October 29, 2020

The Council

Proclaiming the truth to the world.

I recently had an exchange with a rather strange person that thinks the Holy Spirit is a woman that had relations with the Father to produce Jesus (Mary being their daycare). I will not be providing the original conversation, but an edited version that takes any ambiguousness out of what I’m saying.

Tommy Hall:

So when Mark 10:8 says that when a man leaves his parents and becomes “one flesh” with his wife, does that mean that he is now transgender? No, it means they have formed one substance. Two people; one substance. It’s beautiful, not grotesque as you make it out to be. The Godhead is represented beautifully in nature; He didn’t put Adam with Steve in the Garden for a reason; because that’s not His nature. Instead, when He said ‘Let “US” make man in “OUR” image.’ So God made mankind after His image…aka THEIR image, which are two distinct, coherent people, yet considered one substance, just like a man and his wife. It’s beautiful.

TheSire:

That is speaking metaphorically for the union of a man and wife in intimacy. It has nothing to do with them becoming one person. It is amazing how Biblically ignorant you have to be in order to present such a position. You do realize that Jesus is not the Son because the Father and the Spirit had relations to produce him, but rather Christ is the Eternal God himself(John 1:1, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 1:3). The Father-Son dialectic is to explain the resemblance relationship of the Son to that of a Father. Christ reveals the Father because he perfectly reflects him in every way. I and other have unpacked that notion elsewhere:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/08/19/jesus-the-copycat/

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/05/through-looking-glass.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/see-conquering-hero-comes.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-rightful-heir.html

The beings in question don’t have a “gender”. They are temporal or physical. Only Christ does. That is because he was the only one to take a human nature to himself.
Secondly, you’ve assumed that that means physical representation instead of being his moral representatives on earth. That isn’t the standard position in these talks. You simply can’t take your interpretations for granted in the debate about whether your interpretations are true. Take for example:

 Throughout the ancient Near East, an image was believed to contain the essence of that which it represented. That essence equipped the image to carry out its function.83 In Egyptian literature, there is one occurrence of people in general having been created in the image of deity in the Instructions of Merikare, dated to about 2000 B.C. (see sidebar on “Instruction of Merikare” in the introduction), but it is generally the king who is spoken of in such terms.84 The image is the source of his power and prerogative. In Mesopotamia there are three categories of significance. (1) As in Egypt, the king is occasionally described as being in the image of deity.85 (2) An idol contained the image of the deity.86 (3) The image of a king was present in monuments set up in territories he had conquered.87 I. Winter concludes in a study of royal images that the representations of the king did not intend to capture the features of “his own historically particular physiognomy, but those aspects of his features/appearance that had been molded by the gods and that resembled (or could be attributed to) the gods, such that the ruler’s features convey qualities of ideal, divinely-sanctioned rulership, not just personhood.”88 Thus in an image, it was not physical likeness that was important, but a more abstract, idealized representation of identity relating to the office/role and the value connected to the image.89 When Assyrian king Esarhaddon is referred to as “the perfect likeness of the god,” it is his qualities and his attributes that are under discussion.90 The image of god did the god’s work on the earth. The biblical view is similar as people are in the image of God, embodying his qualities and doing his work. They are symbols of his presence and act on his behalf as his representatives. The two words used in the text differ in nuance, with “image” referring to the something that contains the “essence” of something else, while “likeness” is more connected to “substance,” expressing a resemblance at some level. The Aramaic portion of the bilingual inscription from Tell Fekheriye uses cognates of both of these terms to indicate that the statue both contains the essence and represents the substance of Hadad-Yith’i, King of Guzan.

Walton, John H.. Genesis (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary) (Kindle Locations 1458-1488). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Even if it meant physical representations that would need to be understood in terms of the Pentateuch. That being filled with Theophanies as the paradigm for how we understand them. God appears to his people in Human form.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/whats-image-of-god.html

Mind you that you’re treating the God of the Bible as if he is on the same metaphysical level with that of the Gods of the nations. God isn’t a pagan being. It is the opposite case. God is atemporal and non-spacial. That is Classical theism to where the God in your case has offspring and a body. That isn’t paradigm for us. It is actually those very beings that the God of the Bible is set against(Isa 40-48, Eph 1).

Tommy Hall:

Speaking of the Holy Spirit…In John. Notice the nature:
John 16: 13-15“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now compare that to how women are to act (or not act, as it goes):

1 Cor 14:34
“As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.…”

1 Timothy 2:12…”I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

So The Holy Spirit does not do (His) own speaking, and likewise, women are not to do any speaking in the church. They are both also submissive in nature.
—-

Notice how the Holy Spirit manifests when Jesus gets baptized:

Luke 3:22…..When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as He was praying, heaven was opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove.”

does a heavenly dove sound more like a man’s nature or a woman’s nature? The dove is a symbol that used to used to depict femininity, to depict the “spirit” of God, or Rauch, which is also a feminine Hebrew word.

TheSire:
Pay close attention because I am going to destroy your worldview in my following statements:

“Speaking of the Holy Spirit…In John. Notice the nature:
John 16: 13-15“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”

The same verse you quoted demonstrates you’re wrong. It refers to the Spirit of Truth as “he” several times. You should read your own quotes closely before you say something stupid.

“Now compare that to how women are to act (or not act, as it goes):
1 Cor 14:34:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.…”

1 Timothy 2:12…”I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

So The Holy Spirit does not do (His) own speaking, and likewise, women are not to do any speaking in the church. They are both also submissive in nature.”

I don’t see how these texts are remotely about anything similar. These are talking about a woman’s place in Church politics and the other is that the Spirit of God will come teach his people. If women are not allowed to teach, but why then the female Holy Spirit teach? Does John 12:49 entail Jesus is a woman by your own argument? It states “For I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said.”.

“Notice how the Holy Spirit manifests when Jesus gets baptized:
Luke 3:22…..When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as He was praying, heaven was opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove.”

does a heavenly dove sound more like a man’s nature or a woman’s nature? The dove is a symbol that used to used to depict femininity, to depict the “spirit” of God, or rauch, which is also a feminine Hebrew word. “

Just because you think Doves are feminine doesn’t mean that is the emphasis of the text. Your 21st-century impressions are irrelevant. The symbolism of the Dove is debated in scholarship. God is sometimes depicted as a bird “hovering” or protecting his people(Deut. 32:11).

Scholars debate the significance of the Spirit’s dovelike descent. It should be noted that the Spirit is not a dove but is pictured coming down from heaven like one. Nonetheless, the Spirit was a visible entity, since he descended “in bodily form” (Greek sōmatikō; only in Lk). Whether this means the Spirit looked like a dove or simply descended from heaven in a manner that looked like a dove is unclear. Six views exist for this association of dove with Spirit, but no one of them is very clearly correct.

Darrell Bock. Luke (IVP New Testament Commentaries) (Kindle Locations 1534-1538). Kindle Edition.

But what is the significance of the dove? 1. H. Greeven argues that the imagery must have been immediately comprehensible to those who heard the story, and claims that the dove as a bird especially associated with the gods would be an obvious symbol for the Spirit. But the evidence for this association is non-Jewish, and this seriously weakens his case. 2. Rabbinic evidence likens the sound of the bath-qol to the cooing of a dove; the late Targum to Ct. 2:12 turns ‘the voice of the turtle-dove’ into ‘the voice of the Spirit of salvation’ (SB I, 123–125; cf. E. Schweizer, TDNT VI, 382 n. 360). This evidence, weak and late though it is, has been thought relevant to the present passage because here too a heavenly voice is present; the association, however, is doubtful, since the Spirit and the voice are in no way linked. 3. The rabbis interpreted the moving of the Spirit of God over the waters at creation (Gn. 1:2) in terms of a bird fluttering over its young, and in one version the bird in question is a dove (b. Hag. 15a). There is here no specific association of the dove with the Spirit; any bird will do to make the comparison. Nevertheless, the comparison with the movement of the dove has suggested to L. E. Keck* that the most plausible view of the present text is that an originally adverbial reference to the descent of the Spirit being like that of a dove has been misunderstood adjectivally in terms of the appearance of the Spirit (similarly, Jeremias, Theology, I, 52). If so, there was originally nothing more recondite in the story than a comparison with the gentle flight of a dove. Unfortunately, the rabbinic basis for this view is scanty, and it ignores the fact that Mk. 1:10 is most naturally interpreted of a visible descent of the Spirit so that ‘like a dove’ describes its appearance. 4. An allusion to Noah’s dove (Gn. 8:8–12) ‘gains in plausibility if John’s baptism was intended to symbolise the coming flood of judgment …, so recalling the flood of Noah (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20–21); for then the dove would signify the end of judgment and the beginning of a new era of grace’ (J. D. G. Dunn*, 27 n. 13; cf. Bartsch, 51). Although this view has the most satisfactory OT basis, both Greeven and Keck dismiss it, especially in its somewhat fantastic developed forms, the latter regarding it as the fruit of later attempts to find symbolism in the dove, but hardly as the origin of the image. 5. Attempts to associate the dove with Israel (cf. Ho. 11:11) so that Jesus is linked to the new Israel (H. Sahlin, 103f.; Stuhlmueller, 129) scarcely need refutation. 6. Finally, some scholars attempt to explain away the dove altogether as the result of a misunderstanding.
None of the above explanations is entirely satisfactory. (For a full survey of the options, see L. E. Keck*.) It may be best to assume that the thought is of the Spirit gently descending upon the head of Jesus as a dove might descend, so that it looked like a dove. It is just possible that thoughts of the new creation brought about by the Spirit are in mind. We are not, however, told what the effect of the descent of the Spirit was; there is the same reticence here as in the annunciation story. The OT promise that God would put the Spirit upon his Servant is fulfilled (Is. 42:1); the Spirit rests upon the Branch (Is. 11:2; cf. 48:16; 61:1; Jewish evidence in E. Schweizer, TDNT VI, 384). Jesus is commissioned and equipped for his task. Such an act may be regarded as an anointing, appropriate for a kingly figure (E. Schweizer, TDNT VI, 400f.; VIII, 367f.; Borsch, 365–370). But it is not an act of adoption, still less of divine begetting, nor indeed the beginning of Jesus’ messiahship (certainly not for Luke).

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 153–154). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

For your appeal to words being “feminine and masculine” as evidence of the Spirit’s gender. You’ve conflated grammatical with natural gender. Notice that your method leads to mixed results:

“The basis of this claim was that the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruach) is feminine. The short answer is that if this is true, then the Spirit is also an “it” since the Greek word for “spirit” (πνευμα) is neuter.

The longer answer is that Hebrew and Greek words follow what is called “grammatical gender.” This means that the gender of the word is not determined by its meaning but by other things. For example, all nouns ending in ματ are neuter. Since πνευμα is from the root πνευματ, it is therefore neuter. But that says nothing about how the Greek understood of the concept of God’s Spirit.

The best illustration of this is the Greek words for “sin” and “sinner.” “Sin” is a feminine noun, αμαρτια, but sin is not a feminine trait (as opposed to men). “Sinner” is a masculine noun, αμαρτωλος, but that does not mean that men (not using the word generically) are sinners (as opposed to women).

Now yes, sometimes there is a correlation between meaning and gender. Men’s names are masculine. Pronouns referring back to women are feminine. But apart from these obvious types of situations, the gender and meaning of a word are unrelated.

This makes John 16:13 interesting. “When the Spirit of truth (το πνευμα της αληθειας) comes, he (εκεινος) will guide you into all the truth.” The masculine εκεινος ges back to the masculine “Helper” of v 7 (παρακλητος). But is it not interesting that John can put the neuter πνευμα in apposition to the masculine εκεινος? Why?

Because the Bible teaches that all three members of the godhead are “persons” and that while God is more than the human categories of “masculine” and “feminine,” he is personal. The Holy Spirit is not a “she” or an “it.” He is a “person.” Hebrew and Greek follow grammatical gender.”

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/the-holy-spirit-she

Tommy Hall:

Where did you destroy my worldview? I missed that part. I don’t have a worldview that hinges on the Holy Spirit have a feminine nature.

TheSire:

Everyone bases (or at least everyone that is a claiming Christian) bases all his beliefs in reference to his God. I’ve destroyed your Jory Micah theology of “the God of the many breasts” thus your entire worldview is shattered.

Well, Christian Anarchist didn’t say it but I will. Thinking the Holy Spirit is a woman heretical reprobate belief. So, you’re not a Christian according to me. Secondly, you haven’t refuted any of my points and you brought up a Wikipedia article. You may hang with TrueEmpiricism all day talking about how you think evolution is false but that doesn’t justify your abysmally bad theologies. Your group is riddled with theological errors:

TrueModalism