God said, Let us make man in our image , male and female" -- implying that God is both male and female and that men and women are of equal value and importance.

What is your view?

REMEMBER REVEREND, THE ORIGIN OF GOD CANNOT BE TRACED!!! GOD SAID Let us make man in our image , male and female" REMEMBER, IT WAS THE SECOND CREATION STORY DAT GAVE N ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION OF THE WOMAN VIVIDLY. THE IMAGE OF GOD IS AN IMAGE THAT KNOWS NO SIN.

Yes,my own personal image of God is that of an androgenous being.I see the creator as a dyad,a being that exist as both male and female,and they coexist equally,complementing each other in perfect harmony.It makes perfect sense because everything in the universe exist in duality,and they say "As above,so below".And if you additionally consider that passage quoted from the book of genesis,well there you have it.

Reverend:

God said, Let us make man in our image , male and female" -- implying that God is both male and female and that men and women are of equal value and importance.

What is your view?

jagunlabi:

Yes,my own personal image of God is that of an androgenous being.I see the creator as a dyad,a being that exist as both male and female,and they coexist equally,complementing each other in perfect harmony.It makes perfect sense because everything in the universe exist in duality,and they say "As above,so below".And if you additionally consider that passage quoted from the book of genesis,well there you have it.

Ah, my dear jagunlabi, don't disgrace me on this thread ké, shébi U've captured my respect as a great thinker on Nairaland?

Everyone is looking at Genesis as if that is where alone you find God speaking of Himself. It is like looking at only one small corner of a picture frame and exclaiming: "Look, the whole country is a grass!"

What you explained is interesting, but if you look closely you'll see that you did not represent God as revealed in Genesis, or even in the Bible for that matter. At best, what you've explicated is the ying-yang principle of Taoism: two opposing elements trying to achieve a balance and complementing each other - good and evil, light and darkness, strong and weak, male and female, etc. Another uncouth name of this idea is 'hermaphroditic being' - and clearly, God is not anything like that.

In the revelatory experiences of the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of the Biblical God (Acts 7:53 and Rom. 9:4), He was seen predominantly in the Male figure. That is not to say that He was in very fact Male. In Isaiah, God specifically warned us that we cannot compare Him to anything or anyone:

"To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me,
that we may be like?" (Isa. 46:5).

This means that, inspite of the Gen. 1:26 declarative ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", there was no likeness of sex or gender emphasized in that text. These qualities were to distinguish man from other creatures so that mankind could have intelligent spiritual fellowship with God.

Now let's come to the NT. Jesus was born a male (Matt. 1:25 - "her firstborn son" and Luke 2:21-23), never mind the new 'Bible' versions which try to pejoratively represent Him as female with the name Judith Christ. Anyway, Jesus in His ministry later made the remarkable statements:

"I and my* Father are one" and "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 10:30 & 14:9).

Are we to understand therefore that God was Male because Jesus was male? Not necessarily. . . infact, NO! Jesus in the texts above was not speaking in terms of gender or sex, but rather in terms of expression. The Bible says in Heb. 1:3 that Jesus is "the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person" - not image in sense of gender, but image in the sense of the expression of what God is in essence.

There are just two scriptures that might be helpful to see this point:

(1) Gal 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Notice that in Christ, there is neither of the sexes - male nor female - emphasized: one is not more important than the other, nor is one inferior to the other.

(2) 1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is."

Now this is clear enough; but notice yet again - males and females in God's family are all together addressed as "sons of God" (not 'sons and daughters' - as the paraphrased versions render the verse). This is not emphasizing sex or gender, but the idea that is more powerfully brought to our view is that in the family of God we would not be seeing ourselves in terms of sex. How do I know that?

Look yet again at another set of scripture verses:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
-- (Luke 20:34-36).

Has it occured to any reader of the Bible that no angel is depicted as female, even if those we read of are figuratively represented in the masculine? Angels' sexes cannot be decoded; and in the same way, neither can the sexes of the children of the resurrection be decoded.

Closing remarks:

God is [size=13pt]NOT[/size] both Male and Female - the best I can say is that God is not a gender - and the Isa.64:5 text strenthens that view. On earth today we can speak of people in terms of sexes and gender, but spiritual matters do not take their precedence from the natural.

Many blessings



_____________________

*Depending on the translation or version, John 10:30 reads - "I and the Father are one" or "I and my Father are one."

I would say male and here is my proof:

1. God - The father
2. Jesus - The son
3. The holy spirit


and this is the way you will always find it in the bible. 

the first two obviously refer to a MALE

So sorry to have "disgraced" you,but kai,all that long epistle just to tell us that God is sexless?Well,that is the way you interprete things,but i do not agree with any of it.
If the creator made man and woman in "his own image",then that is enough hint for me to believe that God is a he/she.
Remember that we're basing our image of the supreme deity on the hebreic literature,which is very patriarchial in nature.So that tells you why the male gender was predominantly used in the old test.Moreover,Yahweh(the god of the israelites)is not the supreme creator,but just an administrative deity assigned to the israelites.So what his own gender is,is of no significance here.We are talking about the most high in this thread,is it not?If you are to look at other religions around the world,you will see that emphasis is placed very much on the "both genders" concept for the most high deity.The yorubas believe in it,anyway.
But in reality,we are just talking in conjectures and personal interpretations(as is always the case in all theological discussions) because nobody truly knows of what nature the supreme deity is,as none has ever set eyes on the physical self of the divinity.But i like the "double gender" concept,sha.It appeals to me much more than the "no gender" concept.
Just my own viewpoint and interpretation.

4get_me:

Ah, my dear jagunlabi, don't disgrace me on this thread ké, shébi U've captured my respect as a great thinker on Nairaland?

Everyone is looking at Genesis as if that is where alone you find God speaking of Himself. It is like looking at only one small corner of a picture frame and exclaiming: "Look, the whole country is a grass!"

What you explained is interesting, but if you look closely you'll see that you did not represent God as revealed in Genesis, or even in the Bible for that matter. At best, what you've explicated is the ying-yang principle of Taoism: two opposing elements trying to achieve a balance and complementing each other - good and evil, light and darkness, strong and weak, male and female, etc. Another uncouth name of this idea is 'hermaphroditic being' - and clearly, God is not anything like that.

In the revelatory experiences of the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of the Biblical God (Acts 7:53 and Rom. 9:4), He was seen predominantly in the Male figure. That is not to say that He was in very fact Male. In Isaiah, God specifically warned us that we cannot compare Him to anything or anyone:

"To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me,
that we may be like?" (Isa. 46:5).

This means that, inspite of the Gen. 1:26 declarative ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", there was no likeness of sex or gender emphasized in that text. These qualities were to distinguish man from other creatures so that mankind could have intelligent spiritual fellowship with God.

Now let's come to the NT. Jesus was born a male (Matt. 1:25 - "her firstborn son" and Luke 2:21-23), never mind the new 'Bible' versions which try to pejoratively represent Him as female with the name Judith Christ. Anyway, Jesus in His ministry later made the remarkable statements:

"I and my* Father are one" and "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 10:30 & 14:9).

Are we to understand therefore that God was Male because Jesus was male? Not necessarily. . . infact, NO! Jesus in the texts above was not speaking in terms of gender or sex, but rather in terms of expression. The Bible says in Heb. 1:3 that Jesus is "the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person" - not image in sense of gender, but image in the sense of the expression of what God is in essence.

There are just two scriptures that might be helpful to see this point:

(1) Gal 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Notice that in Christ, there is neither of the sexes - male nor female - emphasized: one is not more important than the other, nor is one inferior to the other.

(2) 1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is."

Now this is clear enough; but notice yet again - males and females in God's family are all together addressed as "sons of God" (not 'sons and daughters' - as the paraphrased versions render the verse). This is not emphasizing sex or gender, but the idea that is more powerfully brought to our view is that in the family of God we would not be seeing ourselves in terms of sex. How do I know that?

Look yet again at another set of scripture verses:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
-- (Luke 20:34-36).

Has it occured to any reader of the Bible that no angel is depicted as female, even if those we read of are figuratively represented in the masculine? Angels' sexes cannot be decoded; and in the same way, neither can the sexes of the children of the resurrection be decoded.

Closing remarks:

God is [size=13pt]NOT[/size] both Male and Female - the best I can say is that God is not a gender - and the Isa.64:5 text strenthens that view. On earth today we can speak of people in terms of sexes and gender, but spiritual matters do not take their precedence from the natural.

Many blessings



_____________________

*Depending on the translation or version, John 10:30 reads - "I and the Father are one" or "I and my Father are one."

First of all,that christian trinity concept was lifted from the medittarenean pagan religions.
Secondly,that concept is totally unbalanced,and the original concept was much more balanced.
It goes like this;
The original holy trinity(Pagan version)
1)God - The father
2)God - The mother
3)The child

Now you tell me if that is not more balanced than the "roman" version.

Fluffy:

I would say male and here is my proof:

1. God - The father
2. Jesus - The son
3. The holy spirit


and this is the way you will always find it in the bible. 

the first two obviously refer to a MALE

Rejoinder to @jagunlabi's response to mine

jagunlabi:

So sorry to have "disgraced" you,but kai,all that long epistle just to tell us that God is sexless?Well,that is the way you interprete things,but i do not agree with any of it.

Well then, I see your point of view and respect it. But a few things are wanting in your interpretations of the Hebraic revelations.

- How do you come about the paradigm of Yahweh being just an administrative deity and not the Supreme Creator?

- My understanding may not yield much to you, and sorry if it was a tedious epistle to read; however, how do you come about God being a he/she ("he or she"?

jagunlabi:

But in reality,we are just talking in conjectures and personal interpretations(as is always the case in all theological discussions) because nobody truly knows of what nature the supreme deity is,as none has ever set eyes on the physical self of the divinity.But i like the "double gender" concept,sha.It appeals to me much more than the "no gender" concept.
Just my own viewpoint and interpretation.

That's why at the end of the day, one cannot categorically claim he or she knows everything about God in order to say that God is always going to be this or that. I don't debate the fact that you'll read of God in the masculine or Male figures of speech (e.g., Father, Son, He, Him) in the Bible. But to be so strenuous about this view is to leave more questions unanswered. For instance, both the Father and Son are in the masculine gender (and God forbid that anyone would think me to be advocating for a sexless Son!); but what about the Spirit? Afterall, Jesus mentioned in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit; could you tell the 'sex' of a spirit? Since no one can tell, it's best we don't carry things too far because of our individual persuasions. Albeit, I recognise that in that same verse, the gender used is positively masculine; and I pray to the 'Father' and call upon 'Him'.

What it seems to me at best is that your view is mixing up various religious perceptions (a syncretism) which may be contradictory: and this is why I fail to understand how or when the Hebraic faith (or the Christian faith for that matter) has ever viewed God as being in "both genders". [That does not mean that this thread should be limited to discussions on the Christianity].

_________________________

jagunlabi:

First of all,that christian trinity concept was lifted from the medittarenean pagan religions.
Secondly,that concept is totally unbalanced,and the original concept was much more balanced.
It goes like this;
The original holy trinity(Pagan version)
1)God - The father
2)God - The mother
3)The child

Now you tell me if that is not more balanced than the "roman" version.

Now, you should understand that you're more likely to end up controverted when making assertions like this. People always want to express their vexations against Christianity by such pejorative and misconstrued ideas. Christianity did not derive its Trinitarian doctrine from pagan religions anymore than the Yorubas derived their religious views from Hercules. If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value.

What kind of question is this?

Now, you should understand that you're more likely to end up controverted when making assertions like this. People always want to express their vexations against Christianity by such pejorative and misconstrued ideas. Christianity did not derive its Trinitarian doctrine from pagan religions anymore than the Yorubas derived their religious views from Hercules. If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value.

Oh yes it did.Believe me that that was where the concept came from.If you are very familiar with the early christian history,you will know that that concept was penned down and made official at the council of Nicea organized by emperor Constantine,during his attempt to make christianity the roman state religion.According to the history books that covered and treated this historic liturgical meeting,there was a hefty debate caused by the new "veersion" of the trinity as the pagan religion worshippers cried fouls that the new religion(christianity) was plagiarising their own already established trinity concept.
Check it out,it is in the history books,and not just my own personal assertions.
It is unsavoury info for modern day christians,but the truth it is.A very large chunk of modern christianity is made of pagan elements.But we won't go into that.

BTW,what is with this "paganophobia" of christians,anyway?Isn't the concept of a supreme creator pagan in origin?I personally don't see what the big deal is,especially if one checks out the definition of paganism.
Even the winged angels of the hebreic literature was lifted from the egyptians who already have "winged" gods and goddesses,and that is not my own personal assertions,either.That has been achaeologically proven to be true.

I am God.

I am male.

Discussion over.

My dear jagunlabi,

History does not prove your personal assertions, I'm sorry to say. What you have applied only serves to buttress my earlier conjecture:

4get_me:

If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value.

I am very familiar with early Christian history, and there's just something you have failed to tell me: who wrote the OT - Emperor Constantine and the offcials at the Nicean Council? Unless you can come up with another polarised misrepresentation of historical events to prove that Genesis, Deuteronomy and the other Books of the OT were altered by the Nicean Council, you will continue to get the picture all wrong. Why don't you calm down and look at issues objectively?

jagunlabi:

BTW,what is with this "paganophobia" of christians,anyway?Isn't the concept of a supreme creator pagan in origin?I personally don't see what the big deal is,especially if one checks out the definition of paganism.
Even the winged angels of the hebreic literature was lifted from the egyptians who already have "winged" gods and goddesses,and that is not my own personal assertions,either.That has been achaeologically proven to be true.

Now, Christians do not have 'paganophobic' reflections because we recognise that paganism is as much a recognised tradition and experience on its own merit. This talk of 'lifting' this and that from paganism to Christianity is a weathered and worn issue that has no merit whasoever other than the false assertions of authors trying to discredit Christianity. Why so? Think about it again, jagunlabi: has it occured to you that anything and everything about Christianity is being maligned and attacked by every Tom, Dick and Harry calling themselves 'scholars, researchers, authorities and historians'?

So, the days of worship (Saturday, Sunday. . and even Friday) were 'borrowed' and eventually 'stolen' from paganism; the Christian concept of God was also borrowed, lifted and stolen from paganism; the celebration of Christian festivals (Easter, Christmas, etc) were lifted as well from the pagans; and the doctrine of the death, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ (rapture) was borrowed as well. C'mon, jagunlabi - I've read them all, and if you really believe those things, you'll surprise me for your lack of objectivity.

The fact is that, pagans had their religious experiences and rites and Christianity in no way borrowed from or represents a continuum with minor adjustments of paganism. I'm surprised that these same scholars (those that I've read) have failed to tell us who the pagans borrowed or lifted their ideas from before passing it down to several other contemporary religions.

You see, when these questions are conveniently glossed over and people feel we have no right to ask, or they consider the questions irrelavant, there's every reason to suspect someone is re-writing the facts with a prejudice against Christianity. Again, I'll ask you to dig deeper than the face value soft-sell novels that might be informing the ideas that Christianity borrowed from anything.

I believe the Most High is Female and Male, as one complements the other. According to the laws of the Universe everything has an opposite. Even within ourselves we have male and female elements.

Some egotistical men were determined to make the female a subhuman and not an equal so they banished any references of the female element and disposed of all her followers by trying them as witches, blasphemers etc

The Catholic Church recognises the Female element as Mary, Mother of Jesus but they would not admit she is the Female element of the Most High.

Somebody talking my language.What does 4 get think of this one here?

Hot_CoCo:

I believe the Most High is Female and Male, as one complements the other. According to the laws of the Universe everything has an opposite. Even within ourselves we have male and female elements.

Some egotistical men were determined to make the female a subhuman and not an equal so they banished any references of the female element and disposed of all her followers by trying them as witches, blasphemers etc

The Catholic Church recognises the Female element as Mary, Mother of Jesus but they would not admit she is the Female element of the Most High.

History does not prove your personal assertions, I'm sorry to say. What you have applied only serves to buttress my earlier conjecture:"If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value."

Well,you are inferring to me being prejudiced in my opinions,right.But aren't you guilty of the same accusation?You're pro christian,and that makes you to be prejudiced against any opinion running contra to your own pro-christian views.So we're in the same boat of prejudice,so we(especially you) can't really see things from a neutral standpoint.I am trying to,but you definitely can't.The result is that,in such debates,we will always be polarized.

I am very familiar with early Christian history, and there's just something you have failed to tell me: who wrote the OT - Emperor Constantine and the offcials at the Nicean Council?

I don't quite get your point in dragging the OT into this.Does the OT mention anything about the trinity?If so,i am not aware,so kindly point me to the text.As far as i know,the idea of holy trinity extra-canonical,not to talk of being explicitly mentioned in the OT.

Now, Christians do not have 'paganophobic' reflections because we recognise that paganism is as much a recognised tradition and experience on its own merit. This talk of 'lifting' this and that from paganism to Christianity is a weathered and worn issue that has no merit whasoever other than the false assertions of authors trying to discredit Christianity.

Oh yes,orthodox christianity and chrisitans are very hostile and intolerant to paganism,and they view it as anti-christianity.But this reactions were inherited from the way early christianity had to compete with pagan religions in europe when it was still trying to establish as the official roman religion.It has always viewed pagan religions as rivals for souls,and it still does till today,hence the phobic reactions.

Why so? Think about it again, jagunlabi: has it occured to you that anything and everything about Christianity is being maligned and attacked by every Tom, Dick and Harry calling themselves 'scholars, researchers, authorities and historians'?

Because,i am afraid,christianity as a religion,was built on a very weak foundation with much too many skeletons in it's cupboard.For a religion trying to present itself as the ONLY TRUE WAY,it is really struggling to convince learned,enlightened people that it is just that,the only way.Maybe the religion just got too ambitious for it's own good.
A religion that purports to be the only way to the kingdom of heavens needs and should be able to stand the test of serious scrutiny without shaking,but this is not the case with christianity.

You see, when these questions are conveniently glossed over and people feel we have no right to ask, or they consider the questions irrelavant, there's every reason to suspect someone is re-writing the facts with a prejudice against Christianity. Again, I'll ask you to dig deeper than the face value soft-sell novels that might be informing the ideas that Christianity borrowed from anything.

You talk of face value.Now that is very interesting because it is the christians themselves who are guilty of this,especially christians of the african origins.You take this religion at face value and you just stubbornly refuse to delve deep into it's innermost recesses to really learn what this religion is really all about,afterall it is foreign religion brought to us via colonisation and slave trade.Looking beyond the doctrine and the dogma,that is what you and i need to be doing right now in this day and age of enlightenment.
Hey wait a minute!We're going off topic!Lol!
I gotta pull back and get back on track.
Every culture and tradition the world over has their own concept of how the supreme deity could be constituted(genderwise).
The judeo-christian concept is what is contained in the bible,which is fine for whoever wants to accept it like that.
As for me,since i am neither a jew nor a european,i will go for the yoruba concept of a dyadic deity.It appeals to my sense of logic and spirit a whole lot better.
Chiao!

I believe God is both male and female.

Man was first made that way(possesing male and female xristics) until God seperated the female characteristics form him in forming eve.

That is why God can weep and nuture and all of a sudden appear as a man of war.

That is the garden of Eden version you quoted right there,but remember that there were more than one creation stories in the book of genesis and the very first one says that God created man and woman at the same time and separately.

donnie:

I believe God is both male and female.

Man was first made that way(possesing male and female xristics) until God seperated the female characteristics form him in forming eve.

That is why God can weep and nuture and all of a sudden appear as a man of war.

Seems to me like you people need more proof that GOD IS MALE.
Look at it this way who do we pray to when we say the Lord's prayer "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN"

Fluffy:

Seems to me like you people need more proof that GOD IS MALE.
Look at it this way who do we pray to when we say the Lord's prayer [b]"OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN"[/b]

That is no proof.

Hey Guys,

Pick up Chris Okotie's book: 'The Last Outcast'. He discussed this issue in it. If y'all r interested, I can try type out those few pages and post it in here.

Cheers

@jagunlabi

How is that not proof, please explain your reason for disagreeing with me.
Or is there also another prayer saying our mother in heaven?

Hey Guys,

Here’s the piece I promised from Chris Okotie’s book, ‘The Last Outcast’. I hope it brings some light into this discussion and a totally new point of view.

“…, At about seven o’clock, each group began to address the Council on its findings. Eight of the ten groups were of the opinion the minister is a representative of God, and since God is a man, it would be against divine revelation to ordain a woman as a church minister. The ninth group, made up of delegates from Africa and Asia, were then called to present their position.

Sam Uyota rose from his seat and approached the podium. There was a short round of applause, which ended when he took the microphone.”

“My Lord and your excellencies. My name is Sam Uyota. I am a delegate from Africa and I have been asked to speak for my group.” There was another short round of applause. “The matter before the Council is a very simple one. The Bible gives us a clear answer to the question we have been asking ourselves all day. I think the issue here is not whether women should be ordained or not but whether God is a man or a woman. Most of the groups have agreed that God is a man. I say also that God is a man.” There was another round of applause. He stood still for a while, not saying anything but just staring into space. There was an uneasy silence. After a while, he continued to speak.

“I say with emphasis however, that God is not male. The concept of manhood was introduced in the Book of Genesis, in the second chapter. Before then, the Lord had said, ‘It is not good that Adam should be alone,’ for so the original language testifies. Most of the bibles in our hands have translated that verse thus, “It is not good that the man should be alone,’ but if it is understood that the word for man, ish, is not found in the Bible until the 22nd verse of the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, then the confusion will disappear immediately. What did God mean when He made that statement?” He paused again for a moment. There was silence in the hall.

“Did He mean that Adam was lonely? We, as bible teachers, know that could not be possible, for Adam was perfectly made. Then what does that statement betoken? Let us translate that statement into the modern way of speaking. This is what God said. ‘It is not good that Adam should be different or separate.’ Different from who? The animals? The birds? The fish? I say no, because there was nothing in the garden that had the same image as him. Who, therefore was he being compared to? The answer becomes clear when we understand that the first Adam was a figure or a type or a shadow of the last Adam who was to come. God was looking at the last Adam. His eyes were on the future. What did He see in the last Adam that the first Adam did not have? He saw that Jesus Christ was going to have a wife.

“A wife that would be a part of Him; who would come out of Him. Jesus Christ would be the head and she would be the body. That is why God took a rib, the token of the covenant, from Adam’s side, and formed Eve from it. The Lord returned Eve to Adam, and a new creation was formed. It was called marriage. Adam called her woman ‘because she was taken out of the man.’ The words man and woman appeared for the first time because of marriage. A woman, biblically speaking, represents the part, while the man represents the whole. God is the whole and all creation is the part. That is why God is called a man. Jesus Christ is called a man and the Church a woman, though it is made up of male and female members. The reason is that Jesus Christ is the whole and we are the part. For in Him we live and move and have our being.

Therefore, if we say that we will not ordain women because God is a man we will be guilty of blasphemy. What we are saying, in effect, is that God is male. For if we ordain males and reject females, are we not in great danger of blasphemy?” He stopped and looked in the direction of the trustees.

“My lords and excellencies, if we reject female ministers, we must also reject male ministers and ordain only married male ministers. For it is the married male who is called a man. I urge you to prayerfully consider what I have said.” He walked away from the microphone and off the podium. There was no applause!, "

I hope you giuys get the gist of what is written above. I might try to explain more if the confusion continues, but I think the explanation given above is exhaustive enough.

All i think i cn say, as there is no scripture that clearly states what, 'secret things belong to God': deut. 29:29. (Strive to get to heaven and ask)

dominobaby,

This is something that has already being revealed. The problem is whether we accept what is being revealed.

@Reverend
How are you sir? You havent replied my enquiries as regards to your Church and your doctrines. And Im quite surprised why you focus on bashing everything about God while you earnestly hold on to your Mary Magdalene false Doctrines. Do you know God is looking at you?

@babymine

What kind of question is this?

Ive come to observe that wherever you find "Reverend" and "Jagunlabi" on the same thread, weird questions like this are bound to erupt.

@Jagunlabi
Im quite impressed about all the info you are presenting right and left. Its proof enough that you read the Bible. But suffice me to say that all knowledge holed up in one's head without useful application is but a waste. Why do you read about what you dont want to believe in.

In answer to the question on the thread,

Job 5:8 I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9 Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:
10 Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields:
11 To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be exalted to safety.

Job 9:2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?
Job 9:10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.
11 Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him not: he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.
12 Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?

Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Job 26:6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
9 He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
12 He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud.
13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.
14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

Job 36:26 Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.
27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
29 Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?

Job 37:5 God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.

Job 37:23 Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.

Psalms 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

Psalms 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

Psalms 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

Psalms 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.

Psalms 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Ecclesiastes 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Psalms 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.

Psalms 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

@Kimba

You are a very sad person and I feel quite sorry for you if the truth is known. You use every possibility to attack people with your hysterical long winded posts. You use every possibility to knock people down with your bible bashing hysterical rhetoric.

What is wrong with the question 'Is God both Male and Female'? It is a totally acceptable question and I can not understand why you have to be so upset.

The real danger lies in people with your mentality, people who have no personal thoughts or opinions and hide behind quotes from the bible at every opportunity. What is wrong with questioning past events and trains of thought?

God may be watching me, but he is also watching you and your pathetic actions within this thread.

It may be a weird question to a brain washed sin monger like yourself, but for those members of this forum that have free spirits and open minds it is just a process of discussion and learning. Nothing more, nothing less.

God made us in his image, next you will be telling us that people that think for themselves were made by the devil! You take yourself too seriously and you should try to relax and calm down a little.

I think you should put your bible down for a few hours, find a nice girl to relieve your frustration and take a well earned rest. 

Don't misunderstand me, I admire your dedication, but you need to chill out a little

Come and visit us at the Kinky church and we will enlighten you as to how wonderful God's World really is!

God must be very amused by this thread.Lol!

Reverend, please be a gentleman. Even the Bible that you don't want to quote, read, or respect says it is good for a man not to condemn himself by allowing the same thing that he decries. You decried kimba's getting so upset, supposing him to have attacked people in his replies; yet, you attacked him by calling him names. What do you mean by "bible bashing hysterical rhetoric" and "a brain washed sin monger" in reference to him? Do I suspect that you have a personal vitriol against him and would use any opportunity to vent your own misgivings, especially because he called you a false prophet previously?

Anyway, my own reply may not be welcome by many; but then, I appreciate some of the questions that have really taken me to task, including this one. Beyond this thread and Forum, I've encountered that question among friends and in other debates. Perhaps 'The Last Outcast' by Rev. Chris Okotie acknowledges that the question is entrenched in so many people's minds, otherwise he would not have so much as bothered to write a line about it. Whatever the issue, we should be discerning, appreciative enough to respond to some of these questions. In the past, I did it the wrong way - but in recent times I learned to cool down, talk to people instead of judging them; and this is the reason why I don't mind a debate with an atheist, respecting him for being a human being first before anything else.

However, that does not mean that I support or curry favour with you, Reverend. You need to repent and put your faith in Christ and God's Word. If you are opposed to that, no qualms - I'm not the Judge, God is. My answer is that you simply take Jesus' advice - fear Him!! (Matt. 10:28).

Reverend,

I can see that y'all are digressing from the issue you raised. I hope you started this thread to get real answers to your legitimate question. If so, here it is: The image of God is not male and/or female. Rather. the image of God is simply CHRIST. The Bible says so in 2 Corinthians 5:5 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. "
Male and female has nothing to do with the image of God. If you recall that the animals that were created before man were also created as males and females, but they were not created in God's image.
I guess some could also get confused by some attributes ascribed to God in the Bible. I'll explain all that subsequently.

Precisely my point. The way I see it, our various pesuasions are that God is:

(a) both Male and Female

(b) only Male

(c) either Male or Female

(d) sexless.

I believe that God not emphatically a gender (this is different from saying that God is 'sexless'), or at best, He does not reveal Himself as comparable to anything (see Isa. 64:5). Even if there could be a "sexless being" anywhere in the universe, it still does not change the fact that nothing can be compared to God - absolutely nothing! People are created in the image and likeness of God, but if that reads as emphasizing gender, what about the animals: are the not "male and female?"

Christ is the image of God and this image is not about gender/sex. In Heb. 1:3, before He became Man, Christ was the express image of God in the sense of expressing the real essence of who God is. This is beyond a Male or Female matter - it is about knowing who God is as revealed in Christ.

Fluffy,

Our reference to God has 'IT', 'He' or 'She' just shows how limited we are as humans to describe the infinite. You need to understand that our vocabulary, no matter how extensive can never describe God in His absolute sense. Besides, we are unable to fathom God in His essence with our finite mind, and we try to explain what we are unable to comprehend with a limited tool called words. Can you understand our dilemma then?

Male and Female has to do with the flesh. Our spirits are same whether they are dwelling in a male body or not. The Bible refers to the female body as a weaker vessel, but the spirit is same in essence. Our spirits are created in God's image, and this is neither male nor female.