God” with “Everlasting” Parents. It is written,

    “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” James 1:17, 18.

    What is truly odd about the general Christian concept of the Godhead, and, particularly, that of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, is that they talk about being “born of the Spirit,” yet deny that it takes a heavenly Mother to bear holy children. Yet Jesus’ own words to Nicodemus show that He was trying to teach men about their heavenly Mother. The Greek version of John chapter 3 bears out this fact.

    Jesus said to Nicodemus that a man must be “born [gennethe] again” (verse 3). In the language they were speaking (Aramaic) Nicodemus must have understood Jesus to be speaking of the process that one experiences with his mother, for he responded, “How can a man be born [gennethenai] when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born [gennethenai]? (verse 4). Jesus’ response portrays the beauty of God’s thinking on this matter, for He says, “Except a man be born [gennethe] of water [an earthly mother] and of the Spirit [a heavenly Mother], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born [gegennemenon] of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born [gegennemenon] of the Spirit is spirit.” (verses 5 & 6). All of those Greek words in italics are feminine forms of geneo, which means procreate. This whole passage portrays the necessity of a heavenly Mother.

    While many understand that the Church is the bride of Christ, there is more to this matter which bears looking into. In Matthew 25 the Church is depicted as “virgins” waiting with the Bride for the coming of the Bridegroom (Matthew 25 1-13). In Revelation 19:9 the Church is portrayed as guests “which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” Also, in Matthew 22:1-14 the Church is portrayed as “guests” at the wedding of the King’s Son. So, as the Church is portrayed as virgins waiting with the Bride, also as guests at the wedding of the Lamb and His Bride, and its supper, how also can she be the Bride?

    “And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17

    “The significance of the Jewish economy is not yet fully comprehended. Truths vast and profound are shadowed forth in its rites and symbols. The gospel is the key that unlocks the mysteries.” Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 133. “He (Paul) exalted Christ, the proper understanding of whose ministry is the key that unlocks the Old Testament Scriptures, giving access to their rich treasures.” Acts of the Apostles, p. 229. The key of the New Testament which unlocks the Old Testament Scriptures is in John 3:16.

    “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16.

    “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Hebrews 1:5.

    This key opens the door to understanding the types and symbols of the Old Testament.

    It has also been said that “the doors of the New Testament are unlocked with the key of the Old Testament.” The “key” of the Old Testament is the law which typified the coming sacrifice which God was to make for the forgiveness of sin and restoration of the fallen race. Each of the different types of animals, young and old, male and female, and the manner in which they were presented and offered, typified different aspects of the Gods (ha Elohim) intercession for us.

    The regular sin offering of a he-goat (literally “the son of a she-goat,” Numbers 28:15) tells of the Goddess (the Holy Spirit) who gave Her Son for a sacrifice.

    For thousands of years students of the Scriptures have been unable to understand the use of gender in Hebrew. The interplay of masculine and feminine forms of the same word, without knowing how to turn this key in the “door” of the New Testament, has left many without anything to do but to scratch their heads and say “its all Greek to me.” Some masculine words with feminine plural endings, such as abbaot, fathers, and some feminine words with masculine plural endings, such as Elohim, being constructed contrary to the normal rules of Hebrew grammar have left many a brilliant scholar baffled and speechless.

    As stated, the key that opens the door is in the truth that “God gave His only BEGOTTEN Son.” As the creation testifies, sons are produced by a union of male and female; division and multiplication. The word abbaot, fathers, with its masculine/feminine representations tells a story of God’s design in love and nature. The very word “father” implies, of necessity, a “mother.” Even the word “man” implies a “woman,” for a “man,” in himself, is an expression of gender, and gender is a two-sided coin. The feminine plural ending ot, which makes the singular masculine base abba into its plural form, implies that to have fathers, you must have mothers. A person can only have one biological father. If the word were to have the masculine plural ending im, it would imply that one could have a multitude of fathers, with only one mother, something which is impossible.

    The word for mothers emmaot (feminine base, feminine plural ending) likewise tells her story. For the plural ending ot implies that many women can be mothers without a plurality of fathers, something very possible. If it were possible for a woman to have more than one father for her child, the plural word for mother would be emmaim, with the masculine plural ending.

  43. astudent says:

    sandip and Ben Metatron,

    Suppose there is a large pond, with an island in the center and on that island there is a sign. Everyone wants to know what the sign says, but the pond is large and the water is poison and there are no boats, so the only thing anyone can do is try to see the sign from the edge of the water.

    They stand gazing at the sign, trying to read and understand. Then after some time of contemplation, some try to walk around the edge and view it from a different angle, in hopes of more understanding.

    The one who has walked to the other side of the sign sees a different view as there is no writing on the back and he or she understands a little bit more about the sign. It does not change anything that they understood when they stood facing the sign, it only adds to their understanding.

    If they call out to those standing facing the sign and try to explain what they see, it seems to those that are called to, that their view is wrong and it might lead to arguments if they both claim to be right.

    It is easy to see how they could disagree, because they both are looking at the same sign and both are correct in what they see. However, if they would only walk around the edge and attempt to see from the others place or point of view there would be no argument, only a better understanding of the sign.

    That is not to say either one is correct as the sign is far away and hard to see. Sometimes one is more correct than the other and sometimes both are wrong; or both are correct. It just helps to try to see the sign from the other point of view.

    One cannot see from a different point of view if they only consider their own.

    I see three genuine Christians that, if they really try to understand the others point of view, might just learn something more about Scripture.

  44. Sandip says:

    Hello Ben,

    It seems you copy-paste your reply. Unfortunately, you didn’t understand my simple quest. Kindly address the questions. Use your own understanding to reply, you do not need to prove your views.

    Second when you said “The very fact of this difference, should make it obvious that there is a definite effort to suppress the truth that there are feminine Persons in the Godhead in whose image and likeness mothers and daughters are made.” I smiled because it is like conspiracy theory… 😀 😀 😀

    Third, you missed my capitalised E in Elohim and not capitalised e in elohim. Proper noun Elohim is a NAME and thus it represents singular God. Word/noun elohim is plural.

    You are intelligent but why do you choose not to understand? Is it because you cannot stop yourself from dissecting word and “derive” meaning?

    and @astudent:
    I did learn from Ben’s response and that is :
    Do not let your imaginations carry you away from the simplicity of the truth.

  45. Sandip says:

    you said “One cannot see from a different point of view if they only consider their own.”

    I understand what you were saying in your post and agree to that. Perspective defines our view.

    Yesterday I was watching a video about quantum mechanics and famous “Curiosity killed the cat”. The observer defines the outcome.

    Now coming back your illustration and view, let me ask you do you agree that all religions points to same one God? Do you agree that all religions are different paths but their destination is one?

    Kindly apply your logic and take a walk and let me know. I am sure you will believe that we must take a stand and stick with the truth seen from our perspective.

    I am not trying to counter your views. I understand you clearly and agree with you and yet I know I have to take a stand. Probably Ben had also taken his stand. Nothing wrong in it.

    In science, it is general law/understanding that whenever there are more than one theories about one issue, then the simplest one is accepted as the truth.

    @ben_metatron had a theory which is more complex. It tries to define God, a being unknown to mankind and thus we cannot classify God into male, female, neuter or anything. If Melch was God then one can argue that the laws of Melch, a nonhuman (or human like) entity can define laws for humans then God, the Son does not need to come through womb of a woman. HE could have just dropped in like Melch and sacrificed Himself.

    Ben’s reasoning may be intricate and detailed but they are like castle in the air. It can be strongest and most beautiful but without foundation and can exist only in imagination.

  46. Ben_Metatron says:

    My friend what has been provided to you is the truth. I can give you no more. We are made in the image of the Elohim. You say they have no form. They are not male and female. However the Elohim state that they have an IMAGE. Only a female can give birth. Never has a male given birth. The Elohim are beings of order. Yashua had to experience the life of a human being in all its particulars. From the cradle to the grave.

  47. Sandip says:

    you said “The Elohim are beings of order.”

    So how many individuals/beings are there in the Godhead? Why Yeshua had to experience human life to be something whereas he can just drop in like Melch and be something?

    God’s visitation as human being is not the same as to be a human. That is why Melch’s law cannot be applicable to men if he were not a man.

    Image of a bacterium does not define it as male or female. Is your case for female God a result of anthropomorphism? It seems you missed when I had raised this point before. It seems you simply do not consider basic necessary requirements/foundation before you venture into male,female, neuter God. You forgot to realise that gender of God is unknown as He is not human or anything we know of.

    For me, we can know about anything based on its interactions. We know about God based on His interactions with mankind. So I will not reject a notion about the God who is finite in size and yet infinite (may be in human sense) in powers instead of believing in infinite God with infinite powers.

    Size -dimension, weight etc – of God is unknown and so He can be 1x1x1 inch or 1x1x1 mile or infinite or any finite numbers. The point is, I don’t define God as per my imagination/beliefs/requirements. I take a button as a button and even if i imagine a shirt, I don’t reject notion of coat.

    I simply know what is a button and what is my imaginations. I hope everyone can do the same.

    Let not our imaginations but truth and facts form our faith.

    have a blessed day…

  48. Sandip says:

    For simplicity, you can take a look at your image-photo which is a two-dimensional image of three dimensional you. Adam can be three dimensional image of infinite (or 2000) dimensional God.

    Now I hope you can see that you cannot learn a lot from an image.

    Note that I had not even added your ability/dimension to hear or speak which cannot be determined from your image. You can be deaf and dumb and my generalization (and belief (based on assumptions) ) can be wrong.

  49. ben_metatron says:

    What you are failing to realize is that the Elohim have masculine and feminine images. The Elohim is not made in your image. We are made in the image of the Elohim. Male and female. I have given you pure and biblical facts. All of your comments are based on your mere reasoning and assumptions. It’s not very hard to understand anything that had been set before you. I have given you the root of the answer. You are supplying nothing but pure speculation puff up in your own mind. My advice to you would be to really study and really open and expand your understanding. You see but you do not see. You hear but you do not hear. The Elohim created 2 beings in their image. Adam and Eve. Showing tht the image of the Elohim is male and female. If The Elohim had 3 images then why create 2? If the Elohim has 3 images and they said let us make man in our image and after our likeness yet they only create 2 images. That would make the Elohim a lie. Which we know is impossible for the Elohim to lie. Don’t be so fixed on being correct that you blind yourself to knowledge.

  50. Sandip says:

    Dear Ben,
    You cannot even grasp the simplistic things I put forward as you are entangled into “complex”. You have made big castle in the air -lacking the basics. I didn’t even have to quote the Bible to support my views because what I am saying is common sense.

    You cannot even understand that God revealed HIS three persons but there is NO WAY you can be sure HE cannot be more than 3. As I pointed out images LACK tons of information but you are determined to gauge the God through defective presumptions, thinking God’s revelation about Himself is complete and full. Read my posts again and it may dawn to you one day.

    I am sure those who read my posts and try to understand me, will figure out the truth.

    As long as you believe in resurrected Jesus Christ as your Lord and God, I am fine with your coat even if does not exist.

    Have a blessed day…


  51. astudent says:


    To answer your question, ‘No, I do not believe all religions point to one God.’ There was only one sign in my analogy, not many signs.

    I do agree with you when you say that we should take a stand and stick with the truth seen from our prospective. However, we should never forget that we do not know everything and sometimes others are only viewing truth from a different prospective.

    I do not think one can say that if there is more than one theory about one issue, that the simplest one is accepted as truth. Sometimes the more complicated one is, shall we say, more correct. I say more correct because what is accepted is always changing. Actuality science has been looking for the simple way that would answer all questions and have not found it: possibly because it would have to include God and they will not recognize the existence of Him.

    I agree that Ben_Metatron is trying to place a physical understanding on a Spiritual Being and it does not always fit. We only know physical facts, because we have only been physical beings and some times Spiritual questions are easier to understand if we use physical examples. That is what Ben is doing and it does breakdown when one considers that everything was created by a God that said He is one. Also, God is spirit and we are flesh, so though we are created in the image of God I do not think we can say just how that relates. We are not made spiritual beings until we are born again. I do not understand what God means when He said that we are created in His image. He is perfect and I am not. He is all powerful and I am not. He is all knowing and I am not. Well, I think you see what I mean without me going farther.

    Could Elohim refer to our Father and His son? Could the Holy Spirit actually be the one that God means when He says, “This is my son”?

    I also believe in an infinite God and if He wanted to appear finite then He certainly could or He would not be infinite. Didn’t He; through Jesus?

    One knows what a button is because one examines it, but it would have no purpose nor make any sense without an article of clothing that has a button hole, so one cannot always understand something if they do not know what its purpose is or something else about it.

    I will not accept the statement that we cannot know everything. Though I do believe it is true, ‘we do not know what we can know’. If that sounds silly then understand that when someone makes the statement “We cannot know everything” it becomes a self fulfilled prophecy. They have decided in their mind what they can and cannot know and do not continue to try to know more about whatever is being examined.

    I have searched for the understanding of the Trinity for years. The term Trinity is not in the Bible, it is man’s words used as an attempt to reconcile Scripture and there are parts of Scripture that cannot be explained with the concept of the Trinity.

    I finally (I think) have a way of viewing Scripture where all verses are satisfied. When I think that I can take the flack, I will post it.

    By the way, do you realize that someone’s mind is that person? If someone is born, grows, attends school, collage, learns a trade, meets a woman, gets marred, has children, and at the age of forty, falls, striking his head in such a way that his memory is permanently wiped out; that man is dead; though his body lives. There will be a new man that starts his life with a forty year old body! Those around him will spend the rest of his life teaching him about the man that previously lived in his body and trying to make him that man.

    I make the same statement to you that you made to me. I am not trying to counter your views either. I am just saying there are many different ways, or views, for any subject and it helps to understand the subject if every view is examined. By the way, I like your views.

    (Hosea 4:4 NIV) “But let no man bring a charge, let no man accuse another, for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest.

    How could I say another man is wrong, when I do not know everything? And if I did and others thought I knew more than they did, wouldn’t that tend to stop them from examining what the other man said? I might say that another’s view doesn’t seem to fit what I understand, but I am not standing on the same spot as they are. I do not wish to hinder another’s understanding, though at times I probably do.

    Ben has a view that is not perfect, just as my view is not perfect. Some of what he says makes sense to me and some doesn’t, but I believe that he is trying to help us by presenting his view: just as you are.

    (Hosea 4:6 NIV) my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.

    Knowledge is very important and perfect knowledge is only acquired by close examination of everything. The truth is that none of us can force another to understand everything that they understand. Perhaps we all try too hard at times. I know that I do. But then isn’t that better than not trying at all?

  52. Sandip says:

    🙂 It seems you think many religions are many signs. Religions are different perspectives of God, the one sign. Yet they differ so much that it give impression of “different” God or multiple signs. So my question was an attempt to show that perspectives are not always representing the truth. Distortion of truth creeps in through many ways but that is another topic. I think we both agree and understand on different perspectives and possibility of having different perspectives of the same truth and also possibility of having them not pointing to the same truth.

    As you pointed out science is looking out for simpler explanations and that is why simpler (but not necessarily simple) theories is accepted. I will not blame science for not accepting existence of God. Science is honest and ready to interact with God directly and indirectly. So far, It is not getting any response and that is why for it God is nonexistent. I avoid judging science as it solely depend on evidences and not mere claims.

    That is why science rejects idea of spirit and spiritual realm. It is classic error of all believers who quickly tell that “God is spirit and we are flesh.” They simply do not understand that they are “defining” one unknown with another. God and spirit both are unknown things. So God is spirit does not help at all. Unfortunately, we believers find answer in “God is spirit” and feel that we “know”.

    Now your stand “we do not know what we can know” matches with what Science is saying and trying to unfold what we can know. Science is exploring everything what we can know and yet there are things beyond this physical world. Thus your stand is mere subset of “We cannot know everything” which includes spirit realms, too. There will be things which will be dim (as St Paul said) or totally unknown until we meet our Creator.

    How our Creator is one and triune is a debate within our hearts. It was long when eventually I realised the truth of trinity and refused to call it a mystery. Einstein said, “if you cannot explain something to your grandmother then you have not understood yourself.”

    I can understand trinity easily because I understood how I process information. But when I say that people look at me with doubt 🙂 because they LEARNED and are FED with the notion that trinity is a mystery and cannot be understood easily. It is FUNNY when those who claim and accept that Trinity is a mystery are the person argue against my explanation.

    If they claim that they know the Trinity and argue against me, then it is understandable but they claim they do not fully know the trinity and still argue. 🙂 Anyway, I simplified trinity with few illustrations and put them together in a booklet titled “Trinity Simplified”. If you are interested, let me know you email address and I will send it. The booklet has an illustration showing how we process information and mislead ourselves or I should rather say how we see the same thing differently when needed.

    You raised a genuine problem about “person”. What/who is a “person”? A new born loses its person when he becomes a teenager or a man or an old man? Or it is the same person throughout its life? Once i read a classic illustration: A ship named “Sandip” was built with 100 pieces and went to sea with a spare for each pieces i.e. total 100 pieces of spare. During the voyage, for one or another reason each piece of the ship was eventually replaced with the spare. That means the ship Sandip had no original piece anymore. When the ship Sandip returns home, can we say that the same ship Sandip returned???

    I also think it is very important when God renamed people e.g. Abraham, Jacob. I think renaming “created” new persons. I will confess here that I have not explored more into this as my Biblical knowledge is limited and I am not a student of philosophy. But it is true that I am open to hear all kinds of thoughts.

    You asked a good question that how can we know other person is wrong when I do not know everything? The simple answer is, you do not always need to know everything to see other person’s error. For example, I do not know higher mathematics and it will be beyond me if complex mathematical analysis is written. But if the initial calculation has a statement like
    56+26= 72 and the remaining of the calculations are based on number 72 (e.g. male-female) then you can reject the result of the calculation.

    Ben ( @ben_metatron ) did a great job in his analysis but the initial premises are faulty so conclusion can be rejected without much efforts. It is not matter of mere perspective.

    Now when we see a button, we may attempt to find the coat. I am not against it but can we really be sure about the coat? that is the question. We do not have enough information about Melch. We know that God came as a human being through a virgin’s womb. Whether we can fully grasp the significance or not, yet we can see that there must be such need because God could have come like a man just like HE met Abraham, Jacob etc. If Melch was God, Holy Spirit and not true human then Melch cannot establish any precedence for Son of Man and thus Son of Man cannot take office of high priest as per Moses’ Law – God’s own words.

    We NEED that Melch was a human else we lose case for Christ. Just like a human cannot build his case by quoting precedence in gorilla community, we cannot build case for Christ if Melch was not true human.

    As you can see that we do not need to know a lot but we need wisdom to use our limited knowledge effectively. This does not mean I am against more knowledge or claiming anything.

    I am just a simple person who likes to differentiate between a button and a coat knitted around it.

    Thanks for allowing me to share my views freely,
    God bless you…

  53. astudent says:


    Why do you ask me something and then not accept my answer. I was clear when I said I do not believe all religions point to one God, yet you say that it seems I think many religions are many signs!

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. (John 14:6 NIV)

    1Co 8:4-6 (NIV) So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    You must have forgotten to tell the one true God that all religions point to one God. I would not want to be in your shoes if you try to tell that to the one true God at judgment! Sandip, you are in great danger.

    You are correct when you say perspectives do not always represent the truth. You have nothing to base your perspective on, except your own ideas, or perhaps ideas of others.

    My perspectives are based on the oldest Book ever written and it says there is only one true God and only one way to Him.

    You claim to be a simple person and yet you claim that Scripture is wrong! I do not think you understand yourself, let alone Scripture. Do you realize that you have admitted that your Biblical knowledge is limited and yet you claim to understand the Trinity?

    Having said that, I am sure that you do not understand Scripture when you say that you simplified the Trinity. No one who has studied Scripture could say that. It may be that one can reach an understanding of the Trinity, but I guarantee it is not simple to understand and even more difficult to explain. Thanks for the book offer, but I will stick with the Bible.

    I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you have based your beliefs on a fairy tale about a ship. You are not a ship. You are a human being, made in the image of God and you are not even recognizing Him for being the most wonderful being there ever possibly could be.

    Sandip, you are sinking and don’t even know it. You are not a cobbled together derelict, but a human, made by the one true God.

    Having said that perhaps you are a ship that needs your pieces replaced. It wasn’t the ship that was worthy of praise, but the one that replaced the parts. Study the Bible and ask God to send Jesus, so your parts can be replaced by the only one that can.

  54. Sandip says:

    Only fools think that they are intelligent. The wise says they are simple. Do I have to praise myself so that you can accept what I am saying??? Do I have to quote Bible here and there to support my fancy so that you can think what I am saying is “authentic”??? Dear brother, you are acting like infant. And worst thing is you cannot digest milk.

    What I said is so simple but you still cannot even grasp and you think you can interpret/explain scriptures for me ??? You and ALL like you cannot EVEN understand the core theological doctrine of Trinity then by what basis can you judge that I cannot understand it??? By your own confusion??? A blind leading a blind will end up in a pit and that is where you are and judging the sighted.

    Now if I use Christian argument of mystery against them then you will cry foul. Have you ever met a Muslim saying, “Do you know it is a mystery that Mohammad is the final messenger of God -even after Jesus Christ? You can understand it only if God opens your heart.”

    If you insist on “mystery” of Trinity and run away from explaining it in understandable terms then anything can be labeled as mystery and you cannot reject it. Can you understand this?

    Unfortunately, Christians got away with their “mystery” but they cannot for long. The end time is near and Satan will use Christian argument to measure Christianity and people like you who have no clue about Trinity except blind faith will fall apart easily. People without any basis but pure fancies based on isolated Biblical verses claim light. It will be great time for them when Satan will come and present himself as Son of Light.

    It is FUNNY that you think i claim Scriptures are wrong. It is funnier when you claim you base your perspectives = opinion on the Bible (and so you are right)… ROFL LOL… Show me a cult and heresy which is not “based” on the Bible. You are showing your half knowledge with your each statement. I suggest you stick with your id “A STUDENT” and LEARN… Don’t argue but question and come closer to truth…

    Show me which of my idea is not supported by the Scripture??? I proved that you have WRONG perspective and Ben has castle in the air WITHOUT even using authority of Scripture. Does this show you anything or you are expert in excuse making??? With simple arguments, with common sense, you are proved lacking and fancying but will you ever understand that? I deal with Muslims almost everyday and you are not different in blindness. Just like them, you choose to stay blind.

    When I asked about many religions you foolishly answered and refuted your own arguments of “walking around the edge of a lake and looking at a sign” and perspective. I am sure you will not even understand how these two can connect 🙂 and bring in more excuses. That is why even though I can write a lot and teach you the truth, I choose not to because you cannot even handle milk ! Your scale is your confusion.

    As you believe in resurrected Christ as your savior and God, I am not much interested in you. Your darkness will not take you to away from God and so can play “intelligent”… or should i say that you and Ben are two kids playing doctor doctor and when a real doctor came, you called him a fake!!! 😀

    Anyway try to grow up if you can, it is not hard.

    And be happy with your sweater… I can fine with my button… 🙂

    God bless you…

  55. astudent says:


    God bless me? Which God? The one true God has and will bless me: through His son. He has promised me everlasting joy when I leave this earth. What has your god promised you?

    You may well have your buttons, but where are your marbles?

  56. Ben_Metatron says:

    It has been clearly explained to you that the Elohim have an image of which you say they do not. Genesis 1:26, 27. As you see the Elohim had an image before the creation of Adam and Eve. And what was the image of the Elohim Genesis 1:27 says male and female. You have denied this. See Daniel 3:25. How could King Nebuchadnezer recognize the Son of the Elohim if the Elohim have no image? Also keep in mind that Elohim is plural. Being that Elohim is plural and King Nebuchanezer stated that the fourth is like the Son of the Elahin. Elahin is the Chaldean equivalent of Elohim, which most modern translations have translated as “gods”. Now something to think about! When Nebuchadnezzar said, “Son of Elahin”, and if this word is plural, and one is walking in the midst of the fiery furnace is the Son of Elahin (plural) then who is the other person involved besides the Father? Also keep in mind this was before Mary. Also Yashua only has one Father. So who else was he the Son of? Perhaps a mother. How can one be a Father without a mother? Nebuchanezer recognized Yashua as the Son of the Elohim. Now what happens if we place God (which is pagan) in the play of the plural Hebrew word Elohim. It conceals the truth.

  57. astudent says:


    I assume you addressed your comment to me and I thank you for it. Because our views differ somewhat it may seem that we disagree completely. I do not think that is true, so let me try to explain my view,

    If I stand in front of a mirror and turn a light on there is an image of me created in the mirror. It looks like me; however it is actually nothing like me.

    The image is two dimensional and I am three. The image cannot move anything that is reflected in the mirror and yet I can, by moving the object that is reflected. I live and breathe, but the reflected image is not alive.

    If I had the power to grant speech to the image, it could rightly say that it was made in my image and looked like me, but it would be wrong if it said it was exactly like me.

    I am alive and I control the image. It is merely a reflection of me. It isn’t even the glass that it is on. How could the reflection say that I am like it, because it is like me?

    God is Spirit and man is flesh. The two are not the same. God can say that the image is like him, but man cannot make the same claim in reverse.

    As I read the first chapter of the Bible I see the world as the mirror. God made the mirror first and then He made man.

    (Gen 1:26 NIV) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

    When I read that verse I see God talking to His only Son. His Son had to have already been born (of the Spirit), because everything that was made was made by Him. (Heb 1:2 NIV) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

    The man Jesus was the vessel that contained the Son of God. The vessel was the son of David, came from David’s own body (2 Sam 7:12), but the Spirit that dwelled in that vessel was/is the Son of God.

    God created man male and female, as a symbol of Him and His Son, because God is the “one” that gave life to His Son first and from His Son came all those that live on this earth (In this mirror).

    There is no wife for God. God says do not be unequally joined and no one is equal to God, so the Son of God (the Spirit) did not have a mother. That is the point where I cannot accept your view completely. To put it as clearly as I can; Spirit and flesh are not exactly the same and cannot be exactly compared.

    Jesus, the son of man, had a mother (Mary); however look at what He said when he was told his mother was waiting to speak to him.

    (Mat 12:48-50 NIV) He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”


    (John 19:26-27 NIV) When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

    It seems to me that men are the symbol of God, the Father, and women are the symbol of Jesus, of whom all life came. If we can look past the physical part of birth and only look at the spiritual aspects the symbolism becomes clear. Well to me it becomes clear. A man goes into a woman (has sex) and a new life is created. God, who is Spirit, enters into a human at baptism and a new life is created: real life or spiritual life: we are no longer just an image. I find it quite apt that the Bible uses the word “know” for the sex act (the act of entering). Well, the KJV does, witch is a better translation of the word “yada” than “lay”, which is the translation the NIV uses, because it has spiritual tones, along with physical ones. Anyway, at baptism we know and admit that we are sinners in need of a Savior and because we are truthful God knows us and a new life is created.

    You have asked “How can one be a Father without a mother?” and I ask you “Where is the mother of God?” God had no beginning, so God had/has no mother.

    I have tried to view Genesis, one twenty seven, exactly as it seems to me that you view it. However, it is not possible to exactly know another’s thoughts, or another’s point of view. That does not mean the other person is wrong and I see much understanding in your thoughts as I attempt to see from your point of view. I believe you to be right, from your point of view and I am grateful that you have been so patient and steadfast to try to make yourself understood.

    I first thought there were three Christians studying the Bible, but Sandip revealed himself. We cannot impart, or convey, our understanding to anyone that willfully refuses to understand. I have probably given Sandip, along with other nonbelievers, some more ammunition to use against us, because they do not and will not try to understand God’s Word.

    Sandip said that because I believe Jesus is my Savior and my God that he is not much interested in me. When did I hide that fact that it might be suddenly revealed? It is not me that I wish he was interested in, but I wish he was interested in his own Savior.

    (2 Cor 10:12 NIV) We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.

    That is what Sandip does. It is wise to compare ourselves with God and the Word of God and then we can see ourselves as we really are. I am not saying that we will like what we see, but better truth than fantasy. One who sees truth and acknowledges it, at least has a chance to change.

    I will accept Sandip’s advice and stick with my id “A STUDENT” and LEARN”. Sandip is not always wrong. However, I will LEARN about GOD and not about gods. All religions point to their own god, but only one points to GOD.

    I am guilty of Matthew 7:6, because everyone can read what I have written. I trust that God will understand my motives and forgive me for this error: even though I am fully aware it is wrong.

    Is not Jesus a pearl of the greatest value? How could anyone that possess that pearl not try to toss it to those that do not have it? However, unlike a pearl of this world, it is not possible to toss it away. Well, perhaps then, I am not fully aware it is wrong.

    I bet you thought Christians did not sin on purpose!

    I had finished this comment, but I was at a location where I did not have internet service, so I just saved it. Later I was searching the Scripture for an answer to something that the Lord had yet to reveal to me and I came upon this verse.

    (Gal 3:28 NIV) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    It seems to me that male and female are temporary: created only for this world. If there is no male or female then can we rightly call God both?

    Well, yes we can, because the word means both, but wouldn’t it be a bit more correct just to say that God is the creator of everything?

    The word “elohyim” may mean both male and female, but it is one word, for one God.

    One other thing that I see because we comment. We marry another human because we love that person, not because we love God. God is a jealous God (Exo 20:5) and I understand jealousness. Love has many degrees and I think God wants our greatest love reserved for Him. When we fully understand that there will be no more marriage.

    (Mat 22:30 NIV) At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
    (Luke 20:34 & 35 NIV) Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage.

    Please forgive me if I seem to ramble. All Scripture is interconnected. It has to be if there is no error in it and there are no errors. I understand parts of the Bible, the Truth, and use other parts of the Truth to explain what I see. I understand that complicates the process of explanation, but that, I believe, is also part of God’s plan.

  58. ben_metatron says:

    It matters not wether you leave a light on or a light off. Look in a mirror or whatever. You still have an image and that image is the image ig the Elohim. Which according to scripture is male and female. Genesis 1:27 You can say a spirit has no image however that is what you say and not the scriptures. Angels are ministering spirits however angels have images. Moses saw the image of the Elohim. Exodus 33:23. The Elohim state that they have a face and a back. Which is an image. In Daniel we see that the Elohim have an image. also keep this in mind. Yashua was BORN before anything was created. See Colossian 1:15 &18. Nothing is born of a male, only of a female. See John 3. Sprits give birth to spirits and flesh gives birth to flesh. So one cannot say that a spirit cannot give birth and in order for a spirit to give birth it must be female. a male begats but only a female births. See Matthew 1. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24 It does not mean that they are one being combined. Mark 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
    Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Just as The Elohim male and female or one. When a man and a woman marries the woman normally takes upon the mans name. It does not mean there is one being. There are two being sharing the same name. The woman keeps her first name and takes on the males last name. Also keep in mind that whenever Yashua (not the pagan Jesus, Jezues) spoke of the Holy Spirit he spoke of her as a woman. Yashua spoke Hebrew. When the holy spirit was refered to in Greek they changed the words of Yashua in speaking of the Holy Spirit as a woman to a male. Also keep in mind that the terms “God,” “Christain,” & Jesus are nothing but pagan terms and do not refer to the true Elohim.

  59. astudent says:


    You did not understand what I was trying to say. I was trying to convey that WE ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT GOD IS NOT MADE IN OUR IMAGE.

    God is not like us. God is perfect, but we are not. God has never sinned, but we always sin. God is not our image, but we are God’s image.

    You are correct when you say there is no life created on this earth except through a female. However, you did not go far enough to accurately describe the process. No female has offspring without sex. That is the natural process. I admit that man has found a way to bypass the natural process that God has given us, but that is just another sin of unfaithfulness.

    There was no sex involved with the creation of Adam, or Eve. They were CREATED, NOT BORN of the natural system that we now have. Don’t you see that if you say God is like Adam and Eve, male and female, that you infer that God had sex with Himself in order to have a Son? Well, that is one of the conclusions that I reach from your claims.

    In this world, I have been told many times to go have sex with myself and not one time did I think it was complementary.

    Haven’t you read that having sex makes one unclean in God’s eyes? Lev 15:18 (NIV) When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

    God, Christian, and Jesus are not pagan terms. They are English words.

    You would have me believe that I must know the Hebrew language before I can understand God’s Word and because you know Hebrew you have to teach me about God. How weak would a god be, that would have to appoint a man to explain himself!

    God placed me in an English speaking country and He knew that I would speak English. He knew it even before He made me. Therefore, He used men, as I would use my right hand, to translate His Word into a language that I would understand. He speaks to me in English, I speak to Him in English, and we understand each other.

    You place way too much importance on the Hebrew language. You seem to think Hebrew is God’s language, but God confused all languages at the tower of Babel and Hebrew is just another confused language. No one knows the original language of God.

    You started this exchange of ideas with the definition of one word and now you are trying to expand your position to all words that are not Hebrew. If Hebrew were a requirement of understanding then the entire New Testament would be a pagan book!

    This truly has become a quarrel about words and I am done, 2Tim 2:14 (NIV) Keep reminding them of these things. WARN THEM BEFORE GOD AGAINST QUARRELING ABOUT WORDS; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

    You may have the last word. However if you answer in English few will understand, because it is a pagan language and your answer in Hebrew will bring the same result. Well, at least it will for me.

  60. ben_metatron says:

    I understand full well what you are conveying however you must keep in mind that man was perfect before they fell into transgression. They were commanded to be fruitful and mutiply (have sex) before they fell into transgression. It is written in the Bible, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) This tells us that even believers, God’s people, are being destroyed because they too have a lack of knowledge concerning life giving principles. According to the rest of the above quoted text this mournful lack of knowledge is not due to the unavailability of that life-preserving knowledge, but rather because of the willful action on the part of the some, for we read, “because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee …”

    Though there is certainly a mystery surrounding gender, such is not the end of the matter. “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2) Therefore, with honorable and noble intentions, may we now proceed with humble hearts as we explore this age old mystery.

    Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary defines safe as: “freed from harm, injury, or risk: no longer threatened by danger or injury: unharmed, unhurt.” Our English word comes through French from a Latin word which means whole, healthy; and a Greek word which means complete, entire; and from a Sanskrit word which means unharmed, entire. Therefore, safe sex would be that which is whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire.

    The word safe implies a judgment, a determination, a distinguishing between one condition and another. The so-called primal elements and forces, in the common conceptions of their natures, display none of the intelligence necessary to know or care about anything being safe. Gravity doesn’t contemplate whether or not its effect results in something safe. But as we have intelligence and the powers of discernment above the base elements and forces we contain which influence us, we have to look elsewhere for the explanation of why something is considered safe, and what it is safe from.

    The word safe has an interesting relationship to the word holy. And that is, in their root definitions they both convey the idea of whole, entire, complete. The “w” in the word whole has only been in use for about five hundred years. It was added to the word which meant holy, and which is also the root of the word health. So wholeness, healthiness, and holiness are qualities of that which is safe. And, as holiness is a quality of the divine – the creative influence of life – to such we must look to understand the why and wherefore of things being safe.

    It is written, “God is love.” (1 John 4:8, 16) In the realm of human experience, love is God. That is, the outworking of the intellectual principles of love, with its emotional attachments, is the motivating force in human actions. Many of those who have experienced pure love identify it as divine. As the singer Bob Dylan puts it, “Love is all there is, it makes the world go round. Love, and only love, can’t be denied. No matter what you think about it, you just won’t be able to live without it. Take a tip from one who has tried.”

    Bottom line: something is considered safe and holy if it promotes and preserves life and love. For sex to be safe and holy (wholly safe) it needs to be free of anything which diminishes love, or fails to nurture it and make or keep it whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire.

    If, therefore, love is the standard, the all-in-all, and love is God, and “God is love,” what then is God’s (Love’s) reason for creating genders and sexual interactions? Though there are elements of the revelation of God’s (Love’s) character and purposes in the various religions and philosophies of the many nations, the fullest and purest revelation is found in the Bible. It is therein written:

    “And GODS said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness… So GODS created man in HIS OWN IMAGE, in the IMAGE OF GODS created He him; MALE AND FEMALE, created He them.” Genesis 1:26,27.

    The Hebrew word Elohim, which is translated “God” (singular) in most Bibles, is, in fact, plural in Hebrew, not singular. This hidden truth is somewhat revealed by the fact that the pronouns used in direct relation with it are all, themselves, plural. Actually, there isn’t any one English word which fully expresses the true meaning of Elohim. That’s because in Biblical Hebrew all words have gender assigned them, and some words, such as Elohim, contain an interplay of gender. English words, generally, don’t reflect these features. English is not alone in this inadequacy.

    The root word of Elohim is Eloah, which is feminine, and translates into English as Goddess. It is the feminine form of the masculine word El, which translates into English as God. The interplay of gender in Elohim comes with the adding of the masculine plural ending, im, to the feminine base of Eloah. Thus, that revelation of the Creators of mankind which is expressed in the Hebrew word Elohim – that is, the feminine/masculine/plural revelation – is not truly seen in the English words used to express “the Gods, the Living Ones (ha-Elohim hayim)” who created gendered beings in Their image and likeness. The same is true in other languages, even those in which gender is a major factor.

    From the fact that the word used to describe the One(s) in whose image mankind is made is Elohim, the one with the feminine base and a masculine plural ending, rather than the singular masculine, El, or the singular feminine, Eloah, it’s clearly seen that He (She) is (They are) not singular, but rather, a united Family (Male and Female), as were Adam and Eve. That the word is not Elim (masculine base with the masculine plural ending) indicates that the Creators of mankind revealed in Genesis are not all masculine; that it is not Elohot (feminine base with the feminine plural ending) indicates that They are not all feminine.

    Elohim has said, “I am that I am.” Ex 3.4. The actual Hebrew words convey the meaning, “I am continuing to be that which I am continually being.” If Elohim has chosen to be certain sizes and shapes so that Their creation can relate to Them, what can we do but rejoice in Their humility.

    This truth of God’s duality of gender is also revealed in the fact that though God, in His Fatherhood, is personified as being masculine, in Hebrew the word for Spirit, ruah, is feminine. The reality of the matter is that Gods (Elohim) created gendered beings, male and female, in Their image and likeness, as it is written. Man is in the image of God (El), the Father, and woman is made in the image of Goddess (Eloah), the Holy Spirit.

    The personality of the Holy Spirit is known from the facts that She has a mind (Romans 8:27; Acts 15:28), knowledge (1 Corinthians 2:11), a will (1 Corinthians 12:11), love (Romans 15:30). communion (2 Corinthians 13:14), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30; Isaiah 63:10), and can be insulted, tempted, and lied to (Hebrews 10:29; Acts 5:9; Acts 5:3, 4).

    In Hebrew the gender of a word is determined by the source and nature of the word. For example, the Hebrew word kodesh, translated holy, is masculine. That’s because holiness originated with God, the Father. Yet applying the word holy to women doesn’t imply that they are masculine, but simply shows that they possess the same attribute, be it masculine in origin. And so it is with the term “Holy Spirit” – though She is feminine, She carries the masculine attribute of Holiness, by nature.

    “For the invisible things of him [God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20).

  61. ben_metatron says:

    To say HIS image, presupposes the thought, HER image, for there is no masculine without the feminine – gender is a two-sided coin, male and female. The whole of creation expresses the masculine/feminine principles. Therefore, if the Supreme Creator is “from the creation of the world … clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,” then the use of masculine pronouns when referring to Him is inherently inwrought with the necessity of a feminine Counterpart to establish and justify His masculinity – His Fatherhood. Fatherhood is conditioned upon Motherhood. So says His creation wherein is expressed His image and likeness (masculinity and femininity).

    In harmony with this revelation is the fact that the Hebrew word Adam (who is Elohim’s image and likeness), which is also translated man, means mankind (male and female), and not only the male. This is also seen from the fact that both the man and the woman were originally both named Adam:

    “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2). The woman was not called Eve (Chavvah, living, in Hebrew; Zoe, life, in the Greek of the Septuagint [OT]; Eua, life, NT Greek) until after their fall (Genesis 3:20).

    In Hebrew the word for a man is ish, and the word for a woman is ishah. In English we see the word woman is built from the word man, as the Hebrew word ishah is built from the word ish. Yet, despite the evident source connection to the masculine words, the feminine forms, in themselves, are prime roots – independent bases.

    Not only do those Hebrew words explain some of the mysteries of life, but the story of the creation of the man and the woman, itself, contains a wonderful revelation of the invisible things of Him.
    “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:21, 22).

    From the fact that Adam, the man, was at first alone is “clearly seen” that there was a time when God, the Father, was all alone. He was at this time as perfect as perfect can be. Within Himself was the fullness of Love, Joy, Peace, Light and Power. Yet amid His perfect contentment, from the innermost depths of His Being came forth a holy desire to multiply the essence of His Being, Love.

    The greatest demonstration of the principles of love is seen in self denial and self-sacrifice (a resting from self), for it was the very first act of God. God could have remained in His perfect Being, alone, self-contained, self-satisfied, but that is not His Nature, His Divine Nature. Love must share. That’s what the outworking of love is, the experience of sharing.

    With this desire to express His nature, Love, burning in His heart, God caused within Himself a death to self – a sleep as that which came upon Adam when Eve was made. He took of His very Essence all of the holy characteristics which are seen in a image and likeness in Eve and all women (a feminine nature), and separated those from that which is seen in an image and likeness to have remained in Adam and all men – that is, His masculine Nature. He then awoke to see His new, other, Divine Self before His eyes; as it were, “bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh” – another Divine Being, the Holy Spirit – Spirit of His Spirit.

    God, the Father, ceased to be the sole possessor of Divinity. He was no longer the same as He was; something was gone from Him. There was no loss, though, as He had gained much more in that now He had a Companion who was a fuller expression of that which was at one time within Himself. This companion was of His very Nature, Divine Love, a compliment for His new state of Being, as Eve was a complement to Adam – his other self.

    And, as in the case with the image and likeness which God made of Himself, where the words for man and woman are independent prime roots, so then it must also be with the Master Pattern, the Gods, Themselves. After Their separation, God (El), the Father, and God (Eloah), the Holy Spirit, were two self-contained, independent Divine Beings, Male and Female; two Divine Characters, yet one in nature and purpose. One master Character, Love, in two manifestations – One masculine, and One feminine. Such is life.

    It is not possible for these Two, with their distinct, Divine Natures (masculinity and femininity) to act independently of each other, for within each One is the Divine nature of self-sacrificing Love – the desire to serve and bless. Everything is done to glorify each other’s distinct Nature, and Their utter devotion to the unity, the Love, which binds Them as “One.”

    When Moses told the Israelites that “Yahweh, our God (Elohim), Yahweh is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), he was simply telling them that Yahweh, our Gods, the living Ones (Elohim hayim) (Deuteronomy 5:26), were united – one. This was contrary to the thinking of the nations around them, who wrongly believed that the Gods were divided amongst themselves and even warring against each other. Infidelity and chicanery were also wrongfully attributed to them. The happy, united family image of the Gods was foreign to the thinking of those nations, and that lack of understanding had influenced the Israelites while they were captives in Egypt.

    Moses was attempting to impress upon them that the Creators (Elohim – plural) of heaven and earth were for them in every way: that They desired for them a unity among themselves as that which They, Themselves, enjoy being “One,” and that They were working in perfect harmony among Themselves in all things for their good.

    This unity and equality, oneness, among the Elohim is further revealed in the language used by Them when speaking to Jacob. In Genesis 28:13, God, the Father, begins the communication by stating, “I AM the LORD God of Abraham thy father…,” and proceeds to make promises to Jacob concerning the land where he was, and the blessing that he and his descendants would be in the earth. The Hebrew word translated “I am,” ani, is what a male would use as a personal pronoun. Yet in verse 15, when revealing how He would perform His promise, we read, “… I AM with thee, and will keep thee…” In this place “I am” is not translated from ani, the masculine personal pronoun, but rather from the word anochi, the feminine personal pronoun. That this feminine Voice of the One who is with us and will keep us is that of the Holy Spirit (the Goddess– Eloah) is also revealed in Isaiah 63:7-10, and elsewhere.

    God might have caused to be (cloned) many more Gods exactly like unto Himself, and could have shared with these, but that would have been a form of self-worship and not at all an expression of the divine principle of self-sacrificing love. The unity which exists amid the diversity in our families, where all are related, and yet at the same time all are individuals in appearance and character, testifies to the self-sacrificing character of love; for each must accept the other’s distinctiveness while at the same time accepting their own individuality so that the common bond (the love of family) may be preserved and exalted.

    The universe exists because God applies the fundamental principle of holy sex – self-sacrificing love. It is written, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5). Nothing could be perceived by anything else (if it could even exist at all) if God didn’t somehow limit the effects of His light. He had to allow darkness and interact with it. He had to use His humility, His built-in dimmer switch (so to speak) – his ability to rest from self. He did this to have more than what He had and to be more than what He was. He did it for Himself and for those who would have life and the things thereof because of His actions.

    The command to our first earthly parents was to “be fruitful and multiply.” This ability to multiply themselves was given Adam and Eve as an image and likeness of the Gods’ ability to multiply Themselves. Though it is not specifically recorded in Genesis, Adam actually made the same decision to have a reproductive counterpart for himself as had God, the Father, before him.

    Having lone dominion over the earth was not appealing to Adam’s pure heart and mind. Before he went to sleep and Eve was made from something taken from within him, Adam had seen all of the animals and birds, in pairs, pass before him and he had given each one, male and female, a name. He saw the natural affection which each of the pairs shared with the other, and he naturally loved the principle of gender he was seeing expressed in their creation. He wanted that for himself, for he saw himself as part of that same expression.

    He didn’t want to be alone without an equal, a mate. He wanted to be more than he was because his natural affections needed fuller expression. He wanted to have holy sex (to “know” another) and all that came with it, in the image and likeness of his Makers.

    So it is written, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18). This was said before the pairs of creatures passed before him. “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not FOUND an help meet for him” (verse 20).

    His experience had stimulated his mind into desiring a mate, an equal for himself, as God knew it would. Adam had even been specifically looking for one, for that was it (she) which “was not found” after God said “I will make him an help meet for him,” and had caused the creatures to pass before him.

    And these things reveal that it also was “not good” for God, the Father, to be alone, without an equal – a Helper for Him. As Adam could find no true kinship with the lower order of creatures whereby he could say “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” as he did with Eve, so God, the Father, needed a spiritual Being “meet” for Him – Spirit of His Spirit – the Holy Spirit. This further shows that neither a man nor a woman is complete without a mate, one who is a helper meet for them.

    The sad fact, though, and that which spoiled the image and likeness of Themselves which Elohim were creating in Adam and Eve, was that Adam and Eve had fallen into sin before their first child was conceived, before they had any procreative relationships. They fell before they were mature enough to engage in holy sex. Before they fell, they were in their perfect youth, growing in pure love one for the other – in a period of courting, as it were.

    Their pure love relationship as gendered beings was marred by their sin. There was now a danger of it no longer being safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire – holy. Adam blamed Eve and God for what happened. Eve blamed the serpent that God had made. Adam was blaming his other self, and the One in whose image he was made; Eve was blaming another object of the creation (the object which she allowed to deceive her) – which, in effect, was blaming the very principle of creation. And that is, the male/female principle which is the very expression of the Elohim (God/Goddess/plural). Neither blamed their own choice of thoughts which made their own transgression possible.

    Eve didn’t admit that it was her own thoughts which made the forbidden fruit appealing to her. The words that originally tempted her were not her own thoughts. At first those beguiling thoughts were objectionable to her because she already was quite content with the arrangement God had commanded concerning that one tree. But then, by the misuse of her imagination, she created a new image in her mind of what she had formerly in pure faith accepted, and thereby knew, as being true – that she should not eat of that tree.

    She then attached her emotions to the erroneous image, acted upon it, and felt a false thrill of being new and original, having seemingly made herself into a creator above God who had given the command concerning that one tree, rather than remaining the created thing she was. She injured her emotions and her relations thereto by mistakenly attaching them to something destructive to holy sex.

    The nature of the temptation was pure self exaltation. The one speaking the lie about her being more than what she was and not dying was already lying to himself by means of his own imagination, and succeeded in having Eve do the same. They were both thrilled with the false notion of being more than what they were created to be, and that thrill was passed on to Adam who likewise willingly embraced it for the same reason. Thus their intellects and emotions were corrupted by their misuse of their imaginations – indulging in a foolish fantasy.

    Neither was Adam willing to admit that it was his own thoughts that led him into choosing to give in to the temptation of self-exaltation (which included his love for his other self) over his love for his Creator when he accepted the fruit from her and ate it. Eve imagined that the fruit was something “to make one wise.” Her own wisdom was telling her a lie, and she chose to believe it. Her true reason under the pure influence of the Holy Spirit would not have led her to that conclusion, for God (whose love had created her) had told her differently. It was the same thing with Adam. He had to justify in his mind the action he took before he took it. He had to create a false wisdom to satisfy (fool) his conscience.

    The nature of their sins was the same – selfishness, self-centeredness, failing to rest from self. It was the opposite of what their Creators had displayed in their creation. They disregarded the fact that they each were only half an Adam. They were created in the image and likeness of Ones who are perfectly united and whose counsels are between Themselves in all things.

    When Eve first heard the serpent speak, she should have immediately talked with Adam about what was happening, and then both of them should have consulted their Makers. Instead, Eve, in self-confidence and self-sufficiency, was wrapped up in her own erroneous thoughts of how much greater she would be after she ate the fruit. She evidently didn’t feel (or didn’t want to acknowledge) her need to consult Adam or her Creators about what was going on. She also had a false image of how much greater Adam would be in their new state of being, and those thoughts appealed to her pride. She was led to undervalue what she and Adam already were.

    In the Book of Proverbs wisdom is personified as being feminine. The Hebrew word for wisdom, hookmah, is feminine, as is the Hebrew word for Spirit. In many of the proverbs a contrast is made between the pure feminine principles (wisdom), and those of the wanton woman; the first being the higher, life-giving Woman, and the latter being the destroyer of life and liberty; the first being divine inspiration, the latter being foolish imaginings; the first having a faithful male counterpart, the latter unable to commit to, or be committed to.

    As stated, when speaking of heavenly wisdom the Hebrew word is feminine. When speaking of the twisted imaginings which come from an evil heart full of stubbornness, the Hebrew word used, sheriyruwth, is also feminine. This shows that everyone is inspired by one of two feminine influences. One which is safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire (holy) – and one which is not. This principle also finds expression in the saying, “Behind every good man is a good woman.”

    Though the counsel given in the Book of Proverbs is for men to choose the good woman and flee from the evil one, this inspired instruction applies equally to women, for they also must choose the heavenly wisdom over the lower influence. The difference is that, in the spiritual realm, men choose the good woman (heavenly wisdom) as being a complement and enhancement to, and the completion of their masculinity, whereas women choose that higher Spirit as being their Master Pattern. So while there are two basic ways to relate to Her (heavenly wisdom – the Holy Spirit), a masculine and a feminine response, the effect is the same – safe and holy living.

    There is a traditional teaching among the Jewish rabbis that when a married man is separated from his loving wife, the Shekinah (the Holy Ghost) goes with him as a Comforter (a Companion, a Helper). Many men who are joined to a good woman are still incomplete because they are not joined to the Holy Ghost in a companion (non-motherly) relationship. It’s like the difference between those who relate to God as Father distantly (theoretically), and those who know the Holy Spirit (Eloah – the One who is with us) as a Friend and Companion. Also, “… neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:3-5) .They could only obtain such a name through a spiritual relationship with the Holy Ghost.

    The picture of Adam giving in to the temptation presented to him by Eve while she was in a state of deception illustrates the nature of every sin which detracts from holy sex and thus life. That is, she was a visible representation of the feminine influence within him – his own wisdom, inspiration. When he heard the temptation to break the commandment of God come from her, he chose to accept her counsel without regard to the fact that something was wrong. So, when one (male or female) chooses to follow the leading of their imagination (their creative wisdom) when it has been corrupted by deceptions arising from self-exaltation, loss is sure to follow.

  62. ben_metatron says:

    The Hebrew words which denote the use of the will, the exercise of choice, are masculine. This is done by both men and women. Boys and girls alike find safety in choosing to follow the voice of a good and wise mother – letting her counsels dwell in their hearts, and walking in her pathways.

    Also, the Hebrew word yetser, which means purpose, imagination, device (intellectual framework), is masculine. It is used in both a positive and negative sense. All, male and female, frame thoughts. The thoughts framed (a masculine act) have life if they are done under the influence of true wisdom (the feminine life-giver – the Holy Spirit).

    Eve framed thoughts of things which were not wise. She, though, was deceived into sin, her mind being put off balance by seeing and hearing the unnatural act of a serpent speaking. But Adam’s mind was not under that influence. His eyes were open. He wasn’t being deceived by seeing an overtly unnatural act. He was hearing a false wisdom come from the lips of his other self whom he dearly loved. He chose to believe the false wisdom (lying inspiration – fantasy) that he would not die if he ate the fruit, rather than seek true wisdom from the Gods as to what might be done for Eve now that she had eaten the forbidden fruit. He loved his love for her and the thought of their oneness more than he actually loved her or his Creators. Rather than immediately looking to his Creators for a solution to the loneliness he could be facing, he instead looked only to himself. Had he sought his Makers on his and her behalf, he would have learned of Their willingness to sacrifice of Themselves to reconcile Eve and to comfort him. But this Adam didn’t do.

    Adam’s sin was of the same nature as Lucifer’s original sin. Lucifer’s temptation came solely from something he created within himself through the influence of his own feminine (wisdom), without any unnatural exterior influence. His corrupted wisdom framed a lying temptation upon which he willfully and stubbornly acted, contrary to the influence of the heavenly wisdom, the Holy Spirit. It was the exercise of the will (a masculine act) without true wisdom (the holy feminine counterpart) that made the thing unsafe and unholy. And it was his unwillingness to swallow his pride, acknowledge his error, and allow his Creators to restore him that sealed his fate. That pride came from his inordinate love of his “beauty” and “brightness” (Ezekiel 28:17).

    Pride and self-exaltation are the inevitable results when one chooses a thought of their own invention, their own wisdom, over that which the Holy Spirit (heavenly wisdom) inspires and confirms as truth. It is the framing of, and the stubbornly giving weight and preference to a false use of the feminine influence in one’s thoughts – one’s wisdom (inspiration, creativity, that which genders life – produces life-giving thoughts) – which detracts from holy sex. A false image of the whole male/ female principles in mind and body and life in general, and the misuse of those principles in actions, does not produce that which is safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire – holy.

    Thus the old adage proves true, “Not everything that can be done, should be done.” So it is with holy sex. Not everything which can be imagined or done should be. This is at the heart of the matter of unhealthiness – unholiness – in mind and body, and in family, and society, and among nations.

    One of the first consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin was that woman’s physical nature was changed, and this brought other changes. After their sin, God said to Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). Suddenly the prospect of being fruitful and filling the earth with children had a negativity cast across it. A fear would now be with women in their thinking about holy sex – the fear of it being whole, gendering new life, and of the related pain and sorrow of childbearing. And men would now have their own fears about their interactions with women as they go through their changes and their childbearing woes. Nonetheless, the command to be fruitful and multiply, which was pronounced very good in the beginning, remains a part of our natures, and the power of love is present to overcome all fears. Thank God!

    Today, though, that part of our nature has been so diminished in many that we see some who appear to have no natural desire to have a mate or reproduce. They may want the thrill of that which gender may provide, but not the results and burdens it brings, nor the blessings. This experience has its counterpart in the creative thoughts. That is, many don’t want to use their intellectual bodies to produce anything life-bearing with another, but are rather wanting an interaction which gives the thrill of life without bearing the purpose of life – love, family, friendship, and community.

    Because of their fall, something else changed in the woman, in her heart, her thinking. It was also said to her, “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over [in] thee.” It was not this way from the “very good” beginning. Her “desire” was not to her husband prior to that time. Though she had the purest and fullest love for Adam and was emotionally and physically bonded to him, her primal desire was to life itself.

    Her desire was first to her Creators, and they ruled in her by the Spirit, by wisdom, by the power of love. She naturally loved the fact that she was for Adam, that he was equally for her, and that all of the creation was for them. Her desire was to the principle of holy sex (self-sacrificing love) and the Creators thereof, and it was that which ruled in her. Adam didn’t rule over Eve before they sinned. They both were given equal dominion over the earth and the things therein, and none over each other. Pure love was their ruler and government.

    Adam also was in an odd position after their fall. From then on Eve would be looking to him as her ultimate yearning, desiring him to rule in her. He had just seen that he had a hard time ruling in himself, making right choices for himself, and now he had this added matter. This was not in his original “very good” relationship with Eve.

    The concept of now having her desire directed towards him instead of towards their Creators, and him being, in her mind, a ruler for her (as a king and counselor) was foreign to his nature. Please carefully note that there was no command directly to the man to rule over the woman, as many men and woman have presumed and declared over the ages. Said misconception is also contrary to holy sex. The change in their relationship was in her thinking and not in an expansion of his dominion.

    Adam and Eve had to learn to deal with their new relationship and beings. Eve’s inward changes, physically and psychologically, reminded her of their wrong choices, one affecting her very being, and the other affecting their relationship. Adam’s thinking was changing also because of these things. These matters carried over in the thinking of their following generations in individual and societal relationships.

    It is of note that Adam was alone when the commandment was given concerning that one tree. (Genesis 2:16, 17) Eve was not yet made. After she was there he may have told her of that commandment before God did. If not before, he surely later also related to her what he had experienced and had been told before she was there. Therefore, Eve must have felt guilty for not giving heed to Adam’s counsel (as well as God’s), and would naturally have felt a need to overcompensate for her former mistake by desiring to have him make all of her decisions for her.

    Though this might have been flattering to Adam, such was not part of his nature. He was made for having dominion over the earth and the creatures thereof, not for being the mind of another. He was not made to “subdue” Eve and have dominion over her, as he was the earth. He was made to woo her through acts of love and self sacrifice, and she him.

    Adam would now be tempted to look at her with suspicion because she had not heeded his counsel and God’s. This distrust of her on his part, in turn, could lead him to be tempted to try to dominate her thinking. The tender, pure love relationship which they were created to experience was confused by these things.

    Of course, having given in to the temptation of self-exaltation that first time made it easy for it to be done again. That weakness passed from Adam and Eve to their offspring. Thus, many of Adam’s sons who could not properly respond in humility to women’s redirected desires have allowed high-mindedness and vain imaginings to turn them in to dictators over women, contrary to the original pure nature. Also many women, with their desires redirected, have subjected themselves to (and have even encouraged) a rulership over themselves which has never been pronounced “very good.”

    Because of those errors, many women have been so ashamed for having looked to men to be more than what they were created to be and for having placed an unwarranted confidence in them, that they turn away from all men in disgust. And many men have fled from women because they can’t live up to their unreal expectations. This situation has also been used by men and women to wrongfully excuse their own laziness and unwillingness to deal with their own responsibilities in life.

    Over time, this giving in to the temptation of self-exaltation caused the principle of self-sacrificing love (and thus, holy sex) to appear in a false light. It led to the erroneous thought that it is a self-sacrificing thing to allow one’s self to be used in an unnatural way, presuming that attempting to share love in such a manner is a real way to make someone else, or one’s self, happy – to fill each one with sweet love, joy, and peace. This thought is not an expression of a real sacrificing of self for the good of another, but, rather, an exalting of self to satisfy a prideful heart. It is the giving of a self which one really doesn’t have, but only fantasizes about having. The expectation is never achieved.

    This thinking leads one to presume that he or she will be loved more (and will even love themselves more) for doing such. It is the pride of thinking that they are able to do and be more than what they are created to be. The true principles of self-sacrificing love (and thus, holy sex) are displaced by self-exaltation which comes from the fear of not being loved – not having or appreciating a real sense of having within one’s self sweet love, joy, and peace.
    Simply put, people are falsely excited by the exalted thought of what is imagined to be happening more than the actual act itself. They are excited through a lying pride which deceives them into believing that they can do something which will produce something good, when in reality it does just the opposite. The natural feelings and desires are so clouded with vain imaginings that they are never really satisfied. Thus the lust for the unnatural (which can never be satisfied) grows and is strengthened until it ends in the ruin of the soul. Why then do so many seek such deadly things? Wisdom has the answer. She says,

    “He that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate Me love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)

    Though a hatred of the influence of Divine feminine (the Holy Spirit) has certainly been cultivated in the hearts and minds of Adam and Eve’s descendants, such did not originate with those first parents of mankind. It originated with the “father of lies,” “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” It was he who first sinned against the Holy Spirit, Divine Wisdom, the feminine Creator. He had to push aside that heavenly influence which was within him from his creation, in order to indulge his own stupid thoughts of self-exaltation. Of him it is written,

    “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.” (Ezekiel 28:17)

    God, the Father, chose humility (self-sacrifice) over self-exaltation when He covered and diffused His brightness in order to allow other things to be. In doing this, His Wisdom retained Her dignity and glory. Lucifer (Hallel, in Hebrew) evidently didn’t learn from that example. God, the Father, let the feminine attributes of love which produce righteous offspring have being, while Lucifer has sought to suppress, deface, and destroy (corrupt) all that is represented by women. He corrupted his own wisdom (feminine), and then sought to corrupt the feminine image on earth, thus expressing his hatred for the life-giving Holy Spirit. He would love it if no men and women ever have happy, healthy relationships, and produce righteous children, for these things remind him of a higher, purer way, and he loves death instead.

    Thus we see the origin and explanation of the antagonism against women and their natural capacity as co-rulers, and creators, and thus against holy sex. Thereby also we see the source of masculine pride (machismo). This same errant spirit has not only adversely affected holy sex, but has also been the ruin of entire civilizations, and is a major cause of world tensions today. It all comes down to each individual’s own sexuality – whether or not we are allowing ourselves to be holy (safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire) gendered beings, with clean hands and pure hearts, free from any delusions of what truly constitutes being a man or a woman.

    Aside from the fact that there are physiological variants to the images of perfect men and women due to the degeneration of mankind’s original nature, there are certain fundamental facts of our gendered natures which must be given their due weight. From the original sin we see that a male (Lucifer) sought to excite and satisfy himself by indulging in vain thoughts which gave him a false thrill in his being. He indulged in spiritual self-abuse (spiritual masturbation). He brought no pleasure or life-giving seed of thought to anyone else when he was, at first, alone in gratifying himself with vain imaginings, nor when he later disseminated his corrupted ways. His ways led to corruption and death because there wasn’t a holy feminine principle (influence) with which he was interacting in his mind or in his heart.

    He was interacting with a false wisdom which told him that he would continue to have the Influence of the Divine Woman, Wisdom, the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that he was profaning his own being which was a temple for that heavenly feminine influence. He was wanting pleasure from Her presence his way, while totally disregarding the spiritual principle upon which his existence depends. And that is the principle of holy sex – life producing and sustaining holy interactions of a genderial (family) character.

    Thus the indulgence of self-use (abuse), whether it be by male or female, propagates the spirit of death rather than the Spirit of life and love because it is based on the lie that one is wholly able of themselves (a lone gendered being) to fulfill their naturally holy (safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire) desires by unnatural, incomplete uses. As self abuse began in the spiritual realm with a male (Lucifer), it is understandable why in so many societies males are so readily wanting to justify said actions among themselves in the spiritual as well as the physical realms.

    They seek to rationalize this by attributing their acts to the will of their creator (whatever they may think that to be). It’s not that they directly portray their creator as doing the same self-centered things that they do or as even condoning such, but it’s that they feel that they have a certain license from above to defile themselves so. Yet, considering that the devil is called “the god of this world,” it is truly his image which they portray with such actions. But in doing such they do indeed deface the true image of God in themselves in that they act in a self-serving manner, contrary to all that is revealed of God’s self-sacrificing, self-controlling ways.

    God, the Father, repudiated the notion of uncontrolled self-satisfaction being a profitable thing by being Elohim, the feminine/masculine/plural Creator of all things who made gendered beings in His image and likeness. He further expressed the divine principle of resting from self by creating the seventh day, the Sabbath, as a day of rest from self. And he has asked his people to follow his example, to wit, “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD” (Isaiah 58: 13, 14).

  63. ben_metatron says:

    The importance of this revelation is recognized in the traditional Jewish attitude towards the Sabbath – that is, they refer to the Sabbath as Queen, God’s Bride. The tradition has been for the elders of the community to go to the edge of town and invite the presence of the Holy Ghost (the Shekinah) in Her Sabbath benefaction. Taking into consideration that it was in applying the principle of resting from self by God, the Father, which allowed the Holy Spirit (His Queen) to be, the personifying of this principle as it relates to the Sabbath is an acknowledgment of the united (married) nature of Elohim.

    Yet despite the revelation of the dual nature of love seen in the existence of gender throughout nature, most religious concepts of God, and/or the Godhead, are inclined to exalt a masculine image of the Creator, to the exclusion of, or, at best, a diminishing of the feminine image. This is even true of translations of the older Hebrew Scriptures, themselves. One example is the most common version of the Hebrew Text, the Masoretic Text. When compared with the more ancient texts, it admittedly contains around two hundred changes from the feminine form to the masculine form when such words are used with regard to Elohim or Eloah.

    This same misrepresentative portrayal of the true Elohim lies at the root of the masculine-dominated leadership of most religions, and most notably in the Catholic churches, in general, and most other catholic-like churches. Though the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine and was translatable into Latin maintaining its feminine character, this revelation was obscured by Jerome, the author of the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible).

    As the story goes, Jerome stated that he had asked some Jewish authorities the gender of the Spirit and that they said it was masculine. Whether he was giving in to the common temptation to exalt the masculine image above the feminine (something which was taking place in the church itself at that time), or whether he actually believed what he was supposedly told, the facts don’t support his actions. Were it true that he was misled he should have been aware that certain Jews would want to downplay the femininity of the Holy Spirit in order to avoid the matter of a possible Offspring of Elohim.

    Thus, in that way of thinking, if there is no feminine portrayed in the Leadership (the Godhead) in heaven, there shouldn’t be any on earth. This notion was thus carried to much of the Christian world (in their churches, governments, and in their homes [and bedrooms]). An interesting twist on this is held by the Mormons. They teach that they were born of Mother and Father God before they came to this earth, but that Mother God is not part of the Trinity and is not to be worshipped nor prayed to. Therefore, we see the exclusion of woman from the leadership of their church, and, likewise, the subordination and subjugation of the feminine to the will and pleasure of the masculine in those of their families wherein the exultation of the masculine principle results in polygamy or the acceptance of its underlying principles.

    The Protestants’ translations of the Bible manuscripts are no better than the Latin in being true to the sense of the original genderal usages in this matter. Beside the facts already stated about the word God (Elohim), this deficiency is also evident in the English translations of the New Testament Greek word for Spirit, Pneuma. Though Pneuma is neuter in Greek, the Spirit is called both it and he. This is because the word Comforter (which is an office of the Holy Spirit) is masculine in many New Testament Greek manuscripts (though there is a feminine form used in the Old Testament [Septuigant] Greek). When speaking of the Spirit with reference to the Comforter, the pronoun He is used. But when Spirit is used outside of that context, or another which implies personality, the word it is used.
    But all of this only shows that the Greeks were under a different thinking in regards to the manifestations of gender in life than were the Hebrews, and that the Protestant translators also ignored the Hebrew revelation of Her femininity in both Testaments. Whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, he could have only referred to the Holy Spirit in the feminine gender. He was clearly attempting to confirm this thought to Nicodemus by using strictly feminine imagery when referring to the Holy Spirit in John 3:3. But none of the Bible translations (Protestant, or Catholic, or others) relate these facts in a note or otherwise.

    What is truly odd about the general Christian concept of the Godhead, and, particularly, that of the Holy Spirit Herself, is that they talk about being “born of the Spirit,” yet deny that it takes a heavenly Mother to bear holy children. Even the Greek version of John 3 bears out this fact. Jesus says that a man must be “born [gennethe] again” (verse 3). In the language they were speaking (Aramaic) Nicodemus must have understood Jesus to be speaking of the process that one experiences with his mother, for he responded, “How can a man be born [gennethenai] when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born [gennethenai]? (verse 4) Jesus’ response portrays the beauty of God’s thinking on this matter, for He says, “Except a man be born [gennethe] of water [an earthly mother] and of the Spirit [a heavenly Mother], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born [gegennemenon] of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born [gegennemenon] of the Spirit is spirit.” (verses 5,& 6). All of those Greek words are feminine forms of geneo, which means procreate. This whole passage portrays the necessity of a heavenly Mother.

    In John 14:15-18, Jesus says that He will send us the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) so that He will not leave us “comfortless” (verse 18). This word comfortless in Greek is orphanos and means orphans. In order not to leave us orphans, He would have to send us a parent. What better Parent could He send us than the One of whom we are born again – the Holy Spirit, the Hebrew Goddess? So important is Her presence with us as individuals, that He gave Her coming to us as the very reason why He had to leave. To wit, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him [Her] unto you.” (John 16:7)

    Most words which are feminine in Hebrew are neuter in Greek. This usage of the neuter (lack of gender) is a foundational expression of the underlying principles which were also manifest in the acceptance of homosexuality among the Greek philosophers (those who expounded on the meaning of life and things, and who taught the youth). Though the use of the neuter pronoun it might be easier (in that there isn’t the need of masculine and feminine forms of a word, and all of the other related complications with associated uses of grammar), it diminishes the beauty and place of gender in life and life’s Source.

    The It principle doesn’t find much place in the natural world. That is, the stand alone, non-interactive principle (usually expressed by the use of the pronoun it) is an imaginary concept, having no basis in fact. The nature of Lucifer’s (and Adam and Eve’s) sin is expressed in the It principle – the selfish, self-centered, self-satisfying, stand alone, non-interactive principle which is foreign to the Creators of heaven and earth, and which has no place in holy sex.

    The most common concept among those who consider themselves Christians is that there is a Trinity of either two masculine Persons (Father and Son) and one It (the Holy Spirit), or three masculine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). There is an ongoing debate as to what is meant by the use of the words Person and Persons, and another one on the meaning of Their oneness. The diverse opinions on these matters are among the major causes of the divisions among them and the moral weaknesses within their congregations.

    Though in the general Catholic concept (which is also held by many Protestants), the Godhead is taught to be Three masculine Beings (corporeal, in a spiritual sense): one a Father, one a Son, and one a Spirit (who is also masculine [though some prefer the neuter thought]), the Roman Catholics vary from the Orthodox Catholics on one major point. The Roman Catholics say that the Son also has His own Spirit. As a token nod to the feminine principle they have Mary exalted to an almost God-like position. Yet their Godhead proper can only be honestly viewed as portraying a mysterious, homosexual-like image – a family (?) of only males (Father, Son, and ?).

    We see the effects of such thinking in the current problems within the Roman Catholic Church in America. The homosexuality and abuse of young boys which has been so long covered up and excused from criminal prosecution, are the direct results of their conception of the Godhead, because these things are happening to, and are being hidden and excused by, those who are well versed in their doctrines and practices, and who pass them on to the young ones.

    The lack of a true divine feminine image in their thinking regarding the Godhead is but another example of the antagonism against the feminine principle of Elohim (wisdom, the Holy Spirit), and holy sex. Were it not for their image of The Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), there would be much less sanctity among their fellowships, for their image of the Godhead is void of a holy Mother, a holy Wife. Similarly, though the commonly understood Jewish teachings exalt the masculine attribute of Elohim while veiling the feminine, their language (Hebrew) provides for a stabilization in their genderial relationships for those among them who are affected by their exposure to Hebrew.

    Another notable example is the attitude towards women held by some Muslim men, which they assign to their religious teachings. Their religious tenets teach them that Allah (God) “Does not beget, nor is He begotten.” In their thinking there is no feminine equal for Allah. So, in the more extreme portions of their societies, women are not only treated as less than equals, but are something which they don’t even want to be reminded of in their everyday public societies. This is but another expression of the antagonism against the Holy Spirit (heavenly Wisdom).

    The practice of veiling women’s heads and/or faces has more at its roots than an attempt to prevent a woman from being a temptation to a man who is not her husband by hiding her feminine characteristics, or in distinguishing a chaste woman from an immoral one. It’s an expression of the fact that the men do not want to be reminded that they don’t have the power of love which comes from the presence of true wisdom (the Holy Spirit) whereby they may be able to resist the temptation to lust after women. They need to hide the fact that their own wisdom is corrupted by their beliefs (and unbeliefs), and this is reflected in an image in the veiling of their women. Often it is the women who are most emphatic in upholding those traditions which do not date to Eden. Adam and Eve were as ashamed of the other’s nakedness as they were of their own, but that was only an expression of their inward condition. They both tried to cover themselves with fig leaves, and we find no record of a protest of such from the other.

    In the extreme, the societies which exalt the masculine principle in their thinking regarding their Creator, and diminish or deny the feminine, often almost demand sons from their women and have little regard for daughters. This thinking has led to all sorts of cruelties towards females, such as the practice of female circumcision which deprives the woman of her most fulfilling sexual pleasure. Many of those same cultures are involved in tribal disputes of varying degrees which lead to wars wherein the sons become heroes and deliverers. Thus the masculine principle of will absent the feminine principle of wisdom dominates those cultures.

    As the world has grown much smaller through the use of the many inventions in travel and communications, there has been placed upon the Christian world the duty of correcting the errors which exist in those darkened areas of the earth through the preaching of the Gospel in all of its glory. Yet the work of restoring women to their original place as images and likenesses of the feminine aspect of the glorious Creators of mankind remains but little done. This is primarily due to the warfare against the Biblically-revealed, Holy Spirit-confirmed truth regarding the feminine portion of the Godhead. Sad it is that there are men and women who profess the name of Christ who are aiding the enemy of souls by their refusal to surrender to the truth as it is written.

    The Christian world has had but little impact on the great sufferings of women worldwide which are maintained mainly through the pride and arrogance of culture and tradition because they, generally, are doing after the same manner in clinging to their own errors whereby masculine attributes are exalted, and feminine ones are suppressed. While Christian men accept the flattering notion that they have been somehow given a position of authority above women, and feel free to exercise that in dominating women in their churches and in societies, the world is languishing for want of the true family image on earth of the heavenly Pattern expressed in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, let all men and women who profess the name of Christ rise above their own vain theories and traditions and reach out to the sin-stricken world to uplift downtrodden women as Christ would, were He personally here, while keeping in mind that

    “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20.

    From the change which took place in Eve’s thinking, we see in a likeness that fallen wisdom desires to be ruled by the will, to be dictated to. Those who find that they lack the wisdom to act correctly in a situation often exercise their will to their harm. Such too often happens when the Spirit of holiness is absent from genderial relations.

    In spite of all the confusion, the natural object of gender, holy sex (with all that it involves), and the principle of self-sacrificing love which established it, have their expression in the relationship referred to in 1 Corinthians 7:4:

    “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

    One is made for the other and neither solely for himself or herself. This shows that one may only find complete fulfillment when pleasing the other (being there for him or her). And, in pleasing the other, one must also be pleased by the other, for that, also, is a need of the other, as with one’s self. The whole relationship must express the pure interaction of gender – giving (male) and receiving (female) self-sacrificing love. Each one must give and receive as is appropriate for their gender. That is, a man may give and receive in a masculine way, while a woman may do both in a feminine way. But a man shouldn’t attempt to receive in a feminine way, any more than a woman should attempt to give in a masculine way. Such would be out of character. Though one’s body is designed also for another, it is not to have the partners do to each other what they cannot do to themselves.

    In a situation where a man feels that the woman is only there to please him and his lusts, she becomes an it – an object not much different from anything else he may choose to attempt to bring himself satisfaction. And where a woman only considers herself as such a thing, faithfulness and commitment are disregarded. Thus the force of will and unprincipled desire which lack wisdom leads, in the extreme, to rape and prostitution.

    Time has well shown that the married relationship is the only one which can be safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire, holy – bringing the fullness of pleasure. When a man and a woman are totally committed to growing in their relationship (their oneness), there comes a settling into the higher principles of love which cannot be experienced through casual, superficial encounters or a companionship built on a speculation of emotional fidelity. In a marriage based upon right principles there is fertile ground for the sowing and reaping of hopes and rewards which cannot be found in the desert of presumption.

    This can be further understood by the common phrases used to describe one’s attitude towards their virginity. Having in mind the hope of a loving commitment to another brings forth the expression of “saving” one’s self for marriage. But when such hope is not earnestly embraced, the expression often is “losing” one’s virginity. In the first, virginity is “saved” to be spent for the investment in something of lasting value. In the latter the thought is conveyed that the sowing of the personal integrity involved with one’s virginity was without lasting value – that is, something that should have been cherished was lost, a heartbreaking action. Within the idea of having lost one’s virginity are the notions that either through forgetfulness, deception, or outright theft that which was to be valued is gone, never again to be had. Thus one’s peace of mind regarding their sexuality is less than whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire – safe and holy.

    In our consideration of the pleasure aspect of holy sex, we may discern what truly is to be pleased by looking further into the very nature of our beings. We read that, “… the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a LIVING SOUL” (Genesis 2:7).

    The same Hebrew word, nephesh, translated “soul” with reference to man, is translated “creature” when referring to the animals which also have the breath of life. This unfounded distinction arises not from observable nature (for all animals are seen to express human characteristics), but rather from fantasy. It comes from the baseless notion that we are eternal spiritual beings who are only temporarily occupying our fleshly bodies.

    It is written that man became a living soul, a living nephesh. This implies that there is such a thing as a dead soul, a dead nephesh. And so it is. In Numbers 19:11 we find the words “… the dead body of any man …” Reading in the Hebrew words we have, “the dead nephesh of any adam” – “the dead soul of any man.” Thus a soul may be living or dead, and is not an immortal entity. It’s interesting that the translators substituted the word body for soul, thus implying, incorrectly, that it is only the body that actually dies, and not the whole being, the living nephesh. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:20. From this we see that it is the whole soul (nephesh), our complete being, which is to be pleased by holy sex, and not just the fleshly part.

    The Greek philosophers are credited with teaching that after the death of the body the immortal soul first goes to the sun to be purified, and then goes to its final place eternally. The delusion that our living bodies are but mere vessels for our immortal souls, and not our very beings (dust with the breath of life creating intelligence within it), has led to a confusion and devaluation of our true needs, and a perversion of holy (safe – whole, healthy, complete, unharmed, entire) sex.

    In that pseudo philosophy, and all like thoughts, the body is a secondary thing which may be used or abused to gratify any lust or intellectual contrivance. Under that illusion the body (and the person it is a part of) becomes an it object. The dignity which should be had by the maintenance of a clear conscience is compromised by the reality of the unnatural acts done through senseless lust. When viewed with sober mind and affections, the things which appeared to be desirable prove to be disgusting. Thus many are led to look at themselves and/or the one(s) with whom they dishonor themselves with disrespect, contempt, and scorn, to one degree or another. Thus, also, they are led to attempt to deaden the conscience to the intellectual and physical truths which are being violated. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” “My people,” please read Romans 1:16-2:16.

    All of the organs and openings of our bodies are designed for specific functions. Those which are related to holy sex each have within them certain chemical, electrical, and thermal properties which must be respected. Failure to do so produces short circuits and chemical imbalances which not only fail to produce the free flow of the truly pleasurable sensations, but also create disease. For example, the saliva within our mouths is highly alkaline, while other fluids elsewhere are very acidic. When these two forces come into contact with each other, the tendency is for one to break down the designed effect of the other, causing a weakness in the natural protective properties of both, and thereby allowing infection and disease to enter into the system. Such a condition may even create a new form of ailment.

    The same is true with the small electrical charges (positive and negative) which are present within us from our creation. Researchers in many fields are now able to prove that which has been witnessed for ages – that is, that the free flow of electricity between males and females may only be fully obtained when their bodies are aligned such that the corresponding electrically charged parts may contact each other. The proper exchange of those electrical properties is necessary for the production of the chemical and other electrical reactions which produce true satisfaction and physical and emotional joy. Failure to abide by those laws creates a sexual frustration which in turn can negatively affect all other aspects of our beings and relationships

    Men who fantasize about a woman allowing herself to be used to stimulate him through acts which bring no true chemical, electrical, and thermal sexual response in her being, and those who actually engage themselves in such actions, are but repeating the same deathly error which Lucifer embraced. In their corrupted imaginings they think that they will be blessed with the pleasures of life – the Holy Spirit of life – without consideration of, or in bold defiance of, whether or not She is being pleased by the actions. They are trying to manipulate God (actually, Goddess – Eloah). Of course, women may violate the same principle of holy sex through similar unnatural things with men. In the extreme, said devilish corruption is manifest when either gender foolishly attempts to fulfill the natural desires of holy sex with one of their same gender, or with anything else which is outside of the Divine plan.

    When we encounter things old and new to us, it’s proper to present both admonitions and prayer. Therefore, consider the following:

    “Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.” (Ps 37:4)

    “The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” (Psalms 37:11)

    “Have mercy upon me, O God [Elohim], according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee … have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God [Elohim]; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free Spirit.” (Psalm 51 1-12) Amen.

    As a closing observation, it’s notable that within the Hebrew revelation of our creation in the image of Elohim we also see the masculine/feminine principle expressed in the fact that the word translated dust is masculine, and the word for breath is feminine. This shows that we each are also an expression of the Elohim within our individual selves – dust (masculine) with the Spirit (feminine) within. We’ve capitalized the word Spirit because, concerning the breath within us, it is written, “All the while my breath is in me, and the Spirit of God is in my nostrils my lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit” (Job 27:3, 4). Though there is a distinct Hebrew word which translates as breath, the word for Spirit is also translated as breath.

    Because the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, is the very thing which animates us in the breath of our nostrils, our true nature should tend to holiness (healthfulness), but, spiritually speaking, because of the fall, we find too often the presence of bad breath (corrupted spirit – wisdom), which, understandably, detracts from holy sex. One of the major causes of bad breath is constipation, which in most cases is caused by eating the wrong things (overprocessed, devitalized foods), or at the wrong times, or in the wrong manner (or any combination thereof).

    If the spiritual truths we feast upon have lost their life-giving qualities due to them being stripped of their fundamental ingredients, then displeasure follows. So it has been since some have attempted to remove the life-giving properties within the truth of the Elohim in whose image and likeness we, male and female, are made. Yet, it is written, “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” Matthew 17:11. When we are eating whole spiritual foods, we easily and naturally pass off the things which should not become a part of our beings.

    Though today we use the word bowels to indicate the hidden internal mechanism by which we pass solid waste from our beings, that word has also been used in the Bible to portray the seat of emotions (Genesis 43:30; 1 Kings 3:26), and another phenomenon – procreation (for both male and female). To wit, “And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him [Abraham], saying, … he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.” (Genesis 15:4). “And the LORD said unto her [Rachel], Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels …” (Genesis 25:23). As it is with the image and likeness of Elohim, so it is with the heavenly Original. With these thoughts in mind, consider the hidden things of the living Elohim

  64. astudent says:


    I haven’t had time (was at a location that didn’t have internet service), so I haven’t read your comments, but I had to say that I am very glad that you didn’t become so angry with me that you would stop commenting. I know that sometimes I sound bullish, but sometimes I can find no way to say what seems right to me without sounding that way.

    I may be slow to comment, because of other things and you have written much, so it will take some time to consider it.

  65. astudent says:


    Well, I look at your comments and I see a book. One cannot learn about one thing by talking about everything.

    I cannot allow anymore comments that are longer than the post that generated those comments. If you ramble too long I will remove your comment.

    Now, that said, the one thing that I would like you to answer is – If sex is what God had in mind for the human race, then why would it make both parties unclean if they had sex? (Leviticus 15:18) And if God wanted the human race to advance by using sex then why would a woman become unclean for seven days after giving birth to a son and unclean for two weeks after giving birth to a daughter?

    (Leviticus 12:2-8 NIV) “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. “‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'”

    No books just your thoughts

  66. Ben_Metatron says:

    What you are ignoring is that before the fall. Before Adam and Eve sinned sex existed. Even animals produced after their kind. Even before anything was created sex existed. Also keep in mind that it is not sex which is unclean but the 2 parties who engage in the sex act who are unclean. The scriptures never state that sex is unclean. The act of sex is a design. A perverted mind is unclean. In a sinful realm all things earthly has become unclean. The design of the human body. It’s make up to mass produce is actually awe inspiring. A carnal intellect causes that which the Elohim created to be a glory to become perverse. Is it the sex which is unclean or the vessel performing the act? Also keep in mind that due to the fall mankind loss immortality and their was no shedding of blood. After the fall the woman was cursed. Her biological make up was changed. During sex blood can be shed. The semen is unclean and imperfect. Which would cause the male and female to become unclean. Not the sex.

  67. Ben_Metatron says:

    The woman is ceremonially unclean. The blood makes the woman unpure according to the ceremonial law. The shedding of blood causes the woman to be unclean. Life is in the blood. When blood is shed or exposed the blood stream can become infected if not properly exposed. The reason why blood is shed in the first place is because of sin. The bloodline of mankind was infected as a result of sin. In which man fell.

  68. astudent says:


    Thanks for staying on the subject. I do not believe that I am as gifted as you in language or intelligence and I can not concentrate on to many subjects at one time.

    You say sex existed before anything was created, but that is not a statement that can be sustained. Almost all living things are created by sex, however not all are. One cell plants and animals, which are the very basic forms of life, reproduce without sex. To say that sex was God’s original plan of reproduction is, I think, a conclusion reached from what usually happens in this cursed world.

    You are right to say our bodies are awe inspiring, but they were changed because of events of the third chapter of Genesis. We cannot say with certainty that sex existed before the curses pronounced on Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Even the earth was cursed because of Adam (Gen 3:17 NIV) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

    How do we know that animals had sex before the fall if everything was changed? The serpent was cursed above all of the animals, which says all of the animals were also cursed: just not as much as the serpent. (Gen 3:14 NIV) So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

    You are right when you said Eve’s biological make up was changed, so we do not know for sure what it was before the curse.

    In the first of your latest comments you said that it is not sex which is unclean but the two parties who engage in the sex act that are unclean but that would negate anything that made someone unclean. If someone was already unclean then nothing could make them unclean as they already were unclean.

    (Lev 5:2 NIV) “‘Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean–whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground–even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.” There is no blood involved with these types of events and yet they made people unclean.

    It is sex that was considered by God to be a ceremonial unclean act, performed by clean individuals, and it made the individuals unclean. They would stay unclean and be cut off from God’s people if they refused to perform the rituals that God required to make them clean again. (Lev 15:18 NIV) “When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.” You see, they were clean, they had sex, which made them unclean, and if they both bathed with water they would be made clean again sometime that evening. It seems to me that the Bible does indeed say sex is unclean and it matters not if sex existed or did not exist before the fall of man.

    It seems to me that you are mixing up the fact that we are imperfect with being unclean. We are imperfect and because of that we can become unclean, but God does not consider us unclean until we do something that makes us unclean and/or even if something happens beyond our control that causes us to become unclean.

    As I ponder our plight it seems that we have all become unclean, not just ceremonially unclean, but just plain unclean. But God has a plan to make us clean in His eyes. He has provided a covering that hides our uncleanness from Him. We are still unclean, but He refuses to look at it. He says sex makes a person unclean and instead of accepting what He says we try to find some way of justifying our actions. I am not faulting you as we all do the same thing.

    The rules about sex in the Old Testament agree with the advice in the New Testament. Sex between married couples is a release for sexual sins. I know it sounds wrong to say this, but a little sin helps control large sins. Consider 1 Corinthians 7:1-6.

    (1 Cor 7:1-6 NIV) Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command.

    You see from verse one that it is better not to marry, which would mean one would have no sex and that agrees with the life of Jesus as he did not marry. Also the main reason for marriage is to control immorality: not for all of the reasons that we want to believe. Married couples are not told in the Bible to come together because it is a wonderful gift from God, although I have heard such a claim from the pulpit, but come together so that Satan will not tempt you because of our lack of self-control.

    Look what the Bible says about life after this age (Ezek 37:26 NIV) “I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.” This verse says that He will increase our numbers: not that we will as He told us to do in Genesis (1:28).

    Having said all of that I believe you have a point when you said that it was the shedding of body fluids (semen or blood) that made them unclean, however if there was no sex there would be no shedding of blood to make them unclean. I don’t see how understanding that would change or justify the sex act.

    Just to throw in a little gilt trip, and show others that I am not saying ‘do not have sex’, does anyone see that a man or woman that refuses to have sex with their mate places them in harms way?

    Ben, could you place your comments at the posts they are related to? I am sure that it is very confusing to others when your comments are about my post SEX IN THE BIBLE (AS I UNDERSTAND IT) and you place your comment at MELCHIZEDEK IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

  69. Ben_Metatron says:

    What you are ignoring is the command in Genesis for Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Have sex) before they fell. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28. Also animals were given this command. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Genesis 1:22 This happened before the fall. Also in Colosians 1:15 & 18. We see that the son of the Elohim was BORN before anything was created. Various scriptures tell us that Yashua is the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of the Elohim. Sex existed before anything created existed.

  70. astudent says:


    I do not understand why you would say that I am ignoring Genesis 1:28.

    We cannot say sex existed before anything. The bible makes no such statement. It is your idea that you believe and it comes from the translation of one word from Hebrew.

    By the way, begotten does not mean to have sex. It is the past tense of beget, which means to father or to cause to exist or occur; produce. Do you see how easy it is to change the meaning of a word?

    It is plainly stated in the Old Testament that sex makes those that engage in it unclean and it is also plainly stated that childbirth also makes a woman unclean.

    The understanding of this becomes clear to me when I view the results of this method of procreation. Most of the children that are born in this world will not be believers. Even when two Christians come together, there is no guarantee that a child produced will turn to God. We are filling the earth with unbelievers. God said that what He had created was good, but that was before the fall of man. Do you really think He meant that it was good to fill the earth with unbelievers? It is no longer a mystery to me that He considers sex as unclean.

    I have you to thank for making me think this out. It has helped me understand God, humans, and the mess that we have made out of what God intended.

    I cannot believe as you do. Just chalk it up as two pieces of iron trying to sharpen each other. The more you say the firmer my understanding!

  71. Ben_Metatron says:

    It is not the act of sex which makes one unclean. Nor having a child which makes a woman unclean. It is the semen and the blood which makes one unclean. Beget or begot. It matters not. Read any geaneology. You will see that a male begets and a woman gives birth. For Yashua to be the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of the Yahveh he would have had to have a time where he was in the process of being beget. To be begotten he would have had to be produced through sex before anything was created. Colossians 1:15 & 18.

  72. Ben_Metatron says:

    Upon a close examination of the words “monogenes” and “prototokos” we shall see that those who leave the word “begotten” out of their translations, and interpret the words “firstbegotten” to mean “preeminent” (or something similar), are truly adding to, or diminishing the written word of God, for those words actually convey a much more distinctive and different meaning than what has been ascribed to them by most commentators and modern translators. Here are the texts (KJV) referred to and Greek words under consideration. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten [monogenes] of the Father), full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 “unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten [gennao] thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten [prototokos] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Hebrews 1:5,6 DEFINITIONS (from Strong’s Bible Dictionary) Monogenes 3439 monogenes mon-o-gen-ace’ from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child). 3441 monos mon’-os probably from 3306; remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:–alone, only, by themselves. 1096 ginomai ghin’-om-ahee a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):–arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought. Note: Strong’s often gives only the root of a word used, and not the actual form of the word in the text. Such is the case here. Though Strong’s and others give 1096, ginomai, as the root for “begotten” (the “genes” part of “monogenes”), it is actually derived from a more definitive form of that word, 1080, gennao. Gennao is the sub-root of “begotten.” Ginomai has many meanings other than of the parent/offspring relationship, while gennao refers specifically to the family relationship. But gennao is actually only one form of another word which comes from ginomai, and that is 1085, genos, which narrows down the broad word ginomai, into a more specific parent/offspring relationship. This point is important because there are also two forms used to express this family (genos) relationship: (1) gennao -the masculine one which is translated “begat” (which is what a male does), and (2) gennethe -the feminine one, which is used in John 3 where Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus about being “born” (gennethe -feminine) of a woman, and of the Spirit. The “genes” part of “monogenes” comes from the more specific masculine form gennao because it is used in reference to Christ’s family relationship to His Father. Here we have the actual derivation of the genes part of monogenes: ginomai (1096) < genos (1085) < gennao (1080) < genes (the masculine derivation as it relates to Jesus' Father). ginomai (1096) < genos (1085) < gennethe the feminine form of gennao (1080) (used in reference to being born of a woman and of the Spirit). This detail is not noted in most lexicons, but is evident in the Greek New Testament. What is also most notable here are some of the other words that are derived from genos (1085). They are: genea (1074) -generation(s) genealogeo (1075) -derive descent genesia (1077) -birthday ceremonies genesis (1078) -birthday genese (1079) -birth gennema (1081) -generation, fruit gennesis (1083) -a begetting, nativity, birth gennethos (1084) -they (those) that are born Thus we see that the meaning of genes contains the family/parent/offspring relationship, and means exactly what it is translated in the KJV to be -"begotten." To assume anything else is to attempt to redefine the word. Yet that is exactly what many commentators attempt to do. Translators, on the other hand, attempt to avoid the reality of the matter by ignoring the presence of the word "genes" and translate only the word "mono" -"only." The other word under consideration here is "prototokos" -4416 prototokos pro-tot-ok'-os from 4413 and the alternate of 5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):–firstbegotten(-born). 4413 protos pro'-tos contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):–before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former. 5088 tikto tik'-to a strengthened form of a primary teko tek'-o (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively:–bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail. 5110 tokos tok'-os 1. birth a. the act of bringing forth b. that which has been brought forth, offspring 2. interest of money, usury (because it multiplies money, and as it were "breeds") By these we see that the compound word prototokos, like monogenes, contains the idea of the acts involved in bringing forth an offspring, a child -the difference being that mono implies "only," while proto implies "first." Also, while genes implies the act of "begetting," tokos implies the act of "bringing forth" -the first, generally, betokening the masculine act of begetting; the second, the feminine act of giving birth to that which was formerly begotten. This feminine action involved in producing children depicted in the word tokos is more clearly seen by its use in the following texts. "And she shall bring forth [tokos] a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. Tokos is also translated "delivered," the feminine performance in producing children, as we see here -"Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered [tokos]; and she brought forth [egenneoen] a son." Luke 1:57 "And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered [tokos]…. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered [tokos], for to devour her child as soon as it was born [tokos]." Rev. 12:2, 4. From these verses it is clear that the word tokos is used in the sense of birthing a child. There are other Greek words that are translated "bring forth," but which do not convey the idea of a parent/offspring relationship. Two of those are as follows: "A good tree cannot bring forth [poieo-4160] evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth [poieo]good fruit." Matt. 7:18. "And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth [karpophoreo -2592] fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred." Mark 4:20. Thus we see that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers to use the words that convey the idea of a true parent/offspring relationship when speaking of Christ's Sonship, and the Father's Fatherhood, that the truth of the matter may be clearly set before us. Now that we have the basics of the words monogenes and prototokos before us, we will now look further into how each of these words are used in the Scriptures, and particularly in regards to the "only begotten" Son of God. The first one is Monogenes Let's look at two Greek words which convey the idea of "only" (mono) as in "only begotten." One is monogenes and the other monadikos. Monadikos is defined as "oner, singular, unique" ( Had the Bible writers intended to convey "unique" (as many commentators contend), without relating the idea of a parent/offspring relationship, they would have used the word for it -monadikos, or something similar. But they did not. They employed the word monogenes. The word monogenes is used nine times in the New Testament. Five of those are in reference to the Son of God. The others refer to the sons and daughters of men and women. One of the latter reads, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son." Heb. 11:17 We know from the Scriptural record that Abraham had fathered other sons besides Isaac -Ishmael was his firstborn through Hagar, and he had other sons through Keturah. But we also know that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son" through his first wife Sarah. In the subject context of Hebrews 11, we can see that the writer is using the similarity of God's only begotten Son who was promised to save His people and Abraham's son of promise -the son of his faith, and not the one of his unbelief (Ishmael), nor those of Keturah, because it was only Isaac, the one in whom rested the Covenant promises, whom Abraham was called to offer up in sacrifice. In the beginning of the book of Hebrews the writer has set forth Christ as being so much better than the angels because He had "obtained a more excellent name than they" because He had received it by "inheritance" (Heb. 1:4). Then, in the 11th chapter he is comparing the offering of Abraham's "only begotten son" in the same sense -that Isaac also had obtained a more excellent name than Ishmael or the sons of Keturah because he, as the son of promise was to receive "by inheritance" the Covenant promises. Also in the beginning of Hebrews, the writer sets forth Christ's inherited name and nature as being far superior to that of the angels, by quoting a number of Scriptures, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:5, 6. Now (in Heb. 11:17) he makes a comparison between Abraham's offering of Isaac, his literally "only begotten son" of Sarah (his wife through whom God had intended to bring about His promises), and the Father's offering of His "only begotten" Son. We must note that the King James translators were being consistent in translating the word monogenes in regard to both Christ and Isaac. If we are to assume that the word genes means "one of a kind, preeminent, unique one," then why were the translators consistent in using the English word which denotes an act of birthing -that is, "begotten"? The real problem here lies not in the Greek words, nor in the King James translation of those words, but in men wresting the meanings of those simple words from them, and placing upon them their private opinions and theories. Genes means the masculine act involved in the birthing process, and begotten means the exact same thing, and that is it -no more, no less. Many do not want to entertain the thought that the Father may have engaged in activity that ends in reproduction because the only conception they have of such in their minds is that which the carnal mind perceives -that is, that sex cannot be holy. In doing this, they also are following in Lucifer's steps in trying to downplay the reason why Christ has preeminence above all the angels, including him -that being because the Son was "begotten," and the angels were created. "In the councils of heaven God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him' (Gen. 1:26, 27). The Lord created man's moral faculties and his physical powers. All was a sinless transcript of Himself. God endowed man with holy attributes, and placed him in a garden made expressly for him." The Youth's Instructor, July 20, 1899. (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 133) Among the "physical powers" given Adam as "a sinless transcript" of his Creator was the ability to produce offspring -the ability to beget. But certain commentators and translators won't accept the simple Scriptural statements in this regard, instead wresting the meaning of those verses to the destruction of themselves and the society they have been given to uplift. Additionally, there are Greek words which would be better suited to express "preeminence" without introducing the procreative idea that monogenes contains. But the Holy Spirit did not move the Bible writers to use those words. The emphasis of Hebrews 11:17 is not upon Isaac, nor his preeminence, however. It is speaking of Abraham and his faith and that which demonstrated his faith -the offering up of his only begotten, beloved son in obedience to God's voice. Thus, in John 3:16, monogenes, is used in order to highlight the Father's character -that being that He, like Abraham, offered up One who was literally of Himself, and to Whom He had the most intimate bond of love. Monogenes cannot be used to describe some of the Son's other characteristics, such as His uniqueness, preeminence or of Him being one of a kind without stretching the word beyond its simple meaning -that of being "only begotten." While an only begotten one may be truly unique and one of a kind, it's a real stretch of the word to say that because of that he or she has preeminence over anything. How can one have preeminence over his brothers or sisters when he has none -as such is the case of an only begotten one? It is not like one who has the rights (preeminence) of a firstborn of many brothers, for there are no other brothers of an only begotten one. The only way that the one with the rights (preeminence) of the firstborn has such is because he was literally the "first" born relative to others. Monogenes also carries the meaning of blood lines and generations. The concept of blood lines is not found in the ideas "one of a kind, preeminent, unique one." However, the idea of blood lineage is key to knowing that Jesus is also God. Why is He God? Because of who His Father is -the Father who begat Him. The Biblical use of the Father and Son relationship conveys the thought of a generational condition between the two of them. This thought Jesus sought to convey in saying,"…my Father is greater than I."ohn 14:28. This same thought is carried in Hebrews 11:17, for Abraham, "that had received the promises" went ahead and offered up the one through whom God had said the covenant will be established, that is, Isaac (Gen. 17:21) -his blood line -his "seed" (Gen. 15:5), one from his next generation -one that he was greater than. Abraham, in faith, not only was willing to give up his only begotten son in obedience to God's command, but was also willing to give up his own hopes and the salvation of the world in obedience, for the promised Savior was to come from the seed of Isaac. Thus he was willing to sacrifice all of His future generations. Abraham was also willing to face the heartbreak he would bring to Isaac's mother, Sarah, his wife, due to his obedience to God's voice. For Isaac was not just Abraham's "only begotten" son, but also Sarah's firstborn, only conceived, son. In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as "the son of David" (Mat. 1:1). But He is also said to be "of the seed of David" (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). The Greek for "seed" in those verses is sperma. The words "son" and "seed" are directly related. To be of the seed of someone, is to be their child. To be the child of someone, is to be of their seed. What then of the only begotten (monogenes) Son (huios) of God? The language itself points to the conclusion that the Son (huios) of God is of the seed (sperma) of the Father. If Jesus is the Son (huios) of David and of the seed (sperma) of David, then logic dictates that if He is the Son (huios) of God, He is also of the seed (sperma) of the Father. The word monogenes supports this conclusion because its meaning denotes the masculine act involved in procreation.

  73. astudent says:


    Where is the male and the female of a single cell plant or animal? Where is the sex? Where is the mother?

    I think that we would agree that to rob a bank is wrong. It can be said that the underlying reason that it is wrong is because of greed, but that does not change the fact that it is wrong to rob the bank.

    God said that it makes both parties unclean to engage in sex. The underlying reason may or may not be because of an emission. However, that does not change what God said; it is still wrong. Your argument is with God, not with me.

    One must combine faith (God is always right) with understanding. If God said it makes someone unclean to do something, then I am going to accept it as truth and then I will try to understand why it does so. I will not try to find some way to say God didn’t really mean what He said, or that He was only half-right.

    If it were “only” the spilling of blood that made someone unclean then there would be no difference whether a woman had a son or a daughter and there is difference. The son would also be unclean when he was circumcised! In order to become an Israelite the boy would also become unclean! And there is no ritual to cleanse him from that emission!

    This has been a rewarding conversation, but it is time to move on, so this is my last comment to you on this subject. Tell God what you think, because it was God that said, (Lev 15:18 NIV) “When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.” There is more to learn about uncleanness, but not by just repeating what we already know.

  74. Ben_Metatron says:

    Lev 15:18 NIV) “When a man lies with a woman AND THERE IS AN EMISSION OF SEMEN, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.” What if there was no emission of semen? Would they be unclean? No. So it must be the semen which causes them to be unclean. Not the sex. The seed is unclean because of sin. Not the act to produce the seed. There is more to learn about uncleanness, but not by just repeating what we already know. Again the command to be FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY before the fall. Genesis 1:28 was a command for Adam and Eve to have sex. Genesis 8:17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you–the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground–so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it.” After the flood. The command again for animals.
    Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. Genesis 9:7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” After the flood. The command for humans to have sex. Leviticus 26:9 “‘I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers, and I will keep my covenant with you. Keep in mind that BEFORE they sinned they were given this command. Genesis 1:28.

  75. Sandip says:

    you said:

    God bless me? Which God? The one true God has and will bless me: through His son. He has promised me everlasting joy when I leave this earth. What has your god promised you?

    You may well have your buttons, but where are your marbles?


    I already replied you in my last post. For your little brains benefit I will copy paste below:

    Anyway try to grow up if you can, it is not hard.

    And be happy with your sweater… I can fine with my button…

    God bless you…

    And if you have marbles, play with them.. they are good only for that 🙂

    Don’t feel bad… or did I press your buttons? 😀

    have a wonderful holidays…

  76. astudent says:


    I have no buttons. But I do have a sense of humor.

    We have a saying in this country. If we think someone is a little crazy we say that they do not have all their marbles!

    I am happy with my sweater. Jesus is said to be our covering for sin. Do you have a covering?

    I didn’t really want to anger you, but it probably did.

    Sorry, I will try to control my sense of humor in the future. However, it will take a lot of fun out of it: even for little brain like mine.

    You have a “Merry Christmas” as well…

  77. jp says:

    i agree with your post , the one thing that has always bothered me with our church is that they seem to forget about the holy spirit and his importance which according to the bible might be blasphemous, and blaspheming the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin ,this from jesus’s lips.

    people have a tendency to learn and not be critical of what they are taught, swallowing whatever they are told ,i guess that is why there is only one einstein or galileo or others, whom everybody thought they were crazy but in fact they were right.

  78. astudent says:


    You are correct. The congregation does not do their own homework. They just sit and listen to the man that they pay to teach. They do not know that they have the Holy Spirit to teach them, because the one that is paid must justify his wages. Both are at fault.

  79. Okay, there are too many posts for me to read and I know the identity of Melchisedek. It is without a shadow of a doubt Enoch the first prophet to the nations that is still alive today.

    Astudent you seem to be largely on the right track except for the actual identification of Melchisedek. My basis on that is the passage in Revelation chapter 11 where you mention the 2 witnesses and yes, one of them is Melchisedek. Scriptures pertaining to Melchisedek Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17.ALL THAT I AM GOING TO SAY ARE GOING TO PERTAIN TO THESE SCRIPTURES AND I CANNOT GO THROUGH THEM ALL.

    Now picture this, when Melchisedek appeared on the scene these were the facts. He was a grown man without a traceable lineage. Everyone should have known about Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth but no-one knew about this man. He had no beginning of days and he has never died at the time of writing of Hebrews he was still alive. There are concrete evidence of Melchisedek being a man so let us rule out the supernatural element of him being God or a heavenly being.

    There is only one man in scripture that fits the criteria perfectly. He is the first prophet to the nations as per Jude 1:14 and he was raptured by God in Genesis 5: 24. He will come with the other prophet Elijah and die in Revelation 11: 7 because even Melchisedek needs Jesus because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. This man is called ENOCH!

    He was taken away by God to be a type of Christ and placed in Salem after Noah’s flood as a grown man. According to Zechariah 4:14 and Revelation 11:4, there are 2 anointed ones that stand before the Lord of all the earth. One we know is Elijah because he has not died and the second is Enoch because he is the only other person that has not died. Jesus’ priesthood is higher than Melchisedek’s because Jesus sacrifice is greater because he offered up Himself and died and rose from the dead.

    For the sake of space I am going to say no more except that Melchisedek is in fact Enoch.

  80. astudent says:

    Kevin Dhirajh,

    It is not said that Melchizedek is without traceable linage. Though that is true, the Bible says “without genealogy”. Of course, one could not trace linage of one who as no genealogy, but the Bible is clear that there is no linage to trace (without father or mother (Heb 7:3)).

    Enoch had a father Genesis 5:18 (NIV) “When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.” Therefore, Enoch could not be Melchizedek.

    Perhaps you should read all of the posts (comments). I did and I answered them all. It is six years of comments, but if it was important for me, then I think it important for you as well.

    There is no concrete evidence of Melchisedek (I am sure you meant Melchizedek) being a man. Quite the opposite. All men had a father. Adam was the son of God and Jesus was the only begotten son of God. Only God had no father.

  81. Hi, I appreciate your comments as it tests the claim and the test demands an answer. If it cannot be answered then there is a problem.

    Melchisedek did have a lineage but it was not counted, Hebrews 7:6 “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”

    The evidence here is that he had a lineage but it was not counted, so since he has a lineage he was a man. Further to the above, the scriptures categorically states that he was in fact a man, see Hebrews 7:4 “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.”
    Melchisedek was made a type of Christ as the Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament truths. In Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

    Here is a bit of revelatory depth, how would you interpret the following parenthetical passage?
    Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

  82. astudent says:

    Kevin Dhirajh,

    In commenting with many other children of God, I have found that we cannot teach each other. God has given us the Holy Spirit to teach us all things (1 John 2:27) and the Spirit would have to be the perfect teacher. Therefore, as the verse says, “you do not need anyone to teach you”(NIV-that is my first choice of translations).

    Having said that I have posted what seems right to me, and you will find that I defend it. That is not to say that I am locked, by pride, into what I have posted.

    I see that you have spent time exploring Scripture and have developed an idea of who you believe Melchizedek is. I have found that not only we need no one to teach us, God will not allow anyone to teach us: He reserves that privilege for Himself.

    As we trade comments let us both know and remember this. I am not going to change your mind and you are probably not going to change mine. I will say that if you do, it would be a real blessing to me, as I would learn more and that is why I am here.

    One more thing. I see that you use the KJV, which is written in a dialect that I do not speak and though I test verses against the NIV with the KJV (and Strong’s), it slows me down. For me, understanding Scripture is hard enough when it is written in my dialect, without adding another obstacle in the path. I am not suggesting that you change; I am only explaining why I use the NIV.

    That concludes my disclaimer, which after commenting with many people, I have found necessary.

    I find it impossible to say that Melchizedek has a lineage. That seems to be the dividing point of our understanding.

    I look at Hebrews 7:2 and I see the Holy Spirit. He is the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace”. He has taught me the only rule that we as Christians should obey, when we interact with other human beings. Do to others as you would have them do to you and that rule, if followed, would bring world peace.

    Hebrews 7:3 states Melchizedek was “without father or mother” and, as I said previously, rules out any man, as all natural men have to have had a father.

    Then it says “without genealogy” which is the same as without father or mother. Usually, when God says something two times it is for emphases.

    And then He says “without beginning of days or end of life”. All men have a day that they begin, so Melchizedek could not be a man.

    Hebrews 7:6 only says Melchizedek was not of the linage of Levi and if he had no linage (7:3), then he also was not of the line of Levi, by default.

    Using the KJV Hebrews 7:4 does use the word “man”, but the NIV uses the word “he” and if you check Strong’s for the word used, it is “houtos” and “he” seems the better meaning than “this man” to me, but then I am not trying to make it mean “man”.

    Strong’s 3778. houtos, hoo’-tos; includ. nom. masc. plur. houtoi, hoo’-toy; nom. fem. sing., haute, how’-tay; and nom. fem. plur., hautai, how’-tahee; from the art. G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with art. repeated):–he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

    All you have to do to convince me that Enoch is the Holy Spirit is to reconcile Hebrews 7:3 with Genesis 5:18&19. That is to say, how can one with a genealogy be one without a genealogy? And how can a man have a father and not have a father? And how can a man that was born on a day, be a man that had a beginning of days and be a man that had no beginning of days? That could only mean the one spoken of as Melchizedek was born before the beginning of days.

    There is one that is said was born before the world began (Proverbs 8:22-31). This one who was born (8:24&25) is called wisdom here, but his given name is Melchizedek.

    Here is a bit of revelatory depth for you. If you want to understand something, you must stick to the subject. The subject, in this case, is Melchizedek, not Hebrews 5:7.

  83. Good Morning Astudent, please understand that I am not trying to change your mind or anyone’s but stating my theory due to many years of study and welcoming any criticism of my point of view as it will make me a better theologian.

    The reason I use the KJV is that this is the version that my understanding had opened up on. I remember reading the entire New Testament first and then started with the Old Testament (7 chapters a day) and then it was one day I remember opening up my Bible and as I started reading Numbers I looked up and said to myself, “ I can understand what I am reading!” my understanding opened up that particular day.

    What I feel is necessary is that you need to find holes in my theory and I in yours so what is left behind is the authentic truth and it makes both of us approved of God 2 Timothy 2:15.

    My pastor believes Melchisedek to be Shem and lately without any prodding he asked me to give him my study on why Melchisedek is Enoch because he was speaking to someone who was taught that Jesus Christ is Melchisedek and he (Pastor’s friend) cannot reconcile that idea. So what we have is that some people advocate that God the Father is Melchisedek, some God the Son, some God the Holy Spirit, some Shem, some an Angelic being and as far as I know, I am the only one that is advocating Melchisedek as Enoch.

    I feel it necessary to explain why I state that Melchisedek had a lineage, I believe he was a man because the priesthood had to have human ancestry or else they were considered polluted and rejected Nehemiah 7:64.

    The Melchisedek priesthood was a type, a shadow and not the actual priesthood that could provide salvation or what need would there be for another priest to arise after the order of Melchisedek if the priesthood was not flawed? And that flaw is that even Melchisedek needs a Saviour.

    Theophany was never sustained, it was only for a period and then the messenger had to return.

    How could the Holy Spirit take on a physical body? Was there another virgin birth? Could he just appear out of nothing and if that would be the case then it would make him divine and not natural and therefore disqualify him from the priesthood because he had to identify with our weaknesses, Hebrews 4:15.

    We as Christian will have a problem when it comes to advocating that that the Holy Spirit is Melchisedek. As much as I understand Deuteronomy 29:29 why would the writer not mention the identity of Melchisedek and say that we have much to say about this person but hard to be uttered seeing as they were dull of hearing – Hebrews 5:11. Why would he not testify of the Holy Spirit if Melchisedek was the Holy Spirit but the writer must have been advocating a man and to reveal his identity would have opened up a whole new theological debate to which he was not willing to delve at that point in time?

    Let us look at Revelation 11 concerning the 2 witnesses. When they appear on the earth in the latter days, will the people know who they are? To the man on the street they are unknown. They don’t have a trace, a lineage, they are without mother or father, without beginning of days but they will have an end of life as stated in the passage. We definitely know one of them will be Elijah but will the people on the earth know that, at that time? They will be an enigma because, and if you will have it, the church will be raptured at this time and there will be no one to explain their identity.

    Enoch cannot be the Holy Spirit and I cannot convince you of that because it is not true. Genesis 5:18-19 speaks about a lineage of Enoch. The reason is why he is without a genealogy is because he was made a “type of Christ”.

    The Holy Spirit was never born (see Micah 5:2 concerning Jesus and Hebrews 9:14 concerning the Holy Spirit). In one of your earlier posts you mentioned that the Holy Spirit is going to come back as one of the 2 witnesses of Revelation 11 “Once you understand that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit, spoken of all through the Bible, you can see that he is one of the two witnesses reveled in Revelation. Well, that is better left to another post”(Astudent, 2008)

    1. So if the events are still to happen in the future does this mean that the Holy Spirit is in flesh form?
    2. Does it mean that the powers of darkness are greater than the Holy Spirit as they can overcome Him and kill Him? What then happens with “….nor end of life?”
    3. Would this then strengthen his priesthood as he is then raised up bodily by the Spirit of life from God and we have concurrently 2 high priests Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
    4. Does the spirit of life from God raise up the Holy Spirit in bodily form where he stands up and great fear befalls them sees him and Elijah who were killed but now alive once more?
    5. Are the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of life from God, different beings? If so does this add to the Trinity?
    6. Your scripture you give in proverbs runs a parallel with Psalms 90:2 speaking of the eternity of God. On what basis does this then refer to Melchisedek and can your assertion be proved?
    7. After the fall of man, why was Gen 3:15 then activated, why could not the existing priest “Melchisedek” take his rightful place as Priest immediately and in one act save all of humanity right at the beginning.
    8. What will happen with the human body (according to your earlier posts) that the Holy Spirit now possesses? He cannot die in Revelation 11:7 or else that will make Enoch the only man never to have tasted death and as per Hebrews 9:27 all men must die. Does this mean that the prophet Enoch (Jude 1:14) does not need Christ.
    9. That there are 2 human beings in heaven standing before the God of the whole earth at this present moment see Zechariah 4:12-14 and Revelation 11:14.
    10. If both these anointed ones were standing before the Lord of the whole earth at the time of Zechariah to son of Berechiah and are the same at the men in Revelation 11 when the Apostle John saw them there, how then is the comforter come John 16:7.
    11. If you could clarify as to whether proverbs 8:22 – 31speaks of someone being born, does this then mean he has a father. Would this then not rob the Holy Spirit of his deity as part of the Godhead as he existed after the Father?

    Jesus’s priesthood was superior to that of Melchisedek because Jesus operated under the ministration of death and overcame that which no other creature could accomplish. Jesus had died and became the author of eternal salvation yet the writer states that Melchisedek is still alive. If that is the case then he cannot be on par with Christ because he has not died.

    On your last point I truly did not believe that you would have gotten this hence I did not come outright and interpret it but Hebrews 5:7 is pivotal concerning Melchisedek’s identity, hence I thought I was speaking about the subject but I did not want to explicitly state this as it was given to me by revelation and it would be unfair for me to give something that was not revealed to me by my own intellect.

  84. astudent says:

    Kevin Dhirajh,

    I to started with the KJV and I felt as though God were speaking to me through it. I did not know of other translations, but I would hear the NIV read on the radio and it seemed so much clearer to me that I bought one and have used it ever since. It shows my age, when I say that I heard the Bible read on the radio. No danger of that now as preachers feel that they must tell us what God says. Something like the programs after a political speech, when they tell us what the politician said, as if we could not hear.

    I have read the Bible over and over, just as anyone that has found, or perhaps developed, a love of God’s word. However, I never read it as one usually reads a book. I mean, never cover to cover. I have always read it searching for answers. I suppose one could say I follow thoughts, not routine.

    At some point, I realized that God wrote it so I could understand and I ask Him to teach me everything, as I wanted to know everything. He is in the process and I would already know everything, if I were a better student.

    I comment for the same reason that you do. I do not know everything, but I have the perfect teacher, so all I need are the questions and I get many from those that comment.

    When I hear ‘God the son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’ I am tempted to stray from the subject, which is Melchizedek. I will only say this. The trinity is a term that is not in the Bible. It was made up in a poor attempt to explain or reconcile verses that were not understood.

    By the way, I am wondering why you spell Melchizedek with an “s” instead of a “z”. Am I missing something? Ha, ha, well of course I am, but I mean about the spelling.

    By the way, by the way, I am so bad at spelling that if this writing program did not have a spell checker I would not have even noticed a difference.

    The verse you cited in Nehemiah 7 is about the linage of Levi, which is the earthly priesthood. Melchizedek was not of the linage of Levi. Levi had not yet been born when Melchizedek met with Abram and yet he was priest of God Most High. So, if one has to be of the linage of Levi, then Melchizedek could not have been a priest and yet he was/is.
    There are two priesthoods. The priesthood of God Most High (Genesis 14:18) and the Mosaic priesthood.

    I would disagree with the statement that Melchizedek needs a Savior. If I am right then God has two sons. One born only of the spirit, before anything else was made and his name is Melchizedek and He is the High Priest of the Law. Then there is Jesus, born of man and God, and he is the High Priest of Mercy. Both have no sin and therefore neither must have a Savior. I see these as the two witnesses spoken of in the Bible.

    I do not think Melchizedek took on a physical body. We are made in the image of God, so it stands to reason that Melchizedek was also and therefore, I believe he looks like a man.

    What verse in Revelation 11 says the two witnesses do not have a trace, a lineage, or are without mother or father, without beginning of days? Why do you think this? Why do you think one of them will be Elijah? I can say that we definitely do not know one of them will be Elijah, because I do not believe this, so “we” do not.

    If Enoch were ‘made a type of Christ’ then Enoch would have a linage, as Jesus has a linage. Jesus is the son of Mary and if you understand, also the son of David, and the son of God. He usually referred to himself as the son of man and men have a linage.

    Micah says, “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” and that refers to God. God was the origin of Jesus.

    Hebrews 9:14 states Jesus offered himself “through the eternal Spirit”; it does not say Jesus is the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that there would be no reason to make such a statement, if Jesus were the Spirit. It would be saying that he offered himself through himself.

    Think about Revelation 11. The two witnesses were overpowered by Satan. The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus when he was baptized, so both died. That is to say died spiritually, which is separation from God. The whole world celebrates Christmas and they send each other gifts (11:10). “Men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial” and they do. One must be buried with both Jesus and the Holy Spirit for them to have a proper burial and even some who claim Jesus as Savior refuse to be buried with Christ in baptism.

    The Spirit is not going to come back at some time in the future. He has already come and he lives in both of us (Acts 2:4, 2:38, 4:31, 5:32, 8:17, 10:44, 15:8, 1 Cor 6:19, and there are more, but that should be enough).

    1. Kind of, as He lives in me right now, He is part of me, so in that regard, yes.
    2. Satan has no power but what God has allowed, but for our benefit God allowed it. You say, “What then happens with “….nor end of life?”, but how can you say Jesus died for your sins and then say “What then happens with “….nor end of life?” You see, and you know, that death is not the end of life. You will die someday, but your life will not end. No one’s life will end. Life is the breath of God and not revocable. Either one will spend eternity with God, or without God, but of life, there is no end.
    3. Yes, the High Priest of the law makes the High Priest of Mercy necessary. If there were no law, there would be no need for a Savior.
    4. I cannot answer four, because I do not understand the question.
    5. You ask, “Are the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of life from God, different beings”. My answer would be “no”. It seems to me that the Spirit of life is just another way of saying the Holy Spirit. I all ready spoke about the trinity.
    6. No the two verses do not parallel. Proverbs speaks of one who is born and Psalms speaks of God, who was not born. As I said the verse is about wisdom, but it is another name, or pronoun, for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit, the Spirit of life, and an anointing, so there are many pronouns for the Holy Spirit, just as there are many pronouns for God and Jesus. You question, “can your assertion be proved” tickles me. Truth is, nothing can be proved. Even the existence of God cannot be proved!
    7. Melchizedek is the High Priest of the Law. The Law does not save, the Law condemns, so Melchizedek was doing his job: condemning, not saving.
    8. I do not know what earlier posts that you are referring too. Sometimes posts are confused with comments and that muddies the water even more. I do not believe the Holy Spirit has a body as we do. He was born before anything else was made, so he would be only Spirit, though as I tried to explain, he would look like a man. To understand Enoch, one must first understand death. Death is separation. There are two deaths, physical death, and spiritual death. Physical death is separation from the world and spiritual death is separation from God. Though Enoch did not suffer the same death as we do, he was still separated from the world: just as anyone who dies a physical death, so one can say that both are true: that he did not die and yet he did die, because he was separated from the world. However, Enoch did not suffer the second death, because he pleased our Father.
    9. These verses do not say human beings at all: you have said it. The two are described as olive trees, olive branches, and anointed ones. All human beings, except Jesus, are sinners and not anointed ones. The only two that are anointed are the Holy Spirit and Jesus. I would ask you the same question that Zechariah asked the angel, “Do you not know what these are?” Actually, both witnesses were not standing before Zechariah. They were only representations: symbolized as olive trees. As you pointed out, they could not be there, as Jesus was yet to be born. I do not understand what you meant by Rev 11:14.
    10. Same answer as 9. John was being shown what was to come, so what he was seeing had yet to happen.
    11. Yes, wisdom has a Father. If there is only one God and Scripture says so clearly (Due 4:35, &39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isa 44:8, 45:5&6, 45:18, 45:22, 46:9, and Joel 2:27) then all others must have a Father. If He created everything, then every being, whether Spirit, angel, or man has a Father. I would not compare The Holy Spirit to Jesus, as it is wrong to compare even man to man. Both were assigned tasks and both obeyed. Different tasks, but both necessary.

    Hebrews 5:7 has nothing to do with Melchizedek’s identity. Heb 5:7 (NIV) “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.” He was heard, but he still died. He died the second death as well as the first. If he had died the first death for us, in our place, then we would not face any death, but it was separation from our Father that he allowed himself to be sacrificed for. We still must die the first death, but not the second.

    Don, your intellect has not revealed anything spiritual to you. What you rightly understand has been revealed to you by the Spirit within you. Think about 1 Corinthians 1:19-31 and do not let anyone think that you might boast of your intellect: “revealed to me by my own intellect” really?

  85. astudent says:


    I apologize for calling you Don. My excuse (everyone has one) is that I was thinking more about what I was saying than who I was saying it to.

  86. I firmly believe that the Bible was inspired by The Holy Spirit and everything can be revealed to us. I remember years ago when I was even busy walking about that a scripture that I was not even thinking about would pop into my head with full understanding about it. I have had 2 Occasions when God spoke to me in an unmistakable and clear voice.

    The reason why I spell “Melchisedec” as “Melchisedek” is that I majored in New Testament Studies and just added a “k” at the end of the Greek word to merge it would the Hebrew name. Normally I spell it as Melchisedec as per the New Testament spelling.

    I don’t generally physically delve into scripture when I write, I just write from what comes into my mind as I have a pretty good recollection of Bible verses.

    My intention in quoting Nehemiah is to show that all priests have to share the human nature to qualify to be a priest. You cannot have a high priest (divine or human) without a human body. He has to identify with our feelings and infirmities and also be tempted in all points as we are (Hebrews 5:2). In Genesis 15:17 God himself had to come down to preside at the altar because he could swear by no greater He swore by Himself. If Melchisedec was God, and we know that he was residing in Salem, why then was he not presiding?????

    (Astudent says “If I am right then God has two sons.”) Conjecture not proof and no logical progression so it should not be said Hebrews 1:5.

    Your logic does not make sense – You say Melchisedec did not take on a physical body, yet according to you he must still come and die????? Die with what, a spiritual body?

    You must be the only theologian that I have met that does not believe that Elijah is one of the 2 witnesses. I disagree with your view of the 2 witnesses by virtue of Hebrews 9:27. We know that Elijah was translated and this cannot be disputed (except by you ) (2 Kings 2:1-11), that he will be coming back “before the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Malachi 4:5) also cannot be disputed. He was not John the Baptist as confirmed by John himself (John 1:21). In Matthew 17:11-13 Jesus says that “Elijah shall indeed come first’ speaking in the future tense and then goes on to say that Elijah has already come and the disciples understood this to mean John the Baptist. What does Jesus mean here? In Luke 1:17 the angel tells that John will move in the spirit and power of Elijah. What Jesus was basically telling the people that John has fulfilled the forerunner function of the first coming and that Elijah will function as the second forerunner before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. If that is not sufficient and I am scared to mention this to you as I feel that you will find some obscure or more than likely symbolic way to contradict my next statement, In Malachi 3:1 there is a “messenger” spoken of as coming before the Messiah and in Malachi 4:5 Elijah is spoken of as coming prior to Messiah. I have no time to prove one is John the Baptist and the other Elijah. Oh and unlike you, I can logically prove it.

    What do the scriptures say of Enoch. That he was translated that he should not see death is mentioned in Hebrews 11:5. How can we then explain Hebrews 9:27? Please do not spiritualize the context and contradict the writer of Hebrews in your response. Enoch was also a prophet Jude 1:14-15.

    Astudent, according to the Bible there are 2 men that have not tasted death, Elijah and Enoch and if you contradict this then you disqualify your credibility.

    That there are 2 anointed one that stand before the Lord of all the earth and they are human beings who possess human bodies and physically die in Revelation11 – fact.

    I don’t think your reading of Micah is correct, I want to highlight the eternity of the Son.
    Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he (Jesus) come forth unto me(God the Father) that is to be ruler in Israel; whose(Jesus) goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting(Jesus had no beginning).

    My point of Hebrews 9:14 was to highlight the eternity of the Spirit and not to infer that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. How you read into that that is based on your preconceived ideology. The point here is that the Holy Spirit is eternal and in Micah 5:2 Jesus is also eternal.

    In your response to Revelation 11 you are making Revelation 11 symbolic when it is clear from the plain language that it is not symbolic but literal. You have got to take the Bible literal unless the language is clearly symbolic and it is impossible to have a literal meaning. It was only on the cross when Jesus was separated from the Father and He cried out, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me” Mark 15:34. See also John 14:9 when Jesus says that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father. Please do not contort scriptures to suit your own beliefs.

    How you see Christmas in Revelation 11 further astounds me because it talks about celebration of seeing these 2 “terrorists” have been killed and even further to this the Church will already have been raptured before this time (And I am certain you will have something to say about this as well, just to muddy the waters and confuse the readers, sigh!)

    ( Astudent says “The Spirit is not going to come back at some time in the future. He has already come and he lives in both of us (Acts 2:4, 2:38, 4:31, 5:32, 8:17, 10:44, 15:8, 1 Cor 6:19, and there are more, but that should be enough).”)
    You then agree that the Holy Spirit has already come, that is what I wanted to know. I did not want to know if the Holy Spirit is in your body, I wanted to know if he was in flesh form as was Melchisedec. What has happened with the body? Oh yes he did not have a body, oh no! he dies in Revelation in a physical body that then gets raised after 3 days.

    On point 2 you are evading the question and not making sense or you do not understand what I am saying. What does “nor end of life” mean to you because what you are saying does not line up with scripture. What you are saying is that “death is not the end of life” but the we are trying to ascertain the meaning thereof in Hebrews 7:3. If you cannot explain this point then just say so.

    Concerning your response to Question 3, In Genesis 3:15 there was no law given, yet there was provision made for a Saviour. We needed a Saviour back in Genesis 3 but you declare that we only need a Saviour when the Law of Moses was enacted. Word to the wise, Abraham was not under the Law of Moses as Moses was not yet born when Abraham met Melchizedek. “What further need was there that another prophet should arise after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron “Hebrews 7:11 indicates that the Aaronic priesthood was the priesthood of condemnation.

    Question 4 is basically asking you, how can the Holy Spirit die and then be raised to life again by the Holy Spirit Himself. Is it the Holy Spirit that is raising the Holy Spirit? The scripture is plain, it is a human body that is killed, actually 2 human bodies and there are 2 bodies that are raised from the dead. How much more clearer must scripture be made for you?

    Concerning question 6 – if nothing can be proved then what are we doing here? If you cannot prove anything then don’t say anything at all. Your assertion that the Holy Spirit is Melchizedek is leading people down a slippery slope. It does not harmonize with scripture and it cannot be proved.

    Question 7 – Melchisedec cannot be the high priest of the law because the Aaronic priesthood is the priesthood of the law.

    Concerning your response to question 8,If we had to believe what you are saying it then leads to at least 2 contradictions of scripture, firstly it makes God a respecter of persons and the bible states that He is not (Romans 2:11) and secondly Hebrews 9:27 does not apply to all men.

    {Astudent says“9. These verses do not say human beings at all: you have said it. The two are described as olive trees, olive branches, and anointed ones. All human beings, except Jesus, are sinners and not anointed ones. The only two that are anointed are the Holy Spirit and Jesus. I would ask you the same question that Zechariah asked the angel, “Do you not know what these are?” Actually, both witnesses were not standing before Zechariah. They were only representations: symbolized as olive trees. As you pointed out, they could not be there, as Jesus was yet to be born. I do not understand what you meant by Rev 11:14.”}

    Please note, it was not Zechariah that asked the Angel the question, but the Angel asked the question to Zechariah, yet another mistake Astudent .

    The verses do not say that they are not human beings nor does it say that they are spiritual beings you are saying that they are not human. The reason why I say they are human beings is because they are. Let’s prove it without conjecture or spiritualization, but by strict facts and hear me closely FACTS!

    Firstly they are given power by Jesus and that they are His future witnesses. Means that they do not have this power but are given power.

    Secondly they shall prophecy so they are prophets like Enoch and Elijah and all the other prophets. These prophets will prophecy in the last three and a half years of Daniel’s 70 weeks, in both Daniel and Revelation. Their purpose is to preach Christ.

    Thirdly they are clothed in sackcloth as a sign of mourning because of the impending judgment.

    Fourthly they can be hurt and killed

    fifthly as per Jeremiah 5:14“ for their words are like fire.”

    Sixthly they can kill,

    Seventhly, they can cause drought in the days of their prophecy see Luke 4:25,

    Eighthly, they have to have a mission, a testimony and only when it is completed will they be killed, this means that they have been anointed for a specific purpose and must die to fulfill Hebrews 9:27.

    Concerning anointed ones have you not read?
    Psalms 105:13-15 When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people;
    Psalms 105:14 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;
    Psalms 105:15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
    They anointed in the above verses is the nation of Israel!

    I agree with you view on question 10.

    It is nice to see that you have a little bit of a logical progression in Question 11, if only you could apply it everywhere else.

    If you cannot see the parenthetical aspect of Hebrews 5:7 then I will not confuse you with revelation thereof.

    Your argument about intellect makes no sense apart from just throwing scriptures to make a point that does not make sense – have you read 1 Corinthians 1 yourself very slowly?

    We are both at opposite ends of the spectrum here and you dare to lay the blame for opposing views at the feet of God the Holy Spirit, really?

    Heb 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
    Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
    Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
    Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
    Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

    As seen in the above verses, I guess the writer of Hebrews has the same issues that we have today on the topic of Melchisedec, at worst both of us and at best one of us is unskillful in the word and as such we should refrain from continuing this interaction concerning this topic.

    God Bless.

  87. astudent says:

    Kevin Dhirajh,

    I write these posts for the comments. I have God’s textbook and I have the perfect teacher in the Holy Spirit, so all I need are the questions.

    The questions are not always asked as such. What someone says is sometimes a question, without it being said as a question. Your claim that you heard God speak to you is such a question: at least it is to me.

    God has never spoken directly to me. I wonder why He would do so. As I said, I have His textbook, and the teacher. Everything that God has to say to man is in His Word. He says the same things to all men. He does not say anything to one that He does not say to all. Why would He say something to me, audibly, that He has already said in His Word and if He said something that was not in His Word, would it be Him speaking?

    It seems to add weight to the words of a man that says God speaks to him and I suppose that is why you included the experience. But just so we understand each other. I do not understand why you said it.

    We differ in the method in which we write. I try to always test what I write with Scripture. I find that Scripture does not always agree with me, so when that happens I change, either what I understand and therefore say, or how I say it. I do not lean on my own understanding.

    I did not say Melchizedek was God. I said he is the first son of God, born before anything else was made (Proverbs 8:22-31). Scripture does say God swore Himself. Even the High Priest stands aside when God speaks for Himself. By the way, why would God have to swear? When did He ever say anything that has not or will not come true?

    You said, “(Astudent says “If I am right then God has two sons.”) Conjecture not proof and no logical progression so it should not be said Hebrews 1:5.” This is a typical response that I get from one who considers himself a teacher. Basically you are saying, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE AS I DO, THEN SUTUP. How could anyone learn with that attitude.

    You say to me, “Your logic does not make sense – You say Melchisedec did not take on a physical body, yet according to you he must still come and die????? Die with what, a spiritual body?” And I say, You do not even understand what death is!

    Death is separation. The first death (physical death) is separation from the world and everything in it. The second death (spiritual death) is separation from God. That is the death the son of God experienced in our place. If he had died the first death for us, then we would not have to die at all, but all humans must experience the first death. The answer to your question is “yes”.

    We are not going to be able to study the way we are commenting. You are not considering anything that I say. You go so far as to call me a theologian! I am “A Student”. If you understood anything that I have said, you would know this!

    That in no way makes me wrong. You say, “You must be the only theologian that I have met that does not believe that Elijah is one of the 2 witnesses.” as if I must be wrong, because everyone else believes differently!

    All of the Pharisees believed differently than Jesus, as did all of the Sadducees and teachers of the law. Having a different view than the masses is not necessarily a bad thing.

    I feel that I must change the way questions are asked on this blog. From now on anyone must ask only one question at a time. Perhaps that will help us study instead of each of us trying to tell the other that they are wrong, or perhaps “unskillful in the word” . I am not sure this will work, but it is my blog and I can make the rules.

    You certainly are welcome to ask one question and I will do my best to answer you. I hope you ask a question that I have not considered, as that will lead to a better understanding for me. However, if you leave in a huff, then you did not come to study with me. You came to teach me, but I already have “the teacher”.

  88. ese okposio says:

    Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit. If we study Psalm 110: 1, it is clear that God the Father said to God the Holy Spirit ” sit at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool”.
    Psalm 110:4- God the Father had sworn and will not repent, Thou(Jesus) art a priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek.
    Psalm 110:5-6-The Lord at the right Hand is Melchizedek and also God the Holy Spirit and a Judge. He had to be spoken about because the priesthood of Jesus had to be compared with one that was divine.
    If we study Hebrews 1: 1-3 – a discussion of a Son….. who made the worlds… and sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The Son who created the worlds and sits at right hand of the majesty on high is the Holy Spirit. A study of the of the whole Hebrew chapter 1, calls this Son, Lord and God. He Helped God to create! He is Melchizedek.
    Hebrews 7: 1- 4, Confirms that Melchizedek as a Son of God

    We may also study Proverbs 8:22 -36 and Psalm 2 to know the Workings or Acts of the Holy Spirit.

  89. astudent says:

    ese okposio,

    Yes, you are correct.

    Melchizedek is the given name of the Holy Spirit.

    Everyone is given a name by the one who came before. Only God has no given name, because there was no one before Him to give Him a name.

    I have more to say about this, but it will have to wait.

  90. Jerome E. Goodwin Sr. says:

    You once said you believe Gods wants us all saved, well Romans 5:8-11 proves that idea.
    BTW God does have a name he told us “I am that I am” In other words ” I exist because I exist.”

  91. Jerome E. Goodwin Sr. says:

    The Bible tells us we will be Kings and Priests. How could that be unless Melchizedek was also the Holy Spirit which we received.?

  92. Jestina says:

    Hebrews 7

    3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

    Melchizedek is without Father. (Jesus Christ Calls God his father) Christ is the seed of The Holy Spirit . (when Mary met the Angel Gabriel he was told. The holy spirit will come upon her)
    Genesis 1

    2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    The Spirit of God move upon the face of the waters (this was before the beginning) Melchizedek is without descent without beginning.

    Made like the unto the son of God. (the Son of God is messenger who brings peace to the world. The holy Spirit is the Spirit of peace .

    Abidieth as a Priest forever . ( a priest is an advocate between God and man.) the Holy Spirit is said to be our advocate

  93. KeannaMC says:

    I don’t think your wrong, I agree with your interpretations of the scriptures mentioned. I also believed that Melchizedek speaking to Abraham was the holy spirit that was the Theophany of Christ before Jesus was born as a man on Earth. Good post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: