female God

[Guest shiloh357]

God is not a man. God has no gender.

Sorry, but God is referred to in the Scripture as a male 100% of the time. God is a "He." There is simply no getting around it. If God wanted to be recognized as gender neutral, He would have made it so. You are contradicting what is plainly revealed in Scripture.

[OneLight]

I have always considered God to be in the male role, while also believing that the role was meant to show His authority, not a gender. The role of a male is the dominate one and that of a female a servant one, or to be a help mate as in Eve. An example is that the church, you and I, are considered the bride, which by gender role would make us female, submissive. I am not a female even though I am submissive to God.

[sheya joie]

While there certainly is a verse in Scripture stating that God is not a man, let us look at that verse:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

What is the intent of the verse - to show that God is not male? Or is the intent of the verse to show that God is not human and a liar? If we carry too far the letter of this verse, we could also say that because this verse says God is not the son of man, then when Jesus calls Himself the son of man, He is saying that He is not God!

[Guest shiloh357]

While there certainly is a verse in Scripture stating that God is not a man, let us look at that verse:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

What is the intent of the verse - to show that God is not male? Or is the intent of the verse to show that God is not human and a liar? If we carry too far the letter of this verse, we could also say that because this verse says God is not the son of man, then when Jesus calls Himself the son of man, He is saying that He is not God!

It is as you say, simply affirming God's integrity. Repent and lie are being used interchangably. Lying is the same as breaking one's word/promise. God does not possess that human foible. That is the main idea being expressed.

[nebula]

because i answered the question right after i asked it. meaning it was a rhetorical question. did you not read the answer to my own question?

I'm sorry, Charitow, but I'm confused.

You said:

hmm. not sure i agree that Jesus did not have Mary's DNA. God works with His natural world, and in the natural world, we get DNA from both father and mother. Jesus was "conceived".... meaning God did not forego that natural process. why could He have not had an earthly father? i believe it was because sin is passed down from the male's DNA. God could have just made Jesus--without either earthly father or mother--if He had chosen to do so. but instead, He went with His own natural order of things. Jesus was not only God, He was fully man. how could He be fully man without having mary's DNA?

I responded (focusing in on the part I bolded) with:

I'm not so sure that sin - a spiritual condition - is passed down via the physical encoding.

Then you responded:

then why didn't Jesus have an earthly father?

I took this as a rebuttal, that if my statement were true, then there would have been no reason for Jesus to not have had an earthly father (in the plan of God).

(I know quite well you were not saying that you believe Jesus did have an earthly father.)

Thus I answered your statement as a challenge rebuttal thus:

Because He is the Son of God.

Considering that the Lord created a male child (Y chromosome needed) out of a female ova (no Y chromosome to pass down), it stands to reason that God becoming man through the normal union of man and woman may have created a double-Y chromosome individual.

Just my guess. None of us know the mechanics on how the Lord did this.

But I fail to see how He could be truly called the Son of God if He had an earthly father.