Church of Sweden to formally stop referring to God as "he"

[High Fidelity]

I don't know about the UK, but the US is slightly over 50% female (especially at my age), so femininity is prevalent here, too.

If it's not in the UK, I feel sorry for you, 'cause women are wonderful.

Femininity in men...

 

[SolomonVII]

Not surprising from a country where femininity is prevalent.

From talks I have listened to from Jordan Peterson, this may not be true about Sweden. Certainly the leftist politics of the country for generations now have been attempting to engineer total equality between the sexes, but as far as men go, and as far as women of Sweden go to, they have maintained or reverted back to behaviors typically thought of as masculine for males and feminine for females to a higher degree than many other countries where that kind of social engineering is less prevalent.

Maximized gender differences in Scandinavia • r/JordanPeterson

 

[discipler7]

God kills everybody.

.
.

I don't think it was God who actually killed Jesus Christ on the Cross.

I know you don't.

.
JOHN.8: =
37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”

39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
.
.
JOHN.7:19 = 19 Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?”
.
.
JOHN.5:16 = 16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.
.
.
MARK.14:1 = 14 After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take Him by trickery and put Him to death.

 

[Strong in Him]

We do need to know the mind of Jesus,

Generally, maybe.
But in this case, all we can know is that Scripture says that Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. We cannot know, 2000 years after the event, WHY he did it. Scripture does not say that he only associated with the in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there, or think that that's what he should have done.

Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners - therefore, he associated with them.
Jesus came into this world, walked, lived among and died for sinners - therefore he associates with us. And as he does not wash his hands of us when we sin as Christians; he continues to associate with us.

Is not your statement below condescending towards our Lord and saviour....

"don't worry guys, I'm only doing it so they will repent"

No of course not. I said that was a statement that Jesus NEVER made. I'm saying that Jesus did not give his reasons for eating with tax collectors and sinners.
It seems you didn't understand what I wrote.

This is preposterous speech, that implies a distrust in the Lord, for the purpose of lowering confidence in his almighty works and almighty ways. Your remarks are condescending and should be retracted.

This shows that either you didn't read, or didn't understand, my words.
I asked a question.
My question was "what if the woman had committed adultery again after she's been forgiven? Would Jesus not have forgiven her again?"

It was a hypothetical question, not a condescending remark to Jesus.

Ha ha ha! Really!

You must be joking!

The fact that you can sneer at me even when I agree with you, shows that you don't, in fact, understand what I am saying.

As this is the case, all your condescending remarks about "reading Scripture" or "knowing the Lord" are unnecessary. So I'm sure you'll understand if I ignore them.

Which god and what gospel are you preaching from?

I'm reading the Gospel where Jesus teaches us to treat others as we would like to be treated, and where he sided with, stood up for and helped the poor, weak and disadvantaged. I'm reading about the God who is on the side of the poor and who criticised others for taking advantage of them.
Have you read Matthew 25 recently? Jesus said "what you did not do for one of these, you did not do for me".
James said that saying to a poor person "keep warm" and doing nothing to help them, is no good; faith is shown by our actions.

You seem to be saying that social action and helping others is not acceptable unless you also lead them to repentance. That's not correct.

If you turn your back on Jesus, it maybe be at your own peril and your last. Think about it for a moment.

Going into a pub, for example, to talk to and maybe befriend people, is not "turning my back on Jesus."
Like I said, you don't understand what I am saying.

 

[The Times]

Generally, maybe

Generally always! Unless you lived, ate and interacted with him as his disciple.

But in this case, all we can know is that Scripture says that Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. We cannot know, 2000 years after the event, WHY he did it. Scripture does not say that he only associated with the in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there, or think that that's what he should have done.

Jesus is the cornerstone and he came to finish the plan of God and so he instructed his disciples within the context of the Great Commission as follows......

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

How can you then state.....

"Scripture does not say that he only associated with the sinners in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there"

The above statement borders on ignorance, right? Otherwise it would be a preposterous statement to make.

Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners - therefore, he associated with them.
Jesus came into this world, walked, lived among and died for sinners - therefore he associates with us. And as he does not wash his hands of us when we sin as Christians; he continues to associate with us.

Jesus washed his hands of the Pharisees and Seducees and he condemned city after city for not repenting and accepting his ultimatum.

Scripture never mentions Jesus hanging around wilful sinners who continue their rebellion, this would be counterproductive to his gospel and contradictory to every statement that he made regarding wilful sinning.

No of course not. I said that was a statement that Jesus NEVER made. I'm saying that Jesus did not give his reasons for eating with tax collectors and sinners.

He didn't, really!

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5)

You stated previously......

"Scripture does not say that he only associated with the sinners in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there"

His goal was to reconcile them to the Father, through repentance. You don't think that he wanted to make friends and pass time, do you?

My question was "what if the woman had committed adultery again after she's been forgiven? Would Jesus not have forgiven her again?"

There is no if, when God said "neither will I condemn you", otherwise you bring into question the righteousness of God in making a claim that he cannot back track on. Jesus didn't say those things for just saying those words, unless he knew the prostitute would no longer continue in her old ways.

I'm reading the Gospel where Jesus teaches us to treat others as we would like to be treated, and where he sided with, stood up for and helped the poor, weak and disadvantaged. I'm reading about the God who is on the side of the poor and who criticised others for taking advantage of them.

God is never on the side of rebellion, regardless of the state that rebellion is in.

Have you read Matthew 25 recently? Jesus said "what you did not do for one of these, you did not do for me".

Context please.......

6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9“This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11The poor you will always have with you,a but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

The poor are considered by Jesus as the obedient, not the disobedient. Jesus spells out, by even elevating the woman to highlight what he defines as poor.

James said that saying to a poor person "keep warm" and doing nothing to help them, is no good; faith is shown by our actions.

Context, the poor are defined as the obedient poor, not the disobedient poor.

You seem to be saying that social action and helping others is not acceptable unless you also lead them to repentance. That's not correct.

Correct!
Obedient poor is what Jesus defines as poor in spirit, not poor by flesh.

Going into a pub, for example, to talk to and maybe befriend people, is not "turning my back on Jesus."

It is your time with an unsaved sinner, outside of Christ's Great Commission prerogative. It may come to work against you, if you hang around with the unsaved sinners. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Like I said, you don't understand what I am saying.

I believe I have a clear picture of which direction you are aiming for.

Look up the word metron in the Greek, it means neasure. The standard that Jesus requires is very high. In the times we live in, it makes it near impossible to meet his metron, unless we fall within his die hards. Lucky for those who are not die hards, they will be bleed out and their time of testing will be in the great tribulation to come, where the call will be......

To die for your Lord.

 

[RDKirk]

I expect that Jesus did not associate with anyone with any less than the desire for them to be a disciple.

I don't think Jesus associated with anyone thinking, "Nah, not this guy. He can just go to hell."

 

[Strong in Him]

You stated previously......

"Scripture does not say that he only associated with the sinners in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there"

His goal was to reconcile them to the Father, through repentance. You don't think that he wanted to make friends and pass time, do you?

It's possible that when Jesus was having a meal with them that he told them who he was, and why he did the things that he did. It's also possible that that's why tax collectors and sinners invited Jesus to eat with them in the first place; because they wanted to know.
But I don't believe that Jesus only accepted the invitation because he knew, or intended, that everyone would end up converted.

Jesus gave all people a choice. The rich young ruler walked away from Jesus when he was challenged about his money. In John 6, many disciples said that Jesus' teaching was too hard and walked away. They were people who believed in Jesus and were following him; yet they left.
Jesus let these people go - even though he had talked with them and spent time with them. He didn't say "well that was a waste of my time", and he didn't pick people who would be guaranteed to follow him, believe in him and have eternal life - look at his relationship with Judas.

Context, the poor are defined as the obedient poor, not the disobedient poor

So are you saying that if someone is a thief/killer/con artist and they also happen to be poor, starving, cold, dehydrated or whatever, you would not consider helping them unless they repent first?
That is a question, by the way; so don't go saying I've put words into your mouth.

It is your time with an unsaved sinner, outside of Christ's Great Commission prerogative. It may come to work against you, if you hang around with the unsaved sinners. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

So, another question; are you saying that we should only hang around with non Christians if we can guarantee that they will be converted one day, otherwise it's a waste of time and we'll end up like them?

That is obviously not the case.

I believe I have a clear picture of which direction you are aiming for.

I don't think you have a clue about me.

 

[Followers4christ]

So your view is that women aren't created in the image of God; probably, in fact, in the image of man (God help us!). And that we were created to be some kind of helper to man. Why? couldn't he cope with the work on his own, or did he just want to be able to delegate?

Scripture doesn't support that view. The word for helper is, I have been told, the same word that Jesus uses when he describes the Holy Spirit as a helper. Genesis also says that women was created because it was not good for man to be ALONE - i.e she was his companion/partner.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


It says clearly that man was created in the image of God. But women were made from man as we can see in Genesis 2:22.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

[Followers4christ]

Wait. Is God not the Trinity, and is the Trinity not God?

Just like a husband and a wife will be one flesh, yet are they not also separate? When the Son took human form on Earth, did He not pray to His Father? They were separate yet they are also one.

 

[Strong in Him]

It says clearly that man was created in the image of God. But women were made from man as we can see in Genesis 2:22.

"Man" in Scripture doesn't necessarily literally mean "man".
Otherwise it means that only men are sinners, only men can be saved and so on.

Women were clearly not made in the image of men. We are completely different; physically, biologically, genetically and emotionally.

 

[Followers4christ]

"Man" in Scripture doesn't necessarily literally mean "man".
Otherwise it means that only men are sinners, only men can be saved and so on.

Women were clearly not made in the image of men. We are completely different; physically, biologically, genetically and emotionally.

If you read 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which I quoted it clearly says the opposite then what you are saying now as it claims man was made in the glory and image of God but women in the image of man.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you read 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which I quoted it clearly says the opposite then what you are saying now as it claims man was made in the glory and image of God but women in the image of man.

That's how I see it too. The only difference is that man may have been made in the glory and image of God in the beginning, but that changed after sin entered the picture and man went into a fallen state.

 

[Followers4christ]

That's how I see it too. The only difference is that man may have been made in the glory and image of God in the beginning, but that changed after sin entered the picture and man went into a fallen state.

Yes I fully agree. This is fully supported and taught in the Bible. But to many people clouded with emotions try to mold the Bible instead of letting the Bible mold them.

 

[The Times]

It's possible that when Jesus was having a meal with them that he told them who he was, and why he did the things that he did. It's also possible that that's why tax collectors and sinners invited Jesus to eat with them in the first place; because they wanted to know.

The people within small communities already knew Jesus and had heard about him. His name and presence where ever he went became viral.

1When Jesus came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. (Matthew 8:1)

So people had already heard of him, yet they had needs and those needs were.....

2A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” (Matthew 8:2)

Yet the message of his actions was always a call to repentance....

4Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” (Matthew 8:4)

That gift the man gave was the gift of repentance under the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus tells him to tell it to no man except the priest, this is a confession of repentance right there and then. The gift Moses commanded is the penance.

But I don't believe that Jesus only accepted the invitation because he knew, or intended, that everyone would end up converted.

Really!
Why would he say......
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11)

Inviting people to come to him is to convert them from repentance onto salvation.

Jesus gave all people a choice. The rich young ruler walked away from Jesus when he was challenged about his money. In John 6, many disciples said that Jesus' teaching was too hard and walked away. They were people who believed in Jesus and were following him; yet they left.

Did Jesus continue to associate with the rich young ruler?
Did he continue to hang around them or accept them as they are?

Absolutely not!

He gave them the message and an ultimatum and that was that and instructed his disciples to go in every town and tell them to repent and to embrace the Messiah. Those towns that did not, they were never revisted and the dust wiped off sandels phrase, meaning never to return back to them. Some cities Jesus condemned for continuing to live sinful lifestyles.

Jesus let these people go - even though he had talked with them and spent time with them. He didn't say "well that was a waste of my time", and he didn't pick people who would be guaranteed to follow him, believe in him and have eternal life - look at his relationship with Judas.

He never associated with them after they had made their choice.

So are you saying that if someone is a thief/killer/con artist and they also happen to be poor, starving, cold, dehydrated or whatever, you would not consider helping them unless they repent first?

Absolutely!
Yield to Jesus Christ or I see them as thorns in his sight. Feeding thorns is not what the harvest message is about. Our job is to plant the seed and water it and God makes it grow. If thorns grow after the seed is planted, then do we wait around and to continue watering the thorn? God forbid!

So, another question; are you saying that we should only hang around with non Christians if we can guarantee that they will be converted one day, otherwise it's a waste of time and we'll end up like them?

Associate with kindred spirits, that are of God, for they are the community and house of God. The spirits that wilfully continue to live a lifestyle of sin, cut them off, just like the instructions Jesus gave us.....

30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

I don't think you have a clue about me.

Ok, we will leave it at that.

 

[Strong in Him]

If you read 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which I quoted it clearly says the opposite then what you are saying now as it claims man was made in the glory and image of God but women in the image of man.

No it doesn't.
It says that woman was made FOR man. In Genesis 2 God said that it was not good for man to be alone.. The animals were all in pairs, Adam was not; so God created woman.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 does not say that woman was made in the image of man. Like I said, that's obviously not the case; we are different physically, emotionally and genetically. If we weren't, the human race would not continue; men don't bear children.

 

[Followers4christ]

No it doesn't.
It says that woman was made FOR man. In Genesis 2 God said that it was not good for man to be alone.. The animals were all in pairs, Adam was not; so God created woman.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 does not say that woman was made in the image of man. Like I said, that's obviously not the case; we are different physically, emotionally and genetically. If we weren't, the human race would not continue; men don't bear children.

Let's see what the Bible has to say about this:

Genesis 2:22-23 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is gone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

So as we can see in Genesis Eve was created from man (Adam's rib). Then as we see in 1 Corinthians says "since he (talking about man) is the image... Of God" but then we see that it says "woman is the glory of man" then it claims " for man did not originate for woman, but woman from man". So woman was created from man and for the glory of man as God created man to be the glory and the image of God.

Now I am not saying that woman or man are the same as each other or vise versa. But what I am saying the biblical stance is woman was created from man and man was created in the image of God. Nowhere does it say woman was created in God's image as how could God bear the Image of man and woman? The Bible only claims man was created in God's image and woman was created from man as for the glory of man.

God the Father and the Son are both male in the Bible to claim otherwise is not biblical.

 

[Strong in Him]

Let's see what the Bible has to say about this:

Genesis 2:22-23 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is gone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

That is not what the Bible says on the subject. That is what you have interpreted two, isolated, verses to mean.

Now I am not saying that woman or man are the same as each other or vise versa.

That is what "made in the image of " means.

If woman is made in man's image, she should be just like him. That's what image means.
Yet it could be said that women and men have almost opposite characteristics.

Nowhere does it say woman was created in God's image as how could God bear the Image of man and woman?

Firstly, Genesis 1 says that God created mankind; male and female, and made them in his image.
Secondly, that is the whole debate of this thread. Scripture says that God created men and women in his image; Scripture also talks about God giving birth to us, and his creation, giving us new life, nurturing us etc. Therefore God, who is Spirit, has some female characteristics or qualities.

And if you are going to take Scripture that literally, you need to consider the following;

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil," John 3:19.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel", Romans 2:16

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life," Romans 5:18

Scripture says that MEN are sinners, do evil deeds and will be judged by God - it doesn't say WOMEN will be, so presumably we are perfect and not sinners.

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned," John 15:6
Presumably if a woman doesn't abide in Christ, it is not a problem.

"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men", Romans 12:18.
Presumably Paul's readers didn't have to live in peace with women, since Scripture does not say that.

I'm sure you can see the problems that arise if we take the word men in Scripture to apply only to those of the male gender.

 

[Dave-W]

I do not know where they got the Sophia reference.

It is from the LXX of Proverbs. Sophia is Greek for wisdom, which seems personified in that book.

 

[Petros2015]

I do not know where they got the Sophia reference.

'Sophia' is Greek for 'Wisdom' - they probably are taking it from Proverbs 8 where Wisdom is embodied in the feminine. It sounds like they are taking things quite far.

 

[Followers4christ]

That is not what the Bible says on the subject. That is what you have interpreted two, isolated, verses to mean.



That is what "made in the image of " means.

If woman is made in man's image, she should be just like him. That's what image means.
Yet it could be said that women and men have almost opposite characteristics.



Firstly, Genesis 1 says that God created mankind; male and female, and made them in his image.
Secondly, that is the whole debate of this thread. Scripture says that God created men and women in his image; Scripture also talks about God giving birth to us, and his creation, giving us new life, nurturing us etc. Therefore God, who is Spirit, has some female characteristics or qualities.

And if you are going to take Scripture that literally, you need to consider the following;

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil," John 3:19.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel", Romans 2:16

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life," Romans 5:18

Scripture says that MEN are sinners, do evil deeds and will be judged by God - it doesn't say WOMEN will be, so presumably we are perfect and not sinners.

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned," John 15:6
Presumably if a woman doesn't abide in Christ, it is not a problem.

"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men", Romans 12:18.
Presumably Paul's readers didn't have to live in peace with women, since Scripture does not say that.

I'm sure you can see the problems that arise if we take the word men in Scripture to apply only to those of the male gender.

That is what the Bible says as I have even underlined where is said "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." In 1 Corinthians 11. What does it mean when it says "he" is the image of God?

Let's also remember this verse unlike the verses you tried to use talks about the roles of both men and women as well as talks about women were created out of man and man was in the image of God. It does not refer to mankind as it separates and talks about both men and women and how we are different. Unlike the verses you used.

I never said that women were created in the image of man. As according to Genesis woman was created out of man (his rib) not in his image. As men and women are agreed different from each other. The Bible says women and men are equal as each other in the love Christ has for all of us regardless of sex or color. But the Bible also claims that men were created in the image of God. As when we refer to God we refer to Him as a man, like God the Father and the Son. When He came on Earth to die for our sins He came as a Man. He never referred to Himself as a woman cause man was created first (1 Timothy 2:13) and was in His image ( 1 Corinthians 11:7) and out of man woman was created (Genesis 2:23). But woman is not in the image of man as we can both agree we are different. We can even see this in the role of marriage in the Bible like Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:5. But as the Bible is also very clear he loves us all the same and are equal in His love and promise ( Galatians 3:28 and John 3:16).

Sorry for taking so long had lots of stuff going on this week.