SEX IN THE BIBLE (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)

Darned if soapyjames didn’t challenge me again!

Well, I guess I took it as a challenge when he asked me if I had written anything on homosexuality.

I see far too much hate for those who wrestle with homosexuality. If one has no gay desires it is easy to think of oneself as a bit more pure than someone that does and it leads to an easy judgment. The Bible says that we should not judge, as to pass sentence, but we “must” judge right and wrong. The word “judge” can have either meaning. That might seem a bit confusing until you apply it to a court proceeding: we are not the judge that passes sentence, but the jury that determines guilt. Too many Christians have tried to pass sentence on someone else’s errors, instead of just determining the error.

Anyway, soapyjames question prompted me to think about sex. You see the basic root of the problem for gay people is sex. Too many times when someone learns something about a subject, they take that information and “go forward” (I hate that phrase. If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, then forward is not the way that you want to go). When I see something new I have made it a habit to turn around with my thoughts and try to thread my way back to the root of the idea to see if it fits the entire Bible.

The Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle in that all of the pieces must fit all of the other pieces. I have a different understanding of sex than anyone that I have ever heard so brace your self, because I am going to “lay it on you”.

If one could be perfect then ALL SEX IS A SIN.

Well, I told you, it was different, didn’t I? So, let me try to explain what I said.

God says that having sex with someone is becoming one with that person: even with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:16 NIV) Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

God wants to raise us up with Christ. We become one with him only. Becoming one with anyone, or anything else, is wrong.

(Eph 2:13-16 NIV) But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has MADE THE TWO ONE and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself ONE NEW MAN OUT OF THE TWO, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

If God had made us perfect then we would not have any desire to become one with anyone except Jesus Christ. We would be one of the one hundred forty four thousand that follow Jesus. (Rev 14:4 NIV) “These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.”

I believe God made the 144,000 different than the rest of us. Not only will they keep themselves from sex, but they will not have any desire for anyone but Jesus. If you even think about having sex with someone it is wrong. (Mat 5:28 NIV) “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Though I can control my actions, I cannot control my thoughts about sex, so the 144,000 are not like me.

Any Israelite woman that had a son or daughter was to bring a sin offering to the priest and that sin offering was for her, not the baby. Having a baby was proof that she had sex, or become one with someone other than Jesus and even if it was with her husband, she needed a sin offering. Yes, I know that someone that lived before Jesus died, could not have become one with him, but that does not change anything. You have to keep in mind that I said perfect as you read what I am saying about sex.

Notice that “anyone” that had sex in the Old testament (under law) was considered unclean. (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.” The stipulation of “emission of semen” separated sleeping with a woman and having sex with her.

If you understand that all sex is sin, then you can understand that everyone, except Jesus, was born in sin, or of an unclean act.

So, basically what I am saying is, ‘If you are concentrating on someone else’s sin, such as homosexuality, you would be better off looking at your own sin.

It is one thing to have homosexual desires and another to practice and attempt to justify those desires. Those who practice homosexuality, practice sin, just as those who consider themselves more pure and yet look at women lustfully and sleep with them. Gay people can not justify homosexual sex “because God made me this way” any more than straight people can justify lust “because God made me this way”. Truth is how could we avoid lust in our minds, if we watch movies and TV, whether or not we are homosexual, or straight?

29 Responses to SEX IN THE BIBLE (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)

  1. lolahbf says:

    I always wondered why God said things like having sex made someone unclean in the Bible. I still haven’t figured out how having a period also made a woman unclean before the coming of Christ.

    But anyways I agree with you with the whole movies and TV thing and how easy they make us fall into lust. Even watching an episode of CSI these days is enough to make someone fall into sin. It’s very annoying!

  2. Ben_Metatron says:

    What you are stating is absolutely false. Sex is not a sin. If you notice before Adam and Eve Fell the Elohim commanded them: 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 So as we see before the fall their was no sin and the Elohim Commanded them to have sex. Another way we know that Sex is not a sin is this: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Colossians 1:15 So here we see that before creation Yashua was born and as we know that there is nothing which can be born of a man it has to be born of the Holy Spirit (Ruah) which when Yashua spoke he was speaking Hebrew/Aramaic and in Aramaic whenever he spoke of the Holy Spirit he said Ruah and was referring to a female. Yashua is the Only Begotten Son of Yahweh. Meaning Yashua is the only Son whom The Elohim begot. If you study any biblical genealogy. A male begets and to beget is to do so through the process of sex with a female. A male begets. A female gives birth. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26,28 Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.” Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7

  3. SanityCall says:

    FINALLY!! Now I know that I am not too far out of it… maybe… 😉
    I was thinking about this the other day while talking with someone that labeled themselves as “gay”. We talked about sin and what it was. This is the best way to put it into words. THANK YOU SO much!!

  4. SanityCall says:

    Actually, Ben_Metatron, He isn’t speaking falsely at all. Everything in context and with the WHOLE picture.

    After the fall everything was tainted. That is what all of the sacrifices were for. When Christ died for atonement, He took away the curse of the Law. Doesn’t mean that sin isn’t sin and things that made you unclean then are clean now. It just means that we are no longer a slave to it. IF one is able to stay away from sex then that is good, because then that one can devote their entire selves to The Lord. If not, then they are to marry to avoid continual sin.

    It isn’t the actual act of sex but the intent of the heart that can be sin. 1 Cor 13.

  5. soapyjames says:

    astudent

    I am changing my blog due to your posts. For the second time I have written about similar things before reading your posts. You definitely put your thoughts across in a more succinct way than I. If I have anything more to add then I will be sure to comment again. I like this way of looking at sex in the bible.

    Ben_Metatron
    Cheers for sharing and for the defense of your beliefs. (I assume it is your belief.) May I ask how you would form this discussion in a loving, Christ like way, if you were ever to face a gay Christian?

    Also you are missing some of the text from Romans, there is a bit before 1:26 which talks of a people who about a people who didn’t glorify or thank God, and a bit after which talks about not retaining the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
    Not just talking about homosexuals. Also something about the form of Paul’s letters may be worth a look at.
    I look forward to your reply.

    Peace

  6. Ben_Metatron says:

    You cannot take God’s creation and make it your creation. God created males to be males and females to be females and not vice versa. How can we speak with gay christians? My thing is this. No man can serve 2 masters. So are they christians or are they sodomites? We have to stop sugarcoating this and putting the Elohims name on it. How can you be a Christian and a sodomite? You are either one or the other. As we observe sodome and other people whom the Elohim destroyed due to sexual immorality.

  7. soapyjames says:

    Ben_Metatron,

    Nice name by the way.

    I thought that was the direction you were heading. Regardless of the label society demands people put on themselves, I think it is vitally important we continue dialogue with fellow Christian brothers and sisters who identify as a deviant sexuality. One would not have to condone sexual activity in order to hold a conversation yet equally not condemn.

    Would you feel comfortable if all those who professed to be gay, bisexual, transgendered and any other variation were all celibate? Or do your thoughts on this matter go further?

    Also if someone claims to be a Christian, in your scope of belief can they also be homosexual?

    I find this is a very interesting topic. I would like to understand more of your beliefs if you would be so kind to reply..

    Peace

  8. Ben_Metatron says:

    The point is simple. No man can serve 2 masters. Another thing is this the Elohim cannot lie. When her created us he created us male and female for a reason. To go against that and say the Elohim has created me incorrectly is to say that God can lie. Which we know is an impossibilty. 2 Kings 17:41 Even while these people were worshiping the LORD, they were serving their idols. To this day their children and grandchildren continue to do as their fathers did. If you go back and study deep into the heart of homosexuality. It has it’s root in satanism. It is evil and demonic. It destroys the Elohims order. It violates Universal Laws. You cannot be a Christian and a Homosexual. You can be a Homosexual attempting to become a Christian. However one has to be honest about it. I cannot say I am a rocket scientist unless I meet the qualifications of a rocket scientist. I mean I can say I am however no matter how much I proclaim to be, if I fail to do according to the guidlines of a rocket scientist. I see to be one.

  9. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    Thanks for disagreeing with me. I like another point of view, because it causes me to further search Scripture to make sure that I am right. It is even better if I find I have made an error. In this case I have found even more Scripture to support my original view.

    What I said can not possibly be absolutely false. God, Himself 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.” When I said that I only repeated what God said, so though it is possible for me to be partially wrong, I cannot be absolutely wrong. Sex makes both unclean, so how could it be God’s will that we should have sex?

    You are correct when you said before man fell that God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, but that was before man fell. God had a different way for them to multiply before the fall, because (Gen 3:16 NIV) “To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” That was a curse and a change in the way the woman was to give birth. Of course I do not know how what the difference was, but you can see that child birth was changed. God also changed the desire of a woman; probably from Him to man. The only way that we know of childbirth is sex, but one cannot say with certainty that God commanded them to have sex, only to multiply.

    After having slept on that, I see a clue as to how childbirth was to be in the birth of Eve. Perhaps God would have performed the same “operation” on Eve that He did on Adam. Everyone would have been born of God with no input from man and they would have lived forever, never becoming one with anyone but God.

    God did indeed say go forth and multiply and it would have been right and wonderful before the fall of man. However, now most of those who are born are doomed to be driven from the presence of God. That doesn’t make anyone happy, not God, or them, or me.

    I am not advocating everyone stop having sex. We are told to have sex with our mate in First Corinthians chapter seven. However, it is only for temporary relief from our animal desires. It was not a command, but a concession.

    Paul said that it is better not to marry. That does not fit with ‘go forth and multiply’. Most of us have not been blessed as Paul had (very little sexual drive) and we need a relief valve.

    Do you realize that when you apply your definition of “beget” to the birth of Jesus it would nullify the virgin birth?

    Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that you have a great hate of homosexuality. It doesn’t seem logical to me, to hate something or someone that cannot affect you personally.

    I am straight, so I am not even in the least tempted by homosexuality. Why would I hate someone that was committing suicide and cannot turn the gun on me? Shouldn’t I have compassion on that person, set a good example, and when they see my joy and ask me why I am so happy, speak to them the words that the Spirit gives me at that time? If I repeat to them, what God said about those who claim to be Christians, to them, when they make no such claim, then am I not rolling a bolder between them and God?

    1Co 5:12 NIV, What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

    1Co 5:9&10 NIV, I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    Do you know any “Gay” people? If you can control your hate and meet some, you might find them not so bad and you might even want them saved just like you. Just saying

  10. astudent says:

    SanityCall,

    You understand. I could neither add too nor take away from your words.

    Thanks

  11. astudent says:

    lolahbf,

    Sorry about the late response.

    God didn’t say anything different to women. Any bodily discharge made the person unclean: man or woman.

    I think He specified a woman’s period so that, though it is natural and cannot be stopped, it still made the woman temporarily unclean.

    I said in my comment to Ben Metatron that things were supposed to be different and the sins of Eve and Adam changed them. It could be that blood coming from us reminds God of the sin that started all sins and that it led to Jesus having to shed his blood that we might be saved. Don’t really know: just speculating.

  12. Ben_Metatron says:

    Keep in mind that before mans fall God commanded Adam and Eve: ‘And God blessed them (Adam and Eve), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. Nothing was unclean before the fall. So if having sexual intercourse was unclean the Elohim would not have commanded Adam and Eve to do so before the fall. Also keep in mind that there was no shedding of blood before the fall. When blood is shed it takes away and saps the life forces because life is in the blood. When man fell everything became corrupted. His entire being. This of course after the fall a clean thing would become unclean because sin cannot clean sin. Also keep in mind that Yashua was born before anything was created Colossians 1;15 &18. One can only be BORN through a female. The Elohim makes everything Male and Female. And it was created such for a reason. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. It’s not that I believe all homosexual are lost and cannot be saved if they change their ways. However It is still for us to admonish them that it is wrong to be such.

  13. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    This seems so clear to me. Perhaps I am not clear enough with my thoughts.

    God did not tell Adam and Eve to have sex. He told them to “be fruitful and multiply”, but He did not say how. God multiplied the human race by 100% when He made Eve. He changed the way humans were supposed to multiply when He cursed Eve. Eve originally was not supposed to have pain when she gave birth; if she was then it was no curse. Also, Eve was not made to have desire for men, that was also a curse.

    There is no verse that states that we should have sex and the idea that we should does not align with what Paul said, because he said, “it is better not to marry”. If all Scripture does not agree then part of it is not understood.

    Adam was not begot, or BORN through a female, he was formed from dirt. Eve was also not begot, but made by God, from the side of Adam. Neither one was the result of sex and neither one had a mother. Because there were two humans made before the fall in a different way than humans are produced today, then it seems to me that God meant to form humans Himself.

    You raise a great question by citing Colossians 1:15&18. I struggle with those verses. Col 1:15&16 (NIV) “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” However, Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” not an image of God, but God Himself. I am sure there is a way to reconcile these two verses, but God has not given it to me: yet.

    As for Gay people, I believe one can be homosexual and be a Christian. However, one cannot be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian. If a gay person is trying to control himself or herself they are doing what any Christian is supposed to do. We all have our special sins that tempt us. It can be greed, or many sins and no one is perfect, so everyone has trouble with sin. I do agree that we should admonish all people for sin. Admonish means to scold in a mild and good-willed manner.

    Usually, when someone is accused of sin, they go into defense mode and do not listen too agree, only to disagree. It seems to work better if the sin is attacked and not the sinner. I would cite the Westboro cult as an example of the wrong way to interact with gay people. They drive sinners away, instead of attracting them

  14. astudent says:

    I have begun to comment on my own comments! Talk about over enthusiasm! Anyone that thinks that I am nuts can quote me, “Perhaps I am nuts”. Well, anything for a laugh.

    In the comment above, I failed to mention Jesus! He also was created by God, with no input from man (No sex). See how unqualified I am to write about Scripture. If I knew who I was, I would fire me!

  15. soapyjames says:

    astudent

    “If I knew who I was, I would fire me!”

    Nice to see you are taking yourself lightly.

  16. Ben_Metatron says:
    PREFACE “Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Lucifer that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which He had conferred upon His Son. They clearly set forth that Christ was the Son of God, existing with Him before the angels were created; and that He had ever stood at the right hand of God… Lucifer refused to listen. …he flattered himself that he should yet have all the angels on his side, and that he would be equal with God Himself.” The Story of Redemption, pg. 15-16. Ever since the beginning of Lucifer’s indulgence in his own corrupted wisdom in heaven, there has been confusion about and opposition to the truth of the exalted status of the Son of God due to His familial relationship to His Father. The truth of this uniquely special and close relationship between the Father and His only begotten Son which the Father of lights has “clearly set forth” through His angels unmasks the errors which originated from the one who indulged in coveting the Son’s honor and position and in maligning heaven’s Commander before others. The confusion about the Son of God’s relationship to His Father is evident in this world, and even among Seventh-day Adventists as is revealed by the following dialogue taken from the Q & A section of The Signs of the Times, June 2005 issue. “Q. Why is Jesus called God’s Son when He was always with God the Father and the Holy Spirit? – Charlene A. McKee, Medford, Oregon “A. Jesus is called God’s Son primarily because of His birth by the Virgin Mary, who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Thus, He was both a Son of man through Mary and a Son of God through the Holy Spirit. There is also a sense in which He was considered to be God’s Son even before He was born into this world because of the subordinate relationship He held in relation to the Father at that time (Psalms 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; Hebrews 1:5). He became the Son of God in yet another sense following His resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4).” emphasis added. Not only is the questioner apparently uninformed as to why Jesus is the Son of God, but the answer does not “clearly set forth” the matter according to the Biblical revelation. Instead it tends to raise more questions than it attempts to answer. For one, saying “Mary, …was impregnated by the Holy Spirit” suggests that the Holy Spirit is a father. But the Son already had a Father before He came to this world, for He was “the Son of God, … before the angels were created.” The Story of Redemption, pg. 15-16 After reading the foregoing Q & A, the readers of The Signs of the Times may wonder if Jesus actually has two fathers – the Father and the Holy Spirit. Or they may conclude that the Holy Spirit is actually the same Person as the Father – and thus that there are really only two Persons in the Godhead, the Father and Jesus. Or they may even be led to doubt that the Holy Spirit is actually another, separate, Person (which is the fundamental belief of the SDA church). It is written, “God is not the author of confusion.” Therefore, the confusion caused by the answer given in Signs must not come from an inspired understanding of the Bible on this subject, but rather from a wresting of the Scriptures – from a private interpretation. Why Jesus is called God’s Son was also part of the special message brought by E.J. Waggoner at the General Conference meeting in 1888. Waggoner said that the Son of God was born in heaven before His incarnation on earth (as we will see later). The fact that Christ was “begotten” before He came to this world was also a view that was held and promulgated by some of the Adventist pioneers long before 1888. This also will be shown later. As revealed in The Signs Q & A section, the idea of Christ’s birth in heaven prior to coming to be born on earth, as revealed in 1888, has not been generally accepted, nor is it being taught by Adventists today. Neither are the teachings of those pioneers who believed that Christ was begotten before He came to earth. Charlene didn’t seem to be aware of Waggoner’s or the pioneers’ teachings, and The Signs answerer downplayed the idea by saying that “Jesus is called God’s Son primarily because of His birth by the Virgin Mary.” Yet that is not what the angels in heaven “clearly set forth” when Lucifer was apostatizing, for they were setting forth His Sonship long before His birth through Mary, proclaiming that He became the Father’s Son before the creation of the angels. And that is exactly the mission of this Question and Answer presentation – to clearly set forth Christ as having been the Son of God before the angels were created. — o — THOUGHTS FOR REFLECTION: “The disciples did not yet understand Christ’s words concerning His relation to God. Much of His teaching was still dark to them. They had asked many questions that revealed their ignorance of God’s relation to them and to their present and future interests. Christ desired them to have a clearer, more distinct knowledge of God. “These things have I spoken unto you in parables,” He said; “but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in parables, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.” John 16:25, (margin). “When on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples, they understood the truths that Christ had spoken in parables. The teachings that had been mysteries to them were made clear. The understanding that came to them with the outpouring of the Spirit made them ashamed of their fanciful theories. Their suppositions and interpretations were foolishness when compared with the knowledge of heavenly things which they now received. They were led by the Spirit, and light shone into their once darkened understanding.” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, p. 266-267. — o — QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES Question 1: How can I be right when we are talking about the things of God? There is so much beyond what I can comprehend. Answer: Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” John 16:12-13. One of the things which the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to write to those disciples of Christ who were seeking truth was that “… 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 1:19-20. It is also written: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.” Deuteronomy 29:29. From these verses we learn that an examination of “the things that are made” (that which is “manifest in [us]”), made under the guidance of the Spirit of God, will bring into sharp focus a “clearly seen” revelation of God as far as “that which may be known” of the Godhead. Thus “those things which are revealed belong unto us….” Thus we have the answer to the question of how we can be “right” in our speaking of the “things of God.” That is, by humbly seeking to comprehend that which is revealed of God in His creation. In doing this we must heed the counsel, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6. And, “… neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” Deuteronomy 4:2 . The result which comes upon those who would either add to or diminish from the revelation that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” is that “… the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…” Romans 1:18. The Jews in Christ’s day, and even His own disciples were blinded by their own suppositions, interpretations and fanciful theories about the Son’s relation to His Father. Similarly, many of Christ’s disciples today are blinded by their own thoughts in this regards, as is evidenced by The Signs excerpt quoted in the Preface. Yet we may claim the promises today that we shall be led “into all truth” concerning Christ’s relationship to His Father (Matthew 16:13-17) – that we shall understand clearly what now are mysteries, and that Christ shall “show you plainly of the Father.” This includes why the Father is called “Father.” Question 2: John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” I have been led to understand that though Jesus existed prior to His incarnation, it was only when He came into the world at His incarnation that He became the “only begotten of the Father.” I have read commentators that say that “only begotten” (monogenes – Greek), means “one of a kind, preeminent, unique one,” and not birthed nor created. Also, commentators say that the phrase “first born” used in Hebrews 1:5, 6 is a different Greek word (prototokos), which they say means “preeminent.” They interpret this to mean that Jesus has the rights, privileges, and authority of the first born – that He is the preeminent son, and that thus He was not then, or ever, born or created before he came to this world. How then can it rightly be said that Jesus was literally “begotten” as God’s Son before He created the worlds? Are all those commentators wrong? Answer: It appears that those commentator’s interpretations of the words “monogenes” and “prototokos” are being given more weight than the overall, clear cut testimony of the Scriptures themselves. For those who are aware of the way men have wrested the writings of Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and Christ’s other disciples in regards to other doctrines (such as Christ’s ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc.), such should not be a surprise. Christ, the very Word of God, was subjected to great abuse when He was on earth, so why would we expect that His written word would be free from misuse by self-seeking men and women? Such is the very case at hand. For example, The King James version, the 1881 Revision of the King James version, the American Standard version, the New King James version all use the words “only begotten” in John 1:14, and “only begotten Son” in John 1:18 and John 3:16 & 18. Yet, in a number of modern versions (The Revised Standard version, the New American Standard, and others) the word begotten has been left out, even though it is in the Greek text. The RSV and NASV of John 1:14 read, “only Son,” even though the word “Son” is not in the Greek text. In those same versions, John 1:18 and John 3:16 & 18, all read “only Son,” even though the Greek manuscripts contain the word that is usually translated “begotten” in those verses. 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" (www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon). 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." John 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. The Jews took up stones to kill Jesus because He testified that He was the Son of God in a more exalted sense than they were. The Jews thought of themselves as being of the seed of Abraham, and through that lineage they had their right to the sonship of God. They also saw that they had a spiritual genesis to God through His Spirit, but not in the sense that Jesus was professing to have. But Jesus made it clear that He had a greater inheritance than that, for He was the Seed of the Father, the only begotten of the Father. He was telling them that His genesis (genos – family line) was from a much earlier time, a time before Abraham, a time even before creation, as suggested in the term "I am" (John 8:58). This controversy is at the heart of the dialog in John 8:33-59. The remaining usages of monogenes in reference to the Son of God (John 1:14, 18, 3:18; 1 John 4:9) mean just what they do in reference to Isaac being the only begotten son of Abraham. They mean that the son is of the seed (sperma) of the father; that the son is of the lineage of his father; that the son is after the "kind" and nature of the one who begat him; that the son has inherited the father's characteristics, etc. In the case of the only begotten Son of God, these statements testify to the fact that the divine nature of Jesus had been imparted from the Father to the Son through the act of begetting. It is written: "… He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Heb 1:4 More on this aspect will be given further on in this study. The places where monogenes is used relative to human children other than Isaac are these: "Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only [monogenes] son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her." Luke 7:12. "For he had one only [monogenes] daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him."Luke 8:42. "And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only [monogenes] child." Luke 9:38. There is no indication that those children held a "preeminence" over any one. The implication is clearly that they were the "only" [mono] child of each of the persons. Thus the commentators who try to give the meaning of "preeminence" to monogenes are doing what the devil did – "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John:8:44). Also, Paul shows the parental/offspring sense of gennao when he used the word figuratively, as follows – "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten [gennao] you through the gospel." 1 Cor. 4:15. Paul's usage of gennao in 1 Corinthians 4:15 makes it clear that there is room to speak figuratively in regards to begetting (gennao), that it does not always have to be literal. But its figurative usage does not disqualify the literal meaning as shown by the following verse which is speaking of a literal, physical experience. "A woman when she is in travail [tikto] hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered [genneoe] of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born [egennete] into the world." John 16:21. Now we will look at the way the other word under consideration is used in regards to the Son of God – Prototokos Prototokos is used in Heb. 1:5, 6 and is translated "firstbegotten." In Matt. 1:25 it is translated "firstborn." "And knew her not till she had brought forth (tikto) her firstborn (prototokos) son: and he called his name JESUS." Matt. 1:25. Prototokos is said to be the "alternate" of tikto (5088). Tikto means "to bring forth, bear, produce – of a woman giving birth." It is used of the pregnant and delivering woman in Rev. 12:2, 4, 5 and is used to describe Jesus' earthly birth experience in Matt. 1:25. In Matt. 1:25, it is easily seen that the words are "alternates" as Strong's says. Does prototokos mean preeminent when applied to Christ? The Greek language has another word, proteuo, which is translated "have the preeminence" in Col. 1:18. "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence [proteuo]." Col. 1:18 The King James translators used "firstborn" seven times, and "firstbegotten" twice, for prototokos. Neither in Strong's definition, nor in the KJV translation is found the thought of preeminence. However, the thought of being born or begotten is definitely conveyed. Both the Old and the New Testaments have separate words for preeminence – mowthar and proteuo respectively. They also contain words that mean "firstborn" or "firstbegotten" – bekowr and prototokos respectively. Bekowr never carries the meaning of preeminence. Neither does prototokos. Bekowr is translated mostly as firstborn, but also as "firstling," "eldest," or "eldest son." The problem with bringing in the meaning of "preeminence" to prototokos is that it is adding interpretation to the word that simply is not there. What does it mean that Jesus is the "prototokos from the dead" (Col. 1:18)? Is the word being used figuratively, or literally? In light of the fact that others, such as Moses, were resurrected before Jesus was, it is evident that prototokos is being used figuratively. That is, the promise of His resurrection is the basis for all resurrections. That figurative usage does not in the least take away from prototokos its true meaning of "first-born or first-begotten," and change it to "preeminence." Therefore, when it is written, "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten [prototokos] into the world…" the verse does not carry the thought of Jesus' preeminence, but rather of Jesus being the first begotten, the first born. And since He was not the first begotten "in" the world, but, rather, He was brought into the world as the firstbegotten, then the verse suggests that He was begotten before any others were begotten – before creation. Likewise, in Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [prototokos] of every creature" carries the thought of Jesus having been the very first "born" of every creature that was later born, each after his own kind – Jesus after the divine, the others after their lower orders. The Controversy Over Words The controversy over these two words seems clear. When monogenes is used in reference to humans it is understood to mean only begotten by procreation, or only procreated. When used in reference to the only begotten Son of God the meaning of the word is modified by many commentators and translators so that Jesus becomes unique and one of a kind – no longer the only begotten Son. When prototokos is used in reference to humans it indicates the first born child. Yet when used in reference to Jesus, it is given a twist – that He is preeminent and not born. The next logical question is, has Inspiration given us a reason to change the basic meaning of monogenes and prototokos when applied to God, as opposed to humans? Or has the father of lies had a hand in obfuscating the truth through confusing the basic meanings of words? One of Lucifer's objects of hatred and jealousy is the Son of God because of the exalted state He has "by inheritance." The unwarranted changes given to the meanings of the words, monogenes and prototokos, when used in relation to Jesus, fit in nicely with certain novel theological ideas by which Christianity has been heavily influenced. One of these influences is what has become known as "monotheism," or the belief in "one" God. Monotheism has different meanings to different people. Some understand it to mean that the Creators of heaven and earth are "one" – regardless of the fact that They are actually multiple Persons. Others take it to mean the multiplicity of the Person spoken of in the Bible (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), are just an expression of "one" Being – God. Yet others take it to mean that God is only "one" Being, with no offspring nor equals. If God is only one Being, then gender and reproduction play no role, for gender and reproduction suggest the existence of more than one being of like nature, procreation, blood lines, children, and bringing forth seed after its kind. Casting the meanings of prototokos and monogenes in a celibatory light works for those who want to interpret the word "monotheistic" to mean "one" Being. This includes many Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. For example, Muslims and other believers in the Qur'an are taught about their god, Allah, that "He begets not, nor was He begotten." Sura 112 – Qur'an Allah is the perfect preeminent, unique, one of a kind god. He is certainly not monogenes (only begotten) nor prototokos (firstborn) in the unadulterated meanings of those words. Though if the meaning of those words were altered to that which has been proposed by many Christians today, then Allah would have no problem being described as monogenes and prototokos. For he would then be unique and preeminent. A translation and commentary of Sura 112 reads: "112:2 Allah is the One Who is the Absolute, the Independent, the Self-sufficient, Ever Dependable, the One who is always there [to help]; the Eternal Besought of all, upon Whom all depend but Who depends upon nothing. "112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten [Neither did He give birth to any one, nor is He Himself a product of the process of procreation. He has no children (2:116, 6:101, 16:57, 19:35, 112:3), no parents (112:3) and not any wife (6:101). He is the One, Unique, Single (112:1). He has brought into existence every living being through the process of creation (6:101), not by procreation from Him] "112:4 There is none who is or can ever be His equal, His like or comparable unto Him." The true God of the Bible and of Creation – the One who is united (one) – is a family centered God – a God of love and giving, a God of holy sexual relations, procreation and bringing up of children. God is love and love shares and pours itself out for others. Satan is self centered and without love, and seeks to end life, not produce it, or reproduce it. The Jews also use "monotheism" to describe their religious belief regarding God. Though the Biblical word for the Creators of heaven and earth, Elohim, is plural, they insist that there is only one Being. They base this on the statement, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deu. 6:4). When elohim is used for foreign gods, they, and the English translators, think of it as plural – meaning a multiplicity of "gods." Yet when Elohim is applied to YHWH they, and the English translators, use the singular, "God." This, in spite of the fact that Moses was simply telling the Israelites that the Gods were "one" (united), which was contrary to all of the peoples around them, for their idea was that the gods [elohim] were in opposition to each other. The leaders of Judaism use the term "plurality of majesty" to explain away the plurality of the word Elohim. By this they mean that the singular ("one") God has many discernably different attributes. While both the Jews and Muslims have respect for many of the teachings of Jesus, they both say that He was wrong when He claimed to be the literally "begotten" Son of God. Other ideas which have greatly influenced Christianity are the Nicene (325 A.D.) and Athanasian Creeds (4th century). While both creeds admit to a degree that the Son was begotten, and not created, they also bring in the idea that there couldn't be a time when the Son was literally born of God. The Nicene and Athanisian creeds are to some degree or another influencing just about all of Christianity up to the present time and seem to be largely responsible for the general view of the Trinity these days. Question 3: How could there ever have been a time when Jesus was begotten and born if "there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the Eternal God?" (Evangelism, p.615). Answer: First, though the words "eternal God" appear in the holy Scriptures, the words "eternal Father" do not. This fact is most significant in understanding the truth of the matter. Therefore, we will address this question by keeping in mind that we are not to add to, nor detract from, that which is written for our understanding. We firmly believe that "God is not the author of confusion" 1 Cor. 14:33. And that "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29:29. Also that "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Prov. 25:2. It is written: "… 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." Rom. 1:19-20 Nature speaks "clearly" of her Creator, requiring only a Spirit-guided interpretation in order to understand her mysteries. Every son and daughter of the human race comes forth from their parents, and those parents, also came forth from their parents, and so forth all the way back to the very first two humans. Thus if the words "Father" and "Son" have any absolute meaning, it is only that which is revealed in the creation. And, as God, the Father, has chosen to give us the words "Father" and "Son" to "clearly" depict Himself and Christ, then we dare not add to, nor diminish the meanings of those words in order to make them fit any preconceived opinions we may have. Some will not accept the simple truth that the divine Son proceeded forth from the divine Father at some point in the eternal ages past, and will create theories and explanations to attempt to obscure the truth that even the very youngest of children can understand. But of those who have no love for the truth, it is written, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Rom. 1:21-22. Some comments from some of the early pioneers of the Advent movement on this matter are worthy of prayerful consideration. The first one is regarding the Biblical statements that God has "sent" His only begotten Son into the world (John 3:17, 34; 6:29; 8:42; 10:36; etc.). "The idea of being sent implies that He was the Son of God antecedent to His being sent. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that a father can send his son on an errand before that son has an existence, which would be manifestly absurd. To say that God sent 'His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,' is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature; he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation." J.M. Stephenson – Review & Herald, Vol. 6, No. 13, p. 99, par. 10, Nov. 7, 1854. "To say that the Son is as old as His Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father… If the inspired writers had wished to convey the idea of the co-etaneous [equal age] existence, and eternity of the Father and Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms." Ibid. [] added. That is the truth, brothers and sisters, isn't it? We know that God did not give us His written word to confuse us. He used the words "Father" and "Son," and created us with relationships revealing the truth about the Godhead in order for us to say Amen, and praise His holy name in awe and wonder. When speaking of the relative ages of the Father and the Son, we must accept the fact that we are speaking of the time of eternity. But in doing this we must also realize that we are right now also in the days of "eternity," for eternity existed before there were any cycles of created things to mark the passing of time, and will continue to exist now that there are things created to mark its time. It is written of the eternal future that "… it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." Isa 66:23. Ellen White describes the future as "the endless cycles of eternity" Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 699. So regarding the relationship of the "Father" to the "Son" in the time of eternity before there were the things by which we mark its passing we need to look again to that which has been created to "clearly" see "that which may be known of God" as it has been "manifest in [us]." To understand this we must look at another revealed mystery. It is written of Levi, the son of Jacob – "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:9-10. From this we see that God considers a person to be present with, and "in close fellowship with" his or her father while yet inside of them – a portion of them being there as a seed in their father (and another portion being in the seed of their mother). Modern science has discovered that which was understood by the writer of the book of Hebrews. That is, that a man's offspring are present with him from his very birth. Though the cells which will eventually develop into his productive seed (and thus his child) must go through a change when he matures before they are ready to fertilize an egg, they are present within him from his birth. So, according to the revelation God has given us in nature, by which we are to be able to so "clearly" see the "invisible things of Him" that we are without excuse, Christ, before he was born a divine Being, was in "close fellowship" with His Father, being in His loins. "I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely PERSON. The Father's PERSON I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if THE FATHER HAD A FORM LIKE HIMSELF. He said HE HAD, but I could not behold it …" Early Writings, p. 54. She could not behold "it" (the Father's FORM) because she was mortal. The immortal shall behold Him, along with the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a PERSON. "Created to be 'the image and glory of God' (1 Corinthians 11:7), ADAM AND EVE had received endowments not unworthy of THEIR high destiny. Graceful and symmetrical IN FORM, regular and beautiful IN FEATURE, THEIR countenances glowing with the tint of health and the light of joy and hope, THEY BORE IN OUTWARD RESEMBLANCE THE LIKENESS OF THEIR MAKER [the Godhead]. NOR WAS THIS LIKENESS MANIFESTED IN THE PHYSICAL NATURE ONLY." Education, p. 20. [Brackets added] "In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not ONLY IN CHARACTER, BUT IN FORM AND FEATURE." The Great Controversy, pgs. 644, 645. "Man was to bear God's image, BOTH IN OUTWARD RESEMBLANCE AND CHARACTER." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 45. "…the human mind should become intelligent in regard to the PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. … HERE JEHOVAH HAS GIVEN A SPECIMEN OF HIMSELF; FOR MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD." Medical Ministry, p. 221. "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). These inspired testimonies are in perfect harmony with the Bible declaration that "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." While children of creation are "clearly seen" as being of their parents, children of adoption are not, requiring that you have to discover by other means than "seeing" that they were adopted. Also, those who take the title "son" without having a blood relation through procreation and common parentage, are not at all "clearly seen" as being a true son. Some people might refer to another person as their child though the connection may only be intellectual or emotional. However, adopted sons and sons of title only have not been begotten nor born of their second "parents" and neither are they "clearly seen" as having any relation that they have "by inheritance" to their secondary parents at all. Another one of the pioneers had this to say on the subject: "As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh, thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our experience may be the same, the human and the divine being joined in a life union." W. W. Prescott, April 14, 1896, Review and Herald, p. 232. A.T. Jones had this to say: "He who was born in the form of God took the form of man." General Conference Bulletin, 1895, p. 448. "He came from heaven, God's first-born, to the earth, and was born again…. He whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity, the first-born of God, was born again in order that we might be born again." Review and Herald, July 7 – August 1, 1899 (See also, Lessons on Faith, p. 154.) More recently, another leader said: "For Jesus to become one with us He had to be born again; He had to become an earthly man. And for us to be one with Him, we have to be born again, born of the spirit. The difference is that Jesus was first born a spiritual, a divine being, and second a human being." Victor T. Houteff, 1 Timely Greetings, No. 49, p.6, 7. "Having been pre-existent with His Father (Heb. 1:1, 2; John 1:1, 2), and then having been re-born in Bethlehem, Immanuel manifestly represents the "born again" Christians (John 3:3)…" Victor T. Houteff, War News Forecast (Tract 14), pg. 35. Question 4: I know that the Bible says that Jesus is God's "Son," but does not that word mean something different when applied to Him? Answer: According to common understanding, there is a contradiction in the idea that Jesus is God's Son, but was never actually born as such. In applying the word "son" to someone, it is a given that at one time after his parents were around the "son" was born. Let us consider Psalms 2:7 and the Hebrew meaning of "son" as found there. The Hebrew word for son is ben. Of the 4,906 usages in the KJV OT, 4,556 or 93% of them are translated as "son, children," or "child." The first usage of ben is in Gen. 3:16, "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children [ben]" clearly speaking of the process of birth and of bringing forth new life that was not existent with their parents from the beginning (to a young child it may seem as if their parents have been around since time began). The term "son" or ben is used synonymously with "seed" or zera. "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son [ben], and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed [zera] instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." Gen. 4:25. It is written of Christ – "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son [ben, or, seed – zera]; this day have I begotten thee." Psalms 2:7. Thus the meaning of "Son" as found in Psalms 2, which is understood to apply to Jesus, is synonymous with Seed. The testimony of the Scriptures in regards to the Son of God, the Seed of the Father, directs our minds to the Son of God having "proceeded forth and come from God" (John 8:42) at some point before the creation. The unstable sands of opinion and tradition may say differently, but that is of no consequence to a seeker of the truth. Seeing no basis in that which is "clearly seen," and that which is "manifest in" us, to support the position that the title "only begotten Son" of God means nothing more than having the "rights, privileges and authority of the first born," and of being "the preeminent son," without having ever been born as a Son of divine heritage and nature, the idea is concluded as being untenable to the evidence. Furthermore, said thought diminishes the sacrifice of the Father in giving His "only begotten" Son, one with whom He has the most intimate personal relationship. It is as if to says that He gave His adopted Son – for that is what an adopted son is – a son who comes about not through his father's seed, but from outside his father's blood line and upon whom the title "son" is bestowed, whether formally or casually. Had God intended to illustrate that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God in the sense that humans can understand begetting, He could have created the baby Jesus and simply put Him up for adoption and sent an angel to Mary and Joseph telling them to go adopt this special child. He could have also directed Abraham to sacrifice a child that had been adopted instead of his only begotten son, Isaac. In the sacrificial system, He might have directed people to sacrifice fruit, rather than lambs, as well. For lambs are begotten creatures, and in the taking of the young and killing them is depicted the suffering of the parents who lose their offspring. Yet in doing any of those things the sacrifice of the Father would not have been as great as it truly was in giving His "only begotten" Son. Only a true parent can fully understand such a sacrifice. To say that He willingly gave One who was anything other than His most intimate offspring is an insult to the Father, for He knows better, and has stated such in His holy word – "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. Question 5: Did not Jesus only become the "Son" of God when He was born of Mary? Answer: As to when the Son of God became the Son of God, it was not at the incarnation, for at the incarnation, He became the "Son of man," as we read, "Wherefore when He [God's Son] cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou [the Holy Spirit] prepared Me [the Son]." Heb. 10:5. "For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." Heb. 2:16. "Nearly two thousand years ago, a voice of mysterious import was heard in heaven, from the throne of God, "Lo, I come." "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me. … Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of Me), to do Thy will, O God." Heb 10:5-7. In these words is announced the fulfillment of the purpose that had been hidden from eternal ages. Christ was about to visit our world, and to become incarnate. He says, "A body hast Thou prepared Me." Had He appeared with the glory that was His with the Father before the world was, we could not have endured the light of His presence. That we might behold it and not be destroyed, the manifestation of His glory was shrouded. His divinity was veiled with humanity,–the invisible glory in the visible human form." The Desire of Ages, p. 23. It is written that the Father gave "His only begotten Son" (John 3:16), and that this sacrificial gift was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20). Thus he could not give His Son unless he first had a Son to give. It was in the counsels between the Father and Son before the world was made that the decision was made that the Son would condescend to take on humanity and be a sacrifice for their sins, should they fall. As noted before, "Angels …clearly set forth that Christ was the Son of God, existing with Him before the angels were created…" The Story of Redemption, pg. 15. In order for the angels to "clearly set forth that Christ was the Son of God" prior to the time the angels were created it is necessary that He was indeed just that, the Son of God, at that time. The fallen angels evidently understood the message, for when they encountered Him later when he was on earth they acknowledged that truth – "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God" (Mark 3:11). It is worth noting that these spirits did not cry out that He was "the Creator," "Michael," "Jesus," the "Christ" or "the Branch" or anything else. They called Him that which was "clearly set forth" to them prior to their fall from heaven – that He is and was the Son of God. There is also another lesson "clearly seen" in this regards in the account of the creation of the first man, who was made in the "image and likeness" of God. We know that the Father was at one time alone and not yet a father by the fact that Adam, the father of mankind, was initially alone. We find the term "eternal God" in the Bible (Deu. 33:27), but not eternal Father, indicating that at some point God became a Father, and that the Son became the Son. Adam, while alone, came to a realization that his ability to express love was hindered by the lack of a suitable companion – a companion of his kind. Adam's realization mirrored that which the eternal God had come to know ages earlier. The remedy was to create a family of Gods (a Godhead) and later to mirror that event on earth in the creation account of the story of humanity. Man's family is "clearly seen" and is "manifest in" us, revealing to us and the universe that which God had brought about in Himself. It is because this story is manifest in each of our lives and all around us in the web of humanity so that we are without excuse as Paul says if we do not thankfully accept it as being "the truth of God" (Rom. 1:25). If because some refused to believe the truth of the Godhead as being revealed in the things that are made, and God gave them up to all kinds of uncleanness in regards to their own reproductive functions (Romans 1:24-28), then the converse would also be true. By accepting the truth of the Godhead, and of God's heavenly family (without spiritualizing it away), God will cleanse us and lead us to a righteous and holy use of our sexuality. Please see our study, The Only Safe Sex is Holy Sex for more on this matter. Question 6: Is not the writer of Heb. 1:5 speaking of the incarnation when he quotes Psalms 2:7 "Thou are my Son: today I have begotten thee?" Answer: Upon a simple examination of the context of that verse, we will see that he is referring to the time before the incarnation. That chapter begins: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb. 1, 2. When did God, the Father, appoint His Son to be "heir of all things?" Before He created all things by the Son. "As the divine Sufferer hung upon the cross, angels gathered about Him, and as they looked upon Him, and heard His cry, they asked, with intense emotion, "Will not the Lord Jehovah save Him?" . . . Then were the words spoken: "The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent. Father and Son are pledged to fulfill the terms of the everlasting covenant. God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Christ was not alone in making His great sacrifice. It was the fulfillment of the covenant made between Him and His Father before the foundation of the world was laid. With clasped hands they had entered into the solemn pledge that Christ would become the surety for the human race if they were overcome by Satan's sophistry." The Faith I Live By, p. 76. Hebrews 1 continues: "Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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?" Hebrews 1:4, 5. The word "made" therein is derived from the same root word that the word "begotten" is – meaning that Christ became, was "made," by a parent/offspring relationship, better than the angels. It is a wholly different word than that found in verse 2, where it says that Christ "made the worlds." Thus far in this chapter we are being told of the creation and its Creators, and are not introduced to Christ's incarnation until the next verse. Therefore, we see that Christ's being "appointed" as (set forth as) "heir" of all things, and His having obtained a better name than the angels occurred before His incarnation. Following this we are introduced to things relating to His incarnation – "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." verse 6. Question 7: In Acts 13:33, Psalms 2:7 ("Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee?") is quoted in reference to the resurrection of Jesus. Also, Rev. 1:5 calls Christ the "first begotten of the dead." How then can that verse be applied to His literal birth in heaven? Answer: The verses in question present a real dilemma for Bible students because they contain matters which seemingly contradict other portions of Scriptures, and it requires great humility to rightly understand this phenomena. The apostle Paul says, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away…. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. The complication in this matter comes from the fact that in Hebrews 1:5, Psalms 2:7 is being applied to the incident of Christ becoming God's Son and obtaining thereby a name better than the angels, while Acts 13:33 is applying the same verse to His resurrection. It would be doing an injustice to the Scriptures to say that Christ only became God's Son, obtained His heirship and a better name at His resurrection. Only those who can understand that God allows His servants to sometimes apply verses in a manner out of their perfect context will be able to see the wisdom in the allowance of such at those times. We will give some relevant examples of this phenomena. The fi
  17. Ben_Metatron says:
    The Spirituality of Genderial Relations INTRODUCTION Among the many non-religious and so-called scientific concepts put forth which attempt to explain the origin of all things (such as the Big Bang theory, and the theory of Evolution, etc.), none address the most fundamental phenomenon of life — that is, the reason for, or the cause of gender and love. For those who think to embrace said Creator-less theories, here are some questions. Why do gender and love exist? What caused the primal elements and forces (whatever they are conceived to be) to take forms whereby they could perceive and be perceived by means of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, and evaluate said information in a mind, and have said mind influenced by emotional feelings (the heart)? Was it something wholly within each element or force (as though they created themselves – each one having an almost prophetic awareness of the others it would eventually be formed together with producing something greater than each alone)? Why did the so-called Cosmic Ooze (or whatever) decide to take on gender, fall in love with other Cosmic Ooze (actually, a part of itself, since it is Cosmic), experience the sensations of emotional attraction, procreation, and multiply itself thereby and thus become a family of Cosmic Ooze? Though vast multitudes have experienced love and have enjoyed the pleasures of gender, the reason why things are the way they are has remained a mystery for most. Even Darwin was at a loss to explain how and why eyes came into being. The Big Bang theory offers no hypothesis as to why things became beautiful to behold and why this has such an important influence in procreation and the continuance of life in the many species. In this study we will, by God’s grace, see the higher meanings and significance of our dealings in regard to our sexual natures, and see that our creation as gendered beings was the result of the outworking of God’s eternal principle of loving self-sacrifice. We will also see that the way in which we regard this divine principle (which is the foundation of true love) is revealed in the way in which we deal with our own sexuality and that of others, and that our regard towards such is the direct product of the knowledge, beliefs, and/or presumptions we hold. How we understand the origin and purpose of love and sex is directly related to our sex/love lives and interactions with others. If we believe that love and genderial relations are the product of chance alone, and not the specific design of a creative Intelligence, then our relationships will reflect the random uncertainty and instability of our theories. If we believe that our gender and natural desires are curses from God, then our relationships will be clouded by an unstable, conflicting mystery. 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. Safe Sex? Holy Sex? 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). 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. 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). 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 thin
  18. Ben_Metatron says:
    The Spirituality of Genderial Relations INTRODUCTION Among the many non-religious and so-called scientific concepts put forth which attempt to explain the origin of all things (such as the Big Bang theory, and the theory of Evolution, etc.), none address the most fundamental phenomenon of life — that is, the reason for, or the cause of gender and love. For those who think to embrace said Creator-less theories, here are some questions. Why do gender and love exist? What caused the primal elements and forces (whatever they are conceived to be) to take forms whereby they could perceive and be perceived by means of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, and evaluate said information in a mind, and have said mind influenced by emotional feelings (the heart)? Was it something wholly within each element or force (as though they created themselves – each one having an almost prophetic awareness of the others it would eventually be formed together with producing something greater than each alone)? Why did the so-called Cosmic Ooze (or whatever) decide to take on gender, fall in love with other Cosmic Ooze (actually, a part of itself, since it is Cosmic), experience the sensations of emotional attraction, procreation, and multiply itself thereby and thus become a family of Cosmic Ooze? Though vast multitudes have experienced love and have enjoyed the pleasures of gender, the reason why things are the way they are has remained a mystery for most. Even Darwin was at a loss to explain how and why eyes came into being. The Big Bang theory offers no hypothesis as to why things became beautiful to behold and why this has such an important influence in procreation and the continuance of life in the many species. In this study we will, by God’s grace, see the higher meanings and significance of our dealings in regard to our sexual natures, and see that our creation as gendered beings was the result of the outworking of God’s eternal principle of loving self-sacrifice. We will also see that the way in which we regard this divine principle (which is the foundation of true love) is revealed in the way in which we deal with our own sexuality and that of others, and that our regard towards such is the direct product of the knowledge, beliefs, and/or presumptions we hold. How we understand the origin and purpose of love and sex is directly related to our sex/love lives and interactions with others. If we believe that love and genderial relations are the product of chance alone, and not the specific design of a creative Intelligence, then our relationships will reflect the random uncertainty and instability of our theories. If we believe that our gender and natural desires are curses from God, then our relationships will be clouded by an unstable, conflicting mystery. 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. Safe Sex? Holy Sex? 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). 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. 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). 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 thin
  19. soapyjames says:

    Ben

    Just to be clear…

    You wrote a 20,000 word response in less than a day, double posted the latter reply and made some a shed load of points I fail to understand in relation to astudent’s post.

    Would you happen to have a summary of all your goodness in say, 3000 words?

  20. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    Ha, be careful of what you ask for!

    Ben, I know that you meant well, but you have said way too much for me to comment on. You wrote a book, not a comment. I don’t think that I have been clear enough about this blog and the reason for it.

    It is a “Bible” study not a study of a different book. You started your comment quoting from a book written by a woman, who took great liberties about Scripture. She made statements that, in truth, could only have been made by someone who had been present at the time.

    Comments must be the thoughts of the commenter, not what others have said. There is no end of books and opinions about Scripture and when those books and authors are quoted one has to consider and determine what they meant and whether they were right or wrong. If many are quoted then, even if one could determine what they meant, it becomes too large of a job and they are not present to enable one to inquire a clarification.

    A comment that is too broad and long only serves to confuse, instead of clarify.

    I see that you have studied the original language and I think that is great, however knowing the original language is not a requirement for understanding Scripture. The Holy Spirit is “the” translator and anyone, who has been properly baptized into the Lord, has the Spirit: to teach us all things, even the deep things of God (1 Cur 2:10).

    I am interested in “your” thoughts from “your” mind, not the thoughts of someone that hasn’t even read this blog, or our comments.

    Just a note – soapyjames, you are correct. This tactic is often used by atheist, but this is the first time I have encountered it from a Christian.

  21. astudent says:

    Again I find myself commenting on my own post.

    As I study Scripture and learn more about it new question and thoughts come to mind, even about things that I have settled in my own mind. As one learns their concepts have to change, or they are not really learning.

    I have a question that entered my mind and I want to share it with you.

    If God allows sex in marriage as a kind of relief valve, then where is the relief for those who are not married? Don’t bother answering, as we are all aware of ways.

    Scripture says (Rom 14:22 NIV) “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” It seems to me that one could also condemn himself by what he disapproves.

    (Rom 14:23 NIV) “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

    If I have raised doubts in your mind I apologize. I neither approve nor disapprove of ways to relieve sexual pressure. Make up your own mind, so that you have no doubts and do not listen too closely, to men like me. No one but you and God know the extent of your sexual pressure.

    Romans 14:4 “with a personal touch” – Who am I to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

    Though I did not judge anyone, I do see that others might take it that way.

    Having said all of that I still think that all sex makes one unclean. Lucky for us we can bathe and only be unclean for a day.

  22. Ben_Metatron says:

    We are instructed to STUDY. Another thing is this. There are many books of the Bible which have been added to and taken away. The original Hebrew entails explainations and translations which the English language could not reveal. It matters not what book or what person place or thing revealed the truth to you. Hold fast to that which is good. Sex is not unclean as we see before Adam and Eve fell they were commanded to have sex. Also before this earth was created sex existed. Study and don’t guess, but study deeply. The Spirit lead those into all truth who seek it out and study. Its not going to fall out the sky. You learn through studying.

  23. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    Thank you Ben that is what I ask for. You thoughts, not someone else’s.

    I see the Bible as unique. It is the only Word straight from God. I understand that it is said that it was written by man, but 2 Timothy 3:16 &17 (NIV) says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” and when you combine that with 2 Peter 1:20 &21 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”, it becomes clear that no other book can compare.

    I do not believe that even one book was added to or taken away from the Bible. I do not believe God would allow it. If that could be true then man has more power than God does. There is a warning for those who would try Rev 22:18 & 19 (NIV) “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” One may say that God did not say it wasn’t possible, but I cannot believe He would allow such a thing.

    I also believe that no other book, person, place, or thing can reveal the truth. All anyone can get from these are the questions that might lead them to ask the Holy Spirit if there was truth in what was said. Truth comes from the Spirit: not from man. Error comes from accepting what man says, without searching Scripture, to see what God says.

    Ecclesiastes 12:8-12 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Everything is meaningless!” Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one Shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.”

    The word teacher (preacher) is capitalized, because it means the Holy Spirit and not Solomon. It says one Shepherd (same teacher) and it gives the same warning as Revelations 22:18&19. I can quote from the Bible (any translation) and I am quoting truth, but if I quote from any other book then maybe, I am and maybe I am not. And I might add that what I write might and might not be true.

    Would you quote the verse where God told Adam and Eve to have sex?

    When He said, go forth and multiply, could He have in mind a different way? Why would anyone be even temporarily unclean if they were doing what God commanded?

    Where does it say that before the earth existed there was sex? Sex wasn’t even used to create Adam and Eve.

    Gen 3:20 (NIV) “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” She wasn’t named Eve before the fall, because she was not supposed to be the mother of all of the living: God would have been the Mother and the Father, not Eve.

    God still is the Mother and the Father of all who are born from the Spirit. Man cannot change God’s plan, but we sure can hinder it.

    I certainly agree with you when you say, “study and don’t guess”, but when you study from man’s writing and accept it as truth, you would be better off guessing.

    I prefer to be like the Bereans Act 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” If they were considered to be more noble than others for checking what Paul said, when Paul was an Apostle, then how much more noble is someone that tests what others say and write?

    You see that we agree with study, but not completely on what to study.

  24. ben_metatron says:

    In order to understand a Hebrew Elohim you must study Hebrew writers and writing about the Elohim. To do anything else is to speculate. We must go to the root of the matter where the truth is and not scratch the surface. Study and examine scriptures, ancient artiifacts and the like. We cannot allow any man or even ourselves to paint a portrait of the Elohim. People what to create the Elohim in their corrupted image instead of it being reversed. Study, research and meditate. The scriptures point you to creation and outside sources to find the truth. The scriptures are a guide into all truth.

  25. astudent says:

    Ben Metatron,

    I believe that all truth comes from the Spirit that we received when we are baptized. For instance, you said “Hebrew Elohim” and somewhere inside my mind came ‘God is not Hebrew’. He chose the Hebrew people to bring Jesus, but God is also my God and I am not Hebrew. I think that I understand what you meant, but the voice in my thoughts will not accept ‘Hebrew Elohim. Am I just speculating?

    We cannot allow any man to paint a portrait of God? Well, no man can, but we can understand everything about Him.

    1Co 2:9-16 (NIV) However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”— but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    The best scholars, not just one scholar, translated that into English. I can read and understand English and the Spirit can use that Scripture to teach me all things, even the deep things of God. No man can teach me the deep things of God and for me to study a language that I don’t use would only confuse me.

    What Scripture points us to outside sources? I cannot think of any, but then perhaps I have a mental block.

    We do agree that Scriptures are a guide to all truth.

  26. ben_metatron says:

    In the second century B.C., Jewish rabbis and scholars made a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language for the Greek-speaking Jews and converts. This is known as The Septuagint. After the work was completed a time of fasting and mourning was proclaimed because of the violence done to the beauty of the Hebrew Scriptures. Why? Because the Greek language employed a neuter gender and in many cases personality and gender were lost. The same loss took place in New Testament times when Jesus’ apostles and disciples translated some of the Gospels and other writings into Greek, or wrote in Greek themselves. Biblical Hebrew has in its word pictures a revelation of the Divine. We must keep in mind that scriptures were taken out. Translations obliterated the true understanding and nature of the scriptures. You may understand something however the spirit must lead you to other truths. Wether it be the written word, nature, or any other means. One of the main “Jewish” things that was replaced by Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian/Pagan things was the Hebrew language, which “was cultivated as the most sacred tongue in the world.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 97. All of the original Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament were translated into Greek by the time of Constantine when the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) began to become dominant over all other languages in regards to church matters. It appears that any Hebrew or Aramaic letters and manuscripts that may have been written by the Apostles have all been hidden or destroyed. Even the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the New Testament that we have today are themselves translations from other languages.

    “What advantage then hath the Jew?… Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles (Greek – logion – utterances) of God.” Romans 3:1,2. It was the “utterances (words) of God,” that were committed to the Jews, to be preserved in “the most sacred tongue in the world,” Hebrew.

    One of the greatest losses which the church of God has suffered as a result of the separation from the “most sacred tongue in the world,” Hebrew, was the loss of the gender represented therein.

  27. words of truth, not religion says:

    in order to get the true answer, you must understand why Jesus came and the fathers will. then you will get your answer clearly.

  28. astudent says:

    words of truth, not religion,

    What does that mean? Truth is found in the Bible and no where else.

  29. astudent says:

    ben metatron,

    I don’t quite know what happened. Either I wasn’t alerted that you commented, or I didn’t answer right away and forgot about it. Sorry.

    I usually agree with most of what you say. It is only parts that seems to me that there are different ways of viewing.

    You said, “You may understand something however the spirit must lead you to other truths” and I totally agree with that statement. However, truth is truth and it makes no difference what language it is written in. God knew that I would not speak Hebrew, so He arranged that the Bible would be printed in a language that I understand.

    I believe God will, and has, a way for anyone to find understanding that truly wants it. God speaks to me in English, because that is the language of the land that He placed me in.

    By that, I mean He has used others to translate His Word into English, not to say that He speaks audibly to me.

    God loves all of those who love Him and He speaks to them in their own language, so that they can understand Him. It is not a “tongue” that is sacred. It is God.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: