Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 10/7/2008

Question
Hello,

I was just wondering. Please do not find this offensive. I would like to know why people refer to God as He. Is God a boy? Wouldn't that imply that there are more than one God's? Also, God has a son - Jesus Christ. Is Jesus Christ also a god? Is Jesus Christ's mom a God? Please answer soon


an anxious Atheist

Answer
I am sorry to have taken so long to respond to your question, but I had forgotten to set my "vacation dates" to cover the last week and the next several weeks.  My schedule has not allowed me the time to respond. I have just a few moments tonight, and will give you a very brief summation of my study on the subject.  If you want to pursue this question with me further, please use the direct email address (readout@earthlink.net) to write me, and allow me to respond as my schedule will allow. Be sure to mention "AllExperts" in the subject line, or your email may not survive my email filters. I cannot commit to answering in a three day time frame until mid November, when my schedule lightens up a bit.

Your questions are not trivial, and they deserve more than I can write tonight, so I do hope you will follow-up with me directly.  that will also allow me to send you some copyrighted studies I have already written on the subject.

Most beliefs are subjective, with no other authority for them than that someone has decided to believe it.  Rationality demands that there be some objective evidence for the validity of a belief.  Intellectual honesty requires that one examine the objective evidence before dismissing the belief or adopting it.  Most religions are based on subjective evidences, personal and unverifiable phenomena, without objective authority to prove the belief to be valid.  It is not wise to dismiss claims that have objective evidence simply because one does not have personal knowledge of that objective authority.

Christianity, in particular among religions, has generally deviated from the objective to the subjective, preferring to use the authority of phenomena or variable human authorities as the source of doctrine.  Originally, it was not so, even though the first Christians had personal experience related to Jesus Christ which they would not deny even under penalty of death.  They also had hundreds of years of sacred writings that had an unmistakable supernatural touch in them.  The study of Biblical prophecies in the Old Testament, and the historical record of their fulfillments leads the honest inquirer to acknowledge that such things could not have been written by men without the enablement of a vision outside of the limitations of time.  What I have found in the Bible is nothing less than the details of what the source authority (we shall call Him "God" for the sake of convenience) has to say about Himself.

God's self-revelation includes much more about character, attributes, intelligence and power than it does the outward attributes of appearance, but the written record of His testimony about Himself consistently refers to Him in the masculine gender.  This is validated by the experience of history, for the prophecies stated that God would manifest Himself in flesh.  Those prophecies were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ, a male.  Furthermore, the Biblical record states that Jesus Christ is the image of God after which the first man was created.  Based on these facts, Judaism and Christianity both refer to God in the masculine, without having to define it within the limitations of physical gender, except in His manifestation as Jesus Christ.  We acknowledge the transcendence of God in all aspects other than the manifestation of Himself into time and space.

The child that was born to Mary, who was named Jesus, and became known as Jesus Christ, is indeed given the title "Son of God" and also "Son of Man."  But this should not be construed to indicate parentage as much as it does origin.  In the case of Jesus Christ, the child was not the son of Joseph, Mary's husband, nor of any natural procreation, but He is defined in Scripture as the "only begotten Son." The Greek words are interesting, since they literally mean "unique origin" Son.  The Scripture records that Jesus Christ was and is the manifestation of God in flesh, not a secondary divine personage.  So, it is correct to call Him God, and the New Testament does so in several passages.

Finally, the relationship human beings usually assume when they use the words "father" and "son" are not implied when the Scripture uses them of God and Christ.  God is the Father of all because He is the Creator of all things.  No "mother" was involved in the creating.  While Jesus Christ had a mother, the prophecies in the Old Testament, and their fulfillments in christ in the New Testament make it clear that she was not His mother by the act of procreation.  Her son is called "the Son of God" because He was not the product of procreation, but rather Incarnation. God's manifestation became flesh, and through embracing the genetic components of a virgin descended from Eve, through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and Solomon, according to the covenant made with them by God, embraced humanity as His own corporeal existence within the limits of space-time.

I hope this extremely brief summary might provoke thought, and lead you to write to me again, directly, so we can explore the question in greater detail. Belief in God can certainly be full of fallacy, and for most people, it is, but there is an objective source of information, that when given an unbiased examination, leads inexorably to belief in One Supreme Being who created all things, and manifested Himself in flesh as the man Christ Jesus.  It is proper to refer to Him in the masculine, because He does so Himself. It is not proper to assign to the words He uses to define Himself the narrow definitions of human experience.

Please write again, directly, and give me time to communicate with you about this in greater detail.

Yours for Truth,

CR