Women in the Church today

[Ovedya]

God may be masculine in His relationship with us, but He is not a man! He is a spirit! Jesus was a man!

If Jesus was a man then it also follows that God is a man, since Jesus is God. Did Jesus suddenly become genderless when He resurrected from the grave?

Please refer to John 4:24...

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

and

Numbers 23:19...

"God is not a man, that he should lie..."

First, John 4:24 doesn't apply. "God is spirit" does not mean "God is not a man."

Second, Numbers 23:19 doesn't say, God is not a male. It says that God does not posess the fallen human nature which causes us to lie. The rest of the verse makes the portion you cut out of it clear: "...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 ?"

So....Was Jesus a man in resurrection or not?

[Floatingaxe]

I have never, ever heard anyone but you (a man) pronounce such a thing that God is a man before! So, I hope you know that you are rare.

[Guest Spook]

Please refer to John 4:24...

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

and

Numbers 23:19...

"God is not a man, that he should lie..."

Floating Axe,

Numbers is of no use to you for two reasons. First of all, the denial of being a man relates to a man's ability (maybe inclination?) to speak falshoods. Second, at the time this statement in Numbers was spoken, the incarnation had not happened. So, even if the Numbers passage was construed to be a categorial denial of God's human maleness (which it is not), it would still be irrelevant in light of the later incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as a human male.

Your interpretation of Jesus' statement in John does not take into account the incarnation, unless you're inferring from the same scripture that Jesus is not God.

How do you parse Scripture like this:

1 John 4:2

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

From your earlier comments, I'd expect you to insist that "flesh" here means "genderless flesh," but perhaps not. After the resurrection, there is nothing to suggest Jesus is genderless. All the evidence in the reports of His apostles (gospels, the Apocalypse) shows him to still be a human male, whatever else He is in His divinity.

Spook

[Ovedya]

As far as Jesus the Son in heaven now...He is fully glorified humanity. Gender is irrelevant, just as it will be for all of us once we reach that state. As it is now, gender is irrelevant in the church also, as we live in the Spirit and worship and work for Him in Spirit and Truth. Together.

"Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." (John 20:17)

"After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. And He manifested Himself in this way:" (John 21:1)

The man Jesus in resurrection was still the same Jesus. In resurrection He glorified His humanity. Therefore He is the divine, human, glorified, and ascended Lord of all. He is still very much a man.

[Ovedya]

I have never, ever heard anyone but you (a man) pronounce such a thing that God is a man before! So, I hope you know that you are rare.

You believe that it's heresy to call God a man?

[Floatingaxe]

I have never, ever heard anyone but you (a man) pronounce such a thing that God is a man before! So, I hope you know that you are rare.

You believe that it's heresy to call God a man?

To limit God by referring to Him as a man is heretical, yes. He is not a man. He is above man.

[Guest Spook]

To limit God by referring to Him as a man is heretical, yes. He is not a man. He is above man.

Floating Axe,

Do you, then, say that Paul is a heretic for writing this:

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,..."

in 1 Timothy 2:5?

Spook

[Floatingaxe]

Please refer to John 4:24...

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

and

Numbers 23:19...

"God is not a man, that he should lie..."

Floating Axe,

Numbers is of no use to you for two reasons. First of all, the denial of being a man relates to a man's ability (maybe inclination?) to speak falshoods. Second, at the time this statement in Numbers was spoken, the incarnation had not happened. So, even if the Numbers passage was construed to be a categorial denial of God's human maleness (which it is not), it would still be irrelevant in light of the later incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as a human male.

Your interpretation of Jesus' statement in John does not take into account the incarnation, unless you're inferring from the same scripture that Jesus is not God.

How do you parse Scripture like this:

1 John 4:2

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

From your earlier comments, I'd expect you to insist that "flesh" here means "genderless flesh," but perhaps not. After the resurrection, there is nothing to suggest Jesus is genderless. All the evidence in the reports of His apostles (gospels, the Apocalypse) shows him to still be a human male, whatever else He is in His divinity.

Spook

Where did I say that Jesus was genderless? He was fully male. Flesh is Humanity. Not gender.

[Floatingaxe]

To limit God by referring to Him as a man is heretical, yes. He is not a man. He is above man.

Floating Axe,

Do you, then, say that Paul is a heretic for writing this:

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,..."

in 1 Timothy 2:5?

Spook

What are you talking about? Are you trolling?

[Guest Spook]

To limit God by referring to Him as a man is heretical, yes. He is not a man. He is above man.

Floating Axe,

Do you, then, say that Paul is a heretic for writing this:

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,..."

in 1 Timothy 2:5?

Spook

What are you talking about? Are you trolling?

Floating Axe,

I'm asking you a simple question. You say it is heretical to refer to God as a man. Jesus is God, and Jesus is a man. Paul refers to Jesus -- and he's referring to the resurrected Jesus here -- as a man. I simply wanted to know if you extend the label heresy to Paul and what he says here. There's no mystery at all in the question. Your statements pretty much cry out for the question.

So, I put it to you -- is Paul a heretic for calling Jesus Christ (who is God) a man?

Spook