Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[Dr. Rich]

Actually John, no one knows the true 'nature' of God but we have a picture of the Father thru His Son-so who is it to say it is one way or the other? Tell me, what 'nature' is Satan? Every word for Satan is 'male', isn't it? How did the evil angels mate with human women as found in Gen. 6:2-4? I would guess, but that is all it would be and this is the same problem with the 'nature' of God. You can believe what you want and so can I. I am free to tell people why I believe the way I do even if you think it is nonsense. So be it!

[Guest]

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.

Why do you insist on saying that the family of God has sex with one another? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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.

Amen John. That is blashphemy, the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before. And great deception is an understatement.

[Musicman1228]

I'm hesitant to have to say this but you leave me no choice so I will: what some people are saying is stupid in saying that in this instance what I wrote had ANYTHING to do with sex, because it didn't and I NEVER said that it did. My disappointment in this stems from knowing how smart and sincere most people are on this forum, and then seeing the outright ignorance displayed in dealing with what I have written about this topic. Stupid is defined as being willingly ignorant. And a person is willingly ignorant if they continue to misrepresent what someone has said even after it has been clearly stated. This is just another example of people in blinders wanting to hear ONLY what they want to hear and not what has actually been said.

I stated categorically that I was speaking of 'characteristics' of men and women, husbands and wives. I did not relate this in any way shape or form to the physical nature of God the Father and the Holy Spirit (if there is one). The ONLY physical being that is God is Jesus Christ, and HE only became a physical being when He was born of a surrogate mother. The genetics of Jesus Christ came from God alone and not from any human agency; this is why He can be called "The Son of God".

John, your idea of solid reasoning is much different than mine. It IS logical to me that if God created mankind in His own image as male and female that God would display the same mental, emotional, and spiritual characteristics as does Their created beings. God created mankind in His IMAGE and LIKENESS. Likeness is what they look like; Image indicates their characteristics. In my mind to think otherwise is illogical. You have accused me of being illogical, yet to me there is no logical reason to believe the words of anyone other than Jesus Christ as a testimony to the truth (John 18:36-37) yet that is exactly what you do when you illogically put the words of Paul and EG White and others as equal to the words and testimony of Jesus Christ. And you do this against the specific instructions of Jesus Christ as He gave them to John in both his gospel and in Rev. 12:17.

The true nonsense here is that you prefer your misogynistic view of God which does not include room for anything feminine, and in this you not only belittle women here on earth but also God in Heaven who DOES have feminine characteristics as well as masculine characteristics. You believe this because you believe everything that Paul says on the subject of the subjection of women, who are to you and Paul and to anyone that believes as do you merely second class citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, designed to be slaves to men. I choose to believe that God displays these masculine and feminine characteristics in the personalities of two separate, equal and distinct beings. You choose to say that God has both masculine and feminine characteristics in one single being. If that is the case then why did God separate these characteristics into two separate parts and call them 'man' and 'woman'.

The Holy Spirit is defined in Scripture as the 'comforter' and 'helper', and this is exactly the role God gave to women through Eve, who was Adam's 'comforter' and 'helper'. God designed mankind to reflect the relationship that is present in the Family of God in Heaven. In His prayer Jesus said, "On earth as it is in Heaven". Human beings are complete when they are in a committed marriage relationship with a person of opposite characteristics-masculine and feminine. Frankly, if it is good enough for God then it is good enough for me.

I fear that there is nothing that I can do to persuade you to my way of thinking in this, and I know there is no way for you to persuade me. We are at an impasse, and I for one am tired of the conflict. I suggest we just move on and wait to see the actuality of God when we get to Heaven.

I'm done for tonight. Happy Sabbath, All.

[John317]

...I stated categorically that I was speaking of 'characteristics' of men and women, husbands and wives. I did not relate this in any way shape or form to the physical nature of God the Father and the Holy Spirit (if there is one).

Why then refer to the Holy Spirit as "woman" or "wife" or as "she" and "her"?

All of those are contrary to the Bible's way of talking about God and hence they confuse the issue of God's identity.

[John317]

... what some people are saying is stupid in saying that in this instance what I wrote had ANYTHING to do with sex, because it didn't and I NEVER said that it did. ....I stated categorically that I was speaking of 'characteristics' of men and women, husbands and wives. I did not relate this in any way shape or form to the physical nature of God the Father and the Holy Spirit (if there is one).

I've already said that God has the characteristics of both male and female, as we view their characteristics, such as a mother's care for her children, and a father's discipline of his children. But those aspects have nothing to do with the sex of God. But when you say that if the Trinity is all referred to in the masculine gender, we are making them homosexuals, you are clearly and completely wrong.

In light of this, please explain the following statements you and Dr. Rich made:

Originally Posted By: Musicman

If God is only masculine in nature then God is sanctioning homosexuality as an appropriate human relationship, and this CANNOT BE.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

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

To the best of my recollection, I've never said the family of God is all "male." God is revealed in the musculine gender and described as a man, but putting it in those terms is different from saying He is male or a man. I've denied that they are "male" in the sense that humans are either male or female. What I've said is that God has consistently revealed Himself as "Him" and "He," never as "She" or "Her." Whenever Jesus chose a pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit it was always either neuter or masculine.

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.

Why are you making this association if you are merely talking about feminine characteristics? The fact that the Holy Spirit is instrumental in giving us new birth or in Jesus' conception within the womb of Mary, is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is a wife or mother or female.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "Why then refer to the Holy Spirit as "woman" or "wife" or as "she" and "her"?

"All of those are contrary to the Bible's way of talking about God and hence they confuse the issue of God's identity."

Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God. Aside from the fact that the Bible not only can't talk but doesn't talk. You speak as though the Bible is a conscious entity all on it's own. I guess you get that from Rev.11 and the Two Witnesses. That would work except the Two Witnesses are two human beings and not the OT and the NT as many Adventists believe.

I, for one, and not the least bit confused as to the issue of God's identity. I don't see why this issue would confuse anyone; God is the 'I AM', and that should be sufficient.

[John317]

...Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God. Aside from the fact that the Bible not only can't talk but doesn't talk. You speak as though the Bible is a conscious entity all on it's own. ...

Of course the Bible "talks" and "speaks." One of the definitions of "talking" is also written speech. My American Heritage Dictionary gives the definiton of "expressing oneself in writing" for "talk."

You yourself refer to my written post as something that I "speak." If you say I am "speaking" in my post, then it seems correct to speak of the Bible as "talking." The dictionary says that "speaking" can also be something expressed in writing.

[John317]

Why then refer to the Holy Spirit as "woman" or "wife" or as "she" and "her"?

All of those are contrary to the Bible's way of talking [or speaking, if you prefer] about God and hence they confuse the issue of God's identity.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God.

Perhaps you are right, and it is merely my opinion.

But if that is so, you will be able to quickly answer the following questions:

Where does the Bible refer to God as a woman or a wife or with the feminine pronoun?

You believe we should go only by the words of Christ, but where did Christ ever speak of God as female or a woman? Where did Jesus ever speak of the Holy Spirit in a way that would cause anyone to believe the Holy Spirit is female or a wife or a woman?

Don't you agree that we should use Bible terms so far as possible when speaking of God?

[John317]

....The true nonsense here is that you prefer your misogynistic view of God which does not include room for anything feminine, and in this you not only belittle women here on earth but also God in Heaven who DOES have feminine characteristics as well as masculine characteristics.

This is false. I've said over and over again that God has characteristics of both males and females. Your accusation makes me think it is likely you are not reading what I say.

See post #410627. There I made the following statement:

Originally Posted By: John3:17

I've already said that God has the characteristics of both male and female, as we view their characteristics, such as a mother's care for her children, and a father's discipline of his children. But those aspects have nothing to do with the sex of God. But when you say that if the Trinity is all referred to in the masculine gender, we are making them homosexuals, you are clearly and completely wrong.

I don't see how you can misundestand what I've said here.

[John317]

....You speak as though the Bible is a conscious entity all on it's own.

The Holy Spirit does speak to us in the words of the Bible as we study it if we are receptive and pray sincerely and honestly for God to teach us. God speaks to us through the writings of Paul, Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God. Aside from the fact that the Bible not only can't talk but doesn't talk. You speak as though the Bible is a conscious entity all on it's own. ...

Of course the Bible "talks" and "speaks." One of the definitions of "talking" is also written speech. My American Heritage Dictionary gives the definiton of "expressing oneself in writing" for "talk."

You yourself refer to my written post as something that I "speak." If you say I am "speaking" in my post, then it seems correct to speak of the Bible as "talking." The dictionary says that "speaking" can also be something expressed in writing.

My point, John, is that the writers are speaking NOT the compendium that we call the Bible. It may be a semantic issue but it is important to me, because while you believe that the writers of the Bible speak with a unified voice I do not. That being said, I get your point.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John

Why then refer to the Holy Spirit as "woman" or "wife" or as "she" and "her"?

All of those are contrary to the Bible's way of talking [or speaking, if you prefer] about God and hence they confuse the issue of God's identity.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God.

John wrote, "Perhaps you are right, and it is merely my opinion.

But if that is so, you will be able to quickly answer the following questions:

Where does the Bible refer to God as a woman or a wife or with the feminine pronoun?

You believe we should go only by the words of Christ, but where did Christ ever speak of God as female or a woman? Where did Jesus ever speak of the Holy Spirit in a way that would cause anyone to believe the Holy Spirit is female or a wife or a woman?"

The words for 'spirit' in the OT are all in the feminine. In Greek pronouns are neuter, so the translator decide for the male gender based on their perspective that God had to be male. We should really decide based on context. The context of the Woman of Rev.12 indicates to me that the Spirit that gives birth both to Jesus Christ and to the 'rest of Her offspring' has feminine characteristics. And lets not start a big discussion on the fact that everyone else (but a few) believes that this woman is the 'church'. Clearly the 'remnant' are what is left over from the 'church', and therefore the it would be ludicrous to think that the 'church' gave birth to the 'church'.

Don't you agree that we should use Bible terms so far as possible when speaking of God?

[Dr. Rich]

John and Richard--What is sex for? Is NOT it to create a NEW being? The 'sex' that the Father and Holy Spirit have is NOT the same as you or I, but they MUST work together to do their creation. The MAIN reason God made us male and female is so that we can create NEW BEINGS and enjoy that orgasmic relationship JUST AS THE Father and the Holy Spirit do.

I can tell from your silly responses that you have no clue as to the truth of the matter--but that is your choice!

[John317]

...the writers are speaking NOT the compendium that we call the Bible. It may be a semantic issue but it is important to me, because while you believe that the writers of the Bible speak with a unified voice I do not. That being said, I get your point.

Doubtless you're referring to what you believe are contradictions found only between certain books in the NT and the words of Jesus.

Except for the first chapters of Genesis, you believe that the Hebrew Bible speaks with a unified voice, right? Or do you find other contradictions in the OT?

[Guest]

John and Richard--What is sex for? Is NOT it to create a NEW being? The 'sex' that the Father and Holy Spirit have is NOT the same as you or I, but they MUST work together to do their creation. The MAIN reason God made us male and female is so that we can create NEW BEINGS and enjoy that orgasmic relationship JUST AS THE Father and the Holy Spirit do.

Show from the Bible where the Father and the Holy Spirit need to have any kind of sex to create. Otherwise shut up!

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...the writers are speaking NOT the compendium that we call the Bible. It may be a semantic issue but it is important to me, because while you believe that the writers of the Bible speak with a unified voice I do not. That being said, I get your point.

Doubtless you're referring to what you believe are contradictions found only between certain books in the NT and the words of Jesus.

Except for the first chapters of Genesis, you believe that the Hebrew Bible speaks with a unified voice, right? Or do you find other contradictions in the OT?

John,

You stated "Bible" as the focus of your comments. You did not specify either the OT or the NT, so I replied based on that. My answer is this: there are no exceptions in the OT including Genesis as far as I am concerned; therefore I believe that the whole of the OT indicates that the plan for the restoration of the world through the ministry of the Kingdom of Heaven is intact and operational. There are writings on the NT that Satan is using to attempt to derail that process, but in the end God will establish His Kingdom permanently on this earth.

[Guest]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created...

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be....

[John317]

...What is sex for? Is NOT it to create a NEW being? The 'sex' that the Father and Holy Spirit have is NOT the same as you or I, but they MUST work together to do their creation.

Sex is primarily for the purpose of perpetuating the human race, but it is also made in order to bring husband and wife closer together in their relationship.

Your statement assumes that the Father and the Holy Spirit have some kind of "sex." What Bible verses do you point to for support of this idea?

Do the Father and the Holy Spirit enjoy each other's association? Of course.

Obviously the Father "enjoys" His association or relationship with Christ also, but that doesn't mean they have anything like "sex."

All three Persons of the Godhead work together to bring about their creations, but this doesn't require them to have "sex."

Do you believe the "sex" you're referring to is only between the Father and the Holy Spirit? If so, why? If you are going to call it "sex" when it is between the Father and the Holy Spirit, why not call it "sex" when it occurs between the Father and the Son; or when it occurs between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

And why refer to their relationship as "sex" at all? It seems to me that referring to it under that name is not only unbiblical but dangerous because of what many people will assume you mean by it.

The gods of ancient Greece and Rome had sex, and we can see what that led to. It led to great immorality as the people copied their false gods. Imagine if people get the perverted idea that God the Father has sex with the Holy Spirit, His woman and wife; and that the Son also has sex with the wife of God the Father. I haven't heard you express it this way, but if we assume that what you say is true, it seems to me only a hop, skip, and a jump to viewing it just that way.

Have you really thought through what you are saying about the Father and the Holy Spirit having some kind of "sex"? If it is not sex, why even use the term "sex" to refer to it? The fact that the Bible doesn't use such concepts and language shows that we shouldn't use it, either.

[John317]

MM, could you check out your post#410679 and edit it? It looks like you have it posted wrong. If you can't do it, I'll do it for you.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John317

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Those are you opinion as to what the Bible says and how the Bible talks about God.

John wrote, "Perhaps you are right, and it is merely my opinion.

But if that is so, you will be able to quickly answer the following questions:

Where does the Bible refer to God as a woman or a wife or with the feminine pronoun?

You believe we should go only by the words of Christ, but where did Christ ever speak of God as female or a woman? Where did Jesus ever speak of the Holy Spirit in a way that would cause anyone to believe the Holy Spirit is female or a wife or a woman?"

Don't you agree that we should use Bible terms so far as possible when speaking of God?

The words for 'spirit' in the OT are all in the feminine. In Greek pronouns are neuter, so the translator decide for the male gender based on their perspective that God had to be male. We should really decide based on context. The context of the Woman of Rev.12 indicates to me that the Spirit that gives birth both to Jesus Christ and to the 'rest of Her offspring' has feminine characteristics. And lets not start a big discussion on the fact that everyone else (but a few) believes that this woman is the 'church'. Clearly the 'remnant' are what is left over from the 'church', and therefore the it would be ludicrous to think that the 'church' gave birth to the 'church'.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok John, I do see what you are saying, but the idea (mine) of 'sex' for God was totally not the same as it is for humans--other than to show (for God to show humans) that creation is not a selfish motive and not singular; it is a planned event. And you would have to agree with me, I would think, that no one really knows how God does 'their' creation.

As for you're and the SDA 1st fundamental belief about the whole bible being the word of God, could you please show me from the bible the foundational proof for this belief? I have asked this question to several leaders in the SDA GC, Andrews and Loma Linda and NONE of them have been able to do this. I believe it is purely an assumption based on what EGW wrote.

[Musicman1228]

A marriage based on the marriage covenant as established by the God of Creation produces a relationship of "Intimacy of Completeness". This is a concept I have been working on for a book on the subject for several years now, and this descriptive term just came to me as I was thinking about what we have been discussing here on this thread-so thanks one and all for helping me synthesis this concept.

Briefly, Intimacy of Completeness says that God could not be God without all three personalities of God and the characteristics represented by those personalities being present in the unified entity that we describe as the Family of God. God in Their infinite wisdom decided to make this same relationship available to a new species that They created in Their image-human beings. The reason that God created them male and female AT THE EXACT SAME TIME on the 6th day of creation was because They wanted to share the joy and blessing that this Intimacy of Completeness provided to Them with beings that would be able to understand the importance of this relationship, and copy it in their own lives: and unless both primary elements of this relationship came into existence together (at the same moment) completeness for them could never come into being.

The Family of God as it is in Heaven is a structure that has this Intimacy of Completeness. God's desire was that we experience this same completeness here on earth. Yet, if one part of this entity/structure is missing or corrupted then the intimacy does not exist resulting in the loss of completeness.

Satan knew how important this relationship was to God. Angels were not created with this same capability, so when God created MANKIND (all of the races of man on the 6th day of Creation) Satan became jealous of them and wanted to destroy that intimate connection that was God's original design for mankind. Satan realized that unless he corrupted this relationship of the Intimacy of Completeness in these new beings (created in the image of God) he would never be able to win over humanity to his control.

The Intimacy of Completeness placed mankind outside of the control of Satan. Through deceit and lies (and over a long period of time) Satan was able to convince mankind that He was the god that created them, and finally destroyed this intimate relationship between the male and female of the human species, causing the nations of the earth to 'bow down' and worship Satan as God.

God needed to find a way to bring the earth back to His original idea of the relationship of the Intimacy of Completeness so He/They created another being-Adam, and separated him from the corruptness in the world by placing him in the Garden of Eden, to protect him from Satan until such a time as God could educate him in the Intimacy of Completeness.

At the time God created Adam (possibly several thousand years after the 6 day creation) there was no completeness for Adam, which is why God had to bring forth Eve from him, after a search throughout the world for a suitable partner that was not found. God wanted to restore the world to it's original condition wherein all the human inhabitants of the earth shared in the joy of the Intimacy of Completeness that God had in Themselves. To do this God needed to provide an example to the nations that this relationship was to be desired above all things as the true form of the worship of God. God was going to send Adam and Eve into the world to demonstrate this relationship to the world so that the world through them would come back to God. It was THIS threat to his kingdom that Satan had to stop; and he did, which is why we are still where we are today, living in sin in relationships that are incomplete and do not reflect the Image of God.

There is much more, but you will have to read the book to find out the rest of the story.

[John317]

The words for 'spirit' in the OT are all in the feminine.

Can you find a single competant Hebrew scholar who will tell you that a word in the feminine gender in the Hebrew language means the thing is in reference to female or is female?

The fact that the word "spirit" is feminine is beside the point. What matters is the gender of the pronoun.

There is no masculine or neuter name for "wind" or "spirit" or "breath." The word was not selected for the purpose of naming the Holy Spirit because it is the right gender. The gender of the word had nothing to do with it. The word was chosen because "wind" and "breath" symbolize the Spirit. The Spirit is invisble like the wind and can be everywhere and is a power or force like the wind.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

In Greek pronouns are neuter, so the translator decide for the male gender based on their perspective that God had to be male.

What do you mean, "in Greek pronouns are neuter"? What pronouns are neuter?

Pronouns in Greek are also masculine and feminine. If fact, the Greek has more feminine and masculine pronouns than neuter.

You are wrong that the translator decides which gender to assign a pronoun on the basis of their perspective that God had to be male.

What is your evidence for this? And can you give a couple of examples of how this works?

Also please tell where you get your information about the Greek pronouns being neuter and the translator deciding for the male gender based on their perspective that God had to be male.

Are these things you or anyone else has said in the Sabbath School or on the Radio program?

[wayfinder]

John317, check this link, it is interesting.

http://www.joyintheworld.info/index.html?/teachings/ruachkodesh