Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[John317]

...Could anything be more backwards?

I can't think of anything more backwards than that, no. I can't for the life of me see where they come up with that idea.

[Musicman1228]

John wrote, "Do you have to be absolutely certain of the name of the author of a Scripture in order to believe it and accept it as Scripture?"

Actually, no. But when I look at some of the things in the unidentified books and see that there is disagreement with what Jesus said then I pause and take stock of what is in my own best interest to believe. I have serious doubts as to the origin of 2 Peter for the very reasons you cited; there is no uniform agreement that 2 Peter was indeed written by him. At least I KNOW who wrote the 13 letters of Paul because he signed them. And even though I disagree with Paul's conclusions I do believe he wrote what he wrote. No one knows who wrote Hebrew's, and yes, there are some good things in Hebrews. Yet my believing that all of Hebrews is lock-stock-and barrel the very words of God is a little like being told on the phone that I have won the Canadian lottery, and to claim my prize I just need to send $1000 to an address; It would be nice to win the lottery but the price is just too high to take the risk.

Richard said, "Rich and MM say they can. They have to keep the commandments, AND become holy, before the Holy Spirit will have anything to do with them."

You continue to deliberately misunderstand what I have said, Richard. This makes me wonder if you have the ability to listen to what I have to say just because you don't like what I say. You seem prejudiced again my take on how salvation really works, and refuse to consider anything but what you already know. As to your comment:

The Holy Spirit works with everyone that has an open heart for the truth. They may not have the truth but through the leading of the Holy Spirit we can rest assured that they WILL find it. And HOW do people seeking the truth find it? Through being lead to the words of Jesus Christ. If we abide in HIS words then we become disciples of His. As His disciples we learn over time to love God by keeping His Commandments. Once we become disciples and learn and understand the words of Jesus through the leading of the Holy Spirit we then become sanctified (John 17:17). Once we are sanctified we are made holy by being born again into the Kingdom of Heaven by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3,5). It is at this point that we are able to fully keep the Commandments of God because of the testimony of the words of Jesus Christ (Rev.12:17). We can do this because we have now been sealed into the truth and into righteousness.

As you can see the Holy Spirit is integral to this process; we cannot become sanctified without Him/Her. We also cannot become sanctified through the words of anyone other than that of Jesus Christ. When we claim that we have been led into truth by the Holy Spirit but if what we sincerely believe to be truth comes from any other source other than Jesus Christ in the NT, or God the Father in the OT, and that truth is later proven to be false we take the risk of grieving away the Holy Spirit-and THAT is a death sentence. That is why I personally won't risk saying that anyone has the authority to speak for Jesus Christ other than Jesus Christ Himself.

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Matt.24:5.

These people are not claiming to be Jesus Christ themselves, they are making the claim that they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And because they make this claim they want you to believe that they are indeed sent by God to give you the truth. But Jesus, in the verse just before this one, says that this is not always the case:

“See that no one leads you astray." Matt.24:4.

If it were impossible for us to be lead astray (because we have the Bible and say God would not allow it) then why would Jesus have made this statement? ALL of us have the potential to be deceived, which is why I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept the words of any one other than those of Jesus Christ as He gave them directly (person to person) to His own eyewitness disciples as testimony to and proof of the TRUTH.

I know this does not make sense to you, Richard and John, because you believe that any writing that is included in the Bible MUST be from God, and if that is what you believe then that is what you must do. But I do not have your courage or level of faith, so that is something I cannot do; which is why I am SO careful about what and who I trust as a source of truth.

There, I hope that is a sufficient explanation of my belief system, and that you now understand why I say what I say and believe what I believe.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "Did Jesus indicate that it was important to know who the human author was in order to accept them as inspired and trust-worthy? Obviously not. So we can apply this same principle to the New Testament."

Try reading John 14:26 and 17:17-20 and you will see that Jesus DID indicate who's writings would be read and those reading them would understand what Jesus said! He said that ONLY His own disciples who were with Him would be the ones that would give inspired words to the world--not anyone else!

IF you will read Acts 21 you will see that men from Asia (Ephusus too) accused Paul of teaching people not to obey the Law. These were some of the leaders of the churches in Asia (the same ones named in Rev. 2 and 3) and they were not happy with Paul.

In fact, Paul knew this and told Timothy (2Tim. 1:15, 18) that is was a FACT that ALL of those in the churches of Asia had forsaken Paul's gospel. Why? Because they put him to a test and found out he was teaching against the Law.

Years after this happened, God confirmed in John's writings that it was a good thing that they put Paul and his companions to a test and found them to be false. (Rev. 2:2) So there you have it--not my words--but the words found from both Jesus and from Luke and Paul. IF they said Paul was teaching against the Law--and it was verified by Paul, then what is it that you don't understand?

Another thing John, you said that if it was good enough for the first church, then it should be good enough for us. By saying this, do you mean that you actually are a Catholic? Or that you agree with the Catholic doctrines?

[John317]

...Another thing John, you said that if it was good enough for the first church, then it should be good enough for us. By saying this, do you mean that you actually are a Catholic? Or that you agree with the Catholic doctrines?

Please quote where you believe I said that "if it was good enough for the first church, then it should be good enough for us."

I believe you're putting words in my mouth that I neither said nor ever would say. We can never copy the early church simply because they had a certain belief or practice. Their beliefs and practices have to be weighed and measured by the standard of truth, which is the Bible.

The Scriptures are self-authenticating.

I don't need-- and the early churches did not need-- a council or some pope or bishop to decide whether a book is inspired or not. No one made the church accept a particular book as authority. All that the councils did was put their stamp of approval on the books that the various congregations had already been using as Scripture.

[John317]

...Try reading John 14:26 and 17:17-20 and you will see that Jesus DID indicate who's writings would be read and those reading them would understand what Jesus said! He said that ONLY His own disciples who were with Him would be the ones that would give inspired words to the world--not anyone else!

Here are those verses:

Quote:

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 17:17-20

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [18] As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

[20] "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Where is the verse that says what you claim, that "He said that ONLY His own disciples who were with Him would be the ones that would give inspired words to the world--not anyone else!"?

[John317]

...IF you will read Acts 21 you will see that men from Asia (Ephusus too) accused Paul of teaching people not to obey the Law. These were some of the leaders of the churches in Asia (the same ones named in Rev. 2 and 3) and they were not happy with Paul.

OK, there were people accusing Paul of things he didn't teach and things he hadn't done. We all know that Satan inspires his servants to make false accusations, and we also know that all true beleivers in Christ will suffer and be persecuted for believing in Him and teaching the truth.

But how do you know that the men from Asia referred to in Acts 21 who were accusing Paul of teaching people not to obey the law were some of the leaders of the churches named in Rev. 2 & 3?

Paul was teaching Gentiles they didn't have to obey the law regarding circumcision and other ceremonial laws, but he never taught people the gospel releases them from obedience to God's will as expressed in the moral law.

As I've shown before, Paul says in 1 Cor. 9: 21 and 7: 19 that there is a difference between the Jewish, or Mosaic, law and the law of God. Paul said that he was not under the Jewish law, yet he was not outside the law of God but was under Christ's law.

This shows clearly that Paul is saying he recognizes that he is obligated to keep the law of God as Christ taught during his earthly ministry. He says the same thing in 1 Cor. 7: 9 where he shows a clear distinction between the lack of authority of the laws regarding circumcision and the necessity of obeying "the commandments of God." It is self-evident that "the commandments of God" include the commandments that God spoke and wrote with His own finger on tablets of stone.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

...Could anything be more backwards?

I can't think of anything more backwards than that, no. I can't for the life of me see where they come up with that idea.

It is the spirit of Phariseeism.

A spirit of self reliance and pride.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "The Scriptures are self-authenticating".

"I don't need-- and the early churches did not need-- a council or some pope or bishop to decide whether a book is inspired or not. No one made the church accept a particular book as authority. All that the councils did was put their stamp of approval on the books that the various congregations had already been using as Scripture."

No Scripture is 'self-authenticating' because all 'scripture' is either authorized by God or by man. You stated (categorically) that the early church fathers that put the canon together at the Councils in the 300's merely accepted the scriptures that the independent churches of the time authorized by using them in the churches. This shows a solid lack of understanding about what really happened. The thing these Catholic church clergy did was CHOOSE from the myriad of writings that had circulated to the majority of the churches of the day in Asia. These writings were termed "homologumena". There were many of these writings that were read in these churches that didn't make it into the canon because they were NOT circulated to the majority of the churches. These writings were termed "antilogumena". The Catholic church, as constituted by Emperor Constantine, chose the writings for the New Testament that they felt would help solidify control of the Roman Empire under the Emperor and under their own church rulership, giving them undisputed power over the people.

This is historical fact. So by saying that all 'scripture' is self-authenticating you are saying that you actually agree that the Catholic church had the authority to create the New Testament in the image that they decided was best. This also means that you agree that the Catholic church was acting under the authority of God in doing this, so if that was the case then, why isn't that the case today. This strikes me as odd for someone who holds the Catholic church in such distain.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "Paul was teaching Gentiles they didn't have to obey the law regarding circumcision and other ceremonial laws, but he never taught people the gospel releases them from obedience to God's will as expressed in the moral law."

Romans 7:6 "But now WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW, having died to that by when we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter".

Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be. On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except throught the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

Romans 7:8 "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law, sin is dead."

John, for your information, "Thou shall not covet" is not part of the 'ceremonial law'.

An interesting thing that Paul said (wrote) in this chapter is: "For I know that nothing good dwells in me..." Now this is a really true statement and one I can agree with.

John also wrote: "But how do you know that the men from Asia referred to in Acts 21 who were accusing Paul of teaching people not to obey the law were some of the leaders of the churches named in Rev. 2 & 3?"

It's called 'deduction'. An investigator would understand these things. They may or not be some of the leaders, but Paul's words in his defense show that they were from Asia and held some type of authority.

Regardless of leadership, they were from Asia and because Paul told Timothy that ALL of Asia rejected him (Paul's teachings/gospel) it can only mean that they had put Paul and perhaps Salis or a companion of Pauls, to a test and found that they were false apostles. From the words of these men from Asia, Paul had been preaching that the Law (Commandments) did not have to be kept any longer.

[John317]

...IF you will read Acts 21 you will see that men from Asia (Ephusus too) accused Paul of teaching people not to obey the Law. These were some of the leaders of the churches in Asia (the same ones named in Rev. 2 and 3) and they were not happy with Paul.

In fact, Paul knew this and told Timothy (2Tim. 1:15, 18) that is was a FACT that ALL of those in the churches of Asia had forsaken Paul's gospel. Why? Because they put him to a test and found out he was teaching against the Law.

There were certainly many in the Roman province of Asia (which included the city of Ephesus) who turned against the true gospel and accepted the false gospel of the proto-gnostics and of the circumscision. But we have evidence that the word "all" doesn't mean every single individual. In his very next sentence, Paul mentions "the household of Onesiphorus" which hadn't deserted him. Paul isn't referring to people having accepted false gospels but to the fact that key people who could have come to his defense when he was arrested failed to do so.

He refers this fact in 2 Tim. 4:16

At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Years after this happened, God confirmed in John's writings that it was a good thing that they put Paul and his companions to a test and found them to be false. (Rev. 2:2)

What is your proof that Rev. 2: 2 is connected to Paul and to what he said in 2 Tim. 1: 15? Is this your strongest evidence? If it is, it is very weak. It is all conjecture to believe that Rev. 2: 2 is talking about what occurred with respect to Paul.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So there you have it--not my words--but the words found from both Jesus and from Luke and Paul.

But Jesus says nothing about Paul in Rev. 2: 2. There's no reference to Paul here. This is all your imagination, based on your preceptions that Paul was of the devil.

What Luke and Paul say is no valid reason to believe Paul was a false apostle. You've drawn that conclusion on the basis of preconceptions and conjecture.

Show the hard evidence connecting Rev. 2: 2 to Paul. Pretend this is a court of law and you are trying to persuade a jury to convict Paul of being a false apostle on the basis of Rev. 2: 2, etc. What will you tell them?

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

IF they said Paul was teaching against the Law--and it was verified by Paul, then what is it that you don't understand?

Are you going to rely on baseless accusations against the Apostle of God? Acts 21 makes clear that those are rumors and accusations, not reality. James even says that he wants Paul to disprove the accusations. He wouldn't say this if the accusations were true. The accusations are not that Paul is teaching people to disobey God's moral law but that Paul was teaching Jews to disobey the Mosaic law. That rumor got started because of Paul's gospel that people don't need to be circumcised in order to be justified by God.

All Paul verified is that many people in the Roman province of Asia had abandoned Paul when he needed their help. Paul is not saying that every single believer in that province had turned against him theologically. There were many who did accept the false gospels of the proto-gnostics and the circumcision, but Paul's main point was that almost no one in that province helped Paul when he was arrested and needed assistence. In those days, the state didn't supply the prisoners with their food and shelter. It was up to the prisoner's family or friends to provide the necessities of life.

[John317]

The Great Controversy 1888, Page 510

While Satan is constantly seeking to blind their minds to the fact, let Christians never forget that they “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places.” [Ephesians 6:12(Margin).] The inspired warning is sounding down the centuries to our time: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” [1 Peter 5:8.] “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” [Ephesians 6:11.]

From the days of Adam to our own time, our great enemy has been exercising his power to oppress and destroy. He is now preparing for his last campaign against the church. All who seek to follow Jesus will be brought into conflict with this relentless foe. The more nearly the Christian imitates the divine Pattern, the more surely will he make himself a mark for the attacks of Satan. All who are actively engaged in the cause of God, seeking to unveil the deceptions of the evil one and to present Christ before the people, will be able to join in the testimony of Paul, in which he speaks of serving the Lord with all humility of mind, with many tears and temptations.

Satan assailed Christ with his fiercest and most subtle temptations; but he was repulsed in every conflict. Those battles were fought in our behalf; those victories make it possible for us to conquer. Christ will give strength to all who seek it. No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate. He can cause agony, but not defilement. The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire his followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan.

[jasd]

Caveat. Once again, let me emphasize that I know squilch about Greek – and have only a rudimentary grasp upon my own native language – English. I proffer the following only in the expectation that parts of it may prove helpful to this or the other person who studies the issue on his or her own... Saying this,

disabuse me wherein I err.

>>I don't think anyone has said the Holy Spirit is male.<<

Perhaps, not anyone here – my statement lacked such specificity, following: “There are those who say "in truth" - that the Holy Spirit is male because...”

>>God the Father is not "male" as humans are.<<

I agree that He is indefinable per se. We do not know anything re Him possessing male organalia or such, but we do know that His gender is male – according to Writ – else, why are we exhorted to approach Him as Abba/daddy – or, per the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ – “Our Father...”?

>>All the Godhead have both masculine and feminine characteristics,<<

As do you and I.

>>...but these characteristic don't have anything to do with gender or sex.<<

I disagree – and it seems that Writ bears me out.

>>Jesus Christ, however, is definitely a male and has a glorified man's body today. This is the clear testimony of the Bible. He rose from the grave and ascended to heaven as a male and is coming back as "this same Jesus."<<

Gotcha. So, what’s with this “another Comforter” – allon, another of like kind – as myself -- Jesus Christ speaking...? Was He speaking of “another Comforter” in the grammatical sense of a verbal adjective/noun – or was He speaking of the Comforter as a more absolute, natural likeness...?

Wouldn’t that which is attributed to “another Comforter” – “whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak” – indicate more than an evanescent numinosity?—which would, further, suggest a slight quandary for those who would put too fine a point upon the meaning of Spirit.

>>The bottom line is that the Bible never refers to the Holy Spirit as "she" but only as "it" or "He."<<

As I said, “...grammatical rules - rather than an inherency of itself.”

>>The fact that the word "Spirit" in Hebrew is feminite doesn't make the Holy Spirit feminine. As I've pointed out many times before, there are ltos of words in the Hebrew language that are in the feminine gender but which refer to masculine things.<<

But we speak of the Spirit Gd, do we not?—rather than of “lots of words”.

I ask, “Was not the Holy Spirit allon – a like kind as was/is Jesus Christ?” Moreover, was it not Gd who, at the Tower of Babel, separated mankind by giving them different languages?—or did mankind develop its languages by refining what was originally a Gd-induced jibber-jabber? I suspect it was the former, which leads to the question: Why did Gd ascribe the presaging OT Ruach its feminine gender – rather than a masculine?

>>The same is true of the Greek language.<<

But, again, we speak of the Holy Spirit and not of “lots of words” or the mundane. It seems to me that mostly (the neuter use of the/that/it aside) the times when the NT refers to the Holy Spirit as 'He’ – is when it is constrained by the rule of gender agreement – example: when parakletos(masc) - helper/comforter/counselor, which are simply functional or verbal adjectives/nouns - functions as an antecedent to the Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit is superinduced by the masculine demonstrative pronoun – for the sake of gender agreement.

>>But when Christ chose a pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit, He chose to use the pronouns "Him" and "He," not "her" or "she."<<

Was He not governed by syntactical, grammatical rules – as they applied?—and not by a need to declaim the natural gender of the Holy Spirit?

>>And more importantly, his choice was actually contrary to Greek grammar.<<

How so?—disabuse me.

>>This shows that Christ didn't use the masculine pronoun for grammatical reasons but because Christ views the Holy Spirit as masculine just as He views the Father.<<

Please, expand upon that thought, as it seems improbable that THE WORD would play helter-skelter with language.

>>Please notice that in John 16: 7,8, 13, the pronoun is "he," not "she."<<

But doesn’t Comforter/parakletos(masc) (verses 7) put the kibosh upon the use of “she” – that grammatical genders might agree?—rather than argue for or against an inherent natural gender? Moreover, wouldn’t St John’s use of “he” throughout the passage be required in verse 13 as well – in that the superintending antecedent masculine Comforter in verses 7 and the Spirit of Truth in verse 13 comprise a group and the masculine attraction in that ‘group’ superinduces upon the neuter pneuma/ Spirit (of truth) its masculine sense?—somewhat as in French, should there be among a group of women a male, child or adult – the entire group is referred-to or defined in the masculine sense?

The above stated – the necessarily required grammatical genders do not define or identify the inherent NT natural gender of the Holy Spirit. That seems to have been already anticipated in the prophetic nature of the OT Ruach.

It has been stated that the Bible never refers to the Holy Spirit as she. I disagree, and point out that should a being be constantly referred-to in the feminine, as it is in the OT – it probably follows, that the Bible indicates that the reference should probably be taken as it is forwarded. It can only be hubrism that elects to ignore Gd’s application of the feminine to the Ruach/HS.

[John317]

God the Father is not "male" as humans are.

Originally Posted By: jasd

I agree that He is indefinable per se. We do not know anything re Him possessing male organalia or such, but we do know that His gender is male &#150; according to Writ &#150; else, why are we exhorted to approach Him as Abba/daddy &#150; or, per the &#145;Lord&#146;s Prayer&#146; &#150; &#147;Our Father...&#148;?

When I say the Father is not "male," I'm only denying that God is male in the sense that humans are male, with the male genitalia. I'm not, of course, denying that the language of the Bible refers to God in the masculine gender.

You make a good point that we're exhorted to approach God as "daddy" and not "mommy." I'm sure that has some important significance and is not merely coicidental.

[John317]

All the Godhead have both masculine and feminine characteristics,

Originally Posted By: jasd

As do you and I.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

...but these characteristic don't have anything to do with gender or sex.

Originally Posted By: jasd

I disagree – and it seems that Writ bears me out.

By "gender" or "sex," I mean that the fact that God has the characteristics that we find in male and females shouldn't lead us to believe that God is either male or female in the sense of having the reproductive organs that we associate with them.

Do you disagree with this?

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Jesus Christ, however, is definitely a male and has a glorified man's body today. This is the clear testimony of the Bible. He rose from the grave and ascended to heaven as a male and is coming back as "this same Jesus."

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Gotcha. So, what’s with this “another Comforter” – allon, another of like kind – as myself -- Jesus Christ speaking...? Was He speaking of “another Comforter” in the grammatical sense of a verbal adjective/noun – or was He speaking of the Comforter as a more absolute, natural likeness...?

The context indicates that Jesus was saying the Holy Spirit is a person just as He Himself is a person and that He would communicate the same message that Christ had been telling and showing them all along.

Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "another helper." But the phrase doesn't indicate that the other comforter, or helper, will be like Jesus in every particular.

In fact, one reason Jesus is leaving to go back to the Father is that the Holy Spirit is NOT exactly the same as Jesus is. Most importantly, Jesus can only be in one location at a time, whereas the Holy Spirit is able to be with each believer at the same time. Therefore it is clear that while both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are deity, they are distinct and different persons, each having some different characteristics not shared by the other. Christ is limited in space to a human body, while the Holy Spirit is not.

[Musicman1228]

The translators that moved the Aramaic original manuscripts into Greek were themselves male and lived in a patriarchal society, so their bent was to supply masculine pronouns whenever a gender was not specified. These Greek manuscripts were then later copied and copied and copied over hundreds of years and errors crept into these manuscripts based on the changing theology of the copyists (monks and priests) of the RCC. Therefore to say that it is a sure thing that the Holy Spirit is masculine is a guess at best. There is substantial evidence that has been presented that strongly suggests that the Holy Spirit is who gives birth to the children of God, and only a woman/female can give birth to any creature, whether human, animal or spiritual.

I honestly don't know what the big issue is with this. What is so wrong with worshipping a God that has both masculine and feminine characteristics, just as do the creatures that this God created in Their Own Image? Would this not provide a deeper connection between women and God, and would not women feel a deeper connection with God if part of that God was feminine as are they? Why deprive fully half of the population of the world of the joy of having someone that women can pray to that understands them completely, because God the Mother is the God of women, as God the Father is the God of men. All this is predicated on the fact that God is neither male or female, except in the characteristics that make people emotionally and spiritually either male of female.

Finally, if there is truly a family in Heaven then would not that family be incomplete if there was only a Father and a Son, but no Mother?

[John317]

Quote:

Satan is "the accuser of the brethren," and it is his spirit that inspires men to watch for the errors and defects of the Lord's people, and to hold them up to notice, while their good deeds are passed by without a mention. He is always active when God is at work for the salvation of souls. When the sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord, Satan comes also among them. In every revival he is ready to bring in those who are unsanctified in heart and unbalanced in mind. When these have accepted some points of truth, and gained a place with believers, he works through them to introduce theories that will deceive the unwary. No man is proved to be a true Christian because he is found in company with the children of God, even in the house of worship and around the table of the Lord. Satan is frequently there upon the most solemn occasions in the form of those whom he can use as his agents. {GC 395.3}

Notice Ellen White says that God is not the only One who is leading people to join the church. Satan has also an interest in leading some people to seek membership in the church of God. The same applies to Christian forums. A few years ago, one former member of this forum told me that Satan inspired her to join in order to cause confusion and dissension. It happens, and is another example of Satan's tactics in attacking SDAs and the SDA church.

[John317]

The translators that moved the Aramaic original manuscripts into Greek were themselves male and lived in a patriarchal society, so their bent was to supply masculine pronouns whenever a gender was not specified.

What Aramaic originals and who were the translators?

You are talking about Aramaic manuscripts the existence of which there is no proof. Since neither you nor anyone else has ever laid eyes on them, how can you or anyone else be sure of what pronouns they used? And if you don't know what pronouns they used, how can you say that the translators' "bent was to supply masculine pronouns wherever a gender was not specified?

Can you give an example of where such a masculine prounoun was supplied because the Aramaic did not specify a gender? Please show your evidence of this.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

There is substantial evidence that has been presented that strongly suggests that the Holy Spirit is who gives birth to the children of God, and only a woman/female can give birth to any creature, whether human, animal or spiritual.

In zoology, there is a family of animal, which is called SYNGNATHIDAE of fish. It has a unique characteristic that the female fish will lay their eggs on the male fish chest (exciting event). The male fish will incubate the eggs. It is the duty of the male fish to fertilize those eggs and give birth. When the fry are ready to be born, the male undergoes muscular contractions to expel them from his pouch. The male typically gives birth at night (dark light) and is ready for the next batch of eggs by morning when his mate returns. The number of young released by the male varies from species to species (seahorse averages 100-200 for most species, but may be as low as 5 for the smaller species, or as high as 1500, with pregnancy lasting from two to four weeks, depending on the species).

Examples of this animals are: (already mentioned Seahorse - Genus Hippocampus, examples are Big-belly seahorse, Hippocampus abdominalis, Winged seahorse, Hippocampus alatus, West African seahorse, Hippocampus algiricus, Narrow-bellied seahorse, Hippocampus angustus, Pygmy seahorse, Hippocampus bargibanti, and so many)

• Pipefish,

• Weedy sea dragon,

• Leafy dragon fish.

It (Syngnathidae) is the only family to which the term "male pregnancy" has been applied.

source

[John317]

The translators that moved the Aramaic original manuscripts into Greek were themselves male and lived in a patriarchal society, so their bent was to supply masculine pronouns whenever a gender was not specified. These Greek manuscripts were then later copied and copied and copied over hundreds of years and errors crept into these manuscripts based on the changing theology of the copyists (monks and priests) of the RCC.

Sounds like you are trying to lead people into not trusting in their Bible as the sure word of God.

Question: have you ever taken the time to closely examine the Greek manuscript evidence for every variance in the original language in a major portion of NT Scripture? For instance, have you ever done this with Matthew, the the Gospel of John or with the Apocalypse?

If so, what were the results of your findings?

The truth is that the New Testament manuscripts were usually copied with great care. There is far greater and better manuscript evidence for the NT than there is for any ancient book in the entire world. If we can't trust what the Bible says-- that is, that it reads today substantially the same as did when it was first composed-- then we don't have a right to trust any ancient book at all.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

Therefore to say that it is a sure thing that the Holy Spirit is masculine is a guess at best.

That would only be true if there was any evidence that those words had been changed, but there is no such evidence.

We have to go by the evidence and not by guesses and conjectural theories. All of the Greek manuscripts read the same in those passages you speak of.

Should we cast aside all the evidence and accept a theory that says the manuscripts are wrong because we want to believe that the Holy Spirit is a woman or female? How much sense would that make?

We need to follow the Scriptures and not people's opinions.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

There is substantial evidence that has been presented that strongly suggests that the Holy Spirit is who gives birth to the children of God, and only a woman/female can give birth to any creature, whether human, animal or spiritual.

You have to be kidding about this argument, MM. The kind of birth we're talking about -- the new birth--- is spiritual, not physical. It has nothing to do with physical birth.

God is able to give spiritual birth. Jesus said "with God all things [including the new birth] are possible." God isn't required to be female in order to bring about the new birth in people.

[John317]

Very fascinating, Pam. I'm glad you posted that info.

It certainly shows that it's not only females that can give birth.

[Dr. Rich]

John, by calling the family of God all 'male' one is calling them a homosexual family. Not so sure I would go down that road.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

There is substantial evidence that has been presented that strongly suggests that the Holy Spirit is who gives birth to the children of God, and only a woman/female can give birth to any creature, whether human, animal or spiritual.

In zoology, there is a family of animal, which is called SYNGNATHIDAE of fish. It has a unique characteristic that the female fish will lay their eggs on the male fish chest (exciting event). The male fish will incubate the eggs. It is the duty of the male fish to fertilize those eggs and give birth. When the fry are ready to be born, the male undergoes muscular contractions to expel them from his pouch. The male typically gives birth at night (dark light) and is ready for the next batch of eggs by morning when his mate returns. The number of young released by the male varies from species to species (seahorse averages 100-200 for most species, but may be as low as 5 for the smaller species, or as high as 1500, with pregnancy lasting from two to four weeks, depending on the species).

Examples of this animals are: (already mentioned Seahorse - Genus Hippocampus, examples are Big-belly seahorse, Hippocampus abdominalis, Winged seahorse, Hippocampus alatus, West African seahorse, Hippocampus algiricus, Narrow-bellied seahorse, Hippocampus angustus, Pygmy seahorse, Hippocampus bargibanti, and so many)

• Pipefish,

• Weedy sea dragon,

• Leafy dragon fish.

It (Syngnathidae) is the only family to which the term "male pregnancy" has been applied.

source

This is completely immaterial to the discussion, because Jesus would not have used ANY of these animals as an example of the relationship between the members of the Godhead, or as an example of of the relationship in a human family. Jesus used the metaphor of the Marriage Covenant to describe how salvation works. The Godhead is an example of how we as humans should structure our relationships in marriage and family. If God is only masculine in nature then God is sanctioning homosexuality as an appropriate human relationship, and this CANNOT BE.

You can believe ANYTHING you want as a function of your understanding. I CHOOSE to believe that the family of God is represented in how God created mankind, "male and female He created them".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This is completely immaterial to the discussion..

*You* are the one who brought it up. So, in honor of that, you are hereby awarded the official:

[John317]

John, by calling the family of God all 'male' one is calling them a homosexual family. Not so sure I would go down that road.

You make the mistake of misquoting me. I never said that the Holy Spirit or God the Father are "males" in the sense that people are male. In fact, I categorically denied this. So your premise is in error, and therefore your conclusion is also incorrect.

But besides this, Homosexuality has to do with sex and sexual activity, and the Trinity does not take part in any such things. It is blasphemy and sacrareligious even to suggest it.

It seems to me that your remarks, as one who is a member of the SDA church, go a long way toward illustrating the title and theme of this discussion.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not have sexual relationships. For you to say what you did here shows that you are under great deception.

Christ is the only one who is a true male-- the other Persons of the Godhead are not "male" in the sense in which people are accustomed to using the term. Calling God "Him" or "He" should not lead anyone to conclude that God is a man as humans are. In the Bible, God says, "I am not a man, that I should lie." Neither is any Person of the Godhead a woman or a wife.

[John317]

The Godhead is an example of how we as humans should structure our relationships in marriage and family. If God is only masculine in nature then God is sanctioning homosexuality as an appropriate human relationship, and this CANNOT BE.

You're wrong because you assume that the Bible refers to God as "He" in the same sense that humans are "he" and "her."

No one said that God is only masculine in nature, but then neither are any of the Trinity only feminine in nature. They all have characteristics that we associate with female and male, but that is not because they are actually either male or female.

All we know about God is what He has revealed about Himself in the Scriptures, and that is consistently language that refers to Him as "Him" or "It," never "she." WE need to be in harmony with the language of Inspiration.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...I CHOOSE to believe that the family of God is represented in how God created mankind, "male and female He created them".

You are free to believe anything you like, but your arguments in a Forum such as this need to be based on solid reasoning, and this is an example of an argument that is clearly not based on solid reasoning in the Scriptures. The fact that God created humans as male and female cannot logically be used to conclude that God is either male or female. If you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, you would have to say that one Person of Godhead is male and the other female and that they have babies together. But that is nonsense. (I trust that you also can see that this is nonsense.)

God obviously made us male and female for the same purpose that He made most living forms male and female-- for the purpose of pro-creation. But God doesn't pro-create, does He?