Are angels masculine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Angels do not have a sex because they do not have a body.

You could say that they may seem at times to be more “male” or “female” just based upon the common attributes of the two sexes, but that is no more than a correlation.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I look forward to us becoming “like the angels” as Jesus said, and no longer having a gender ourselves, nor having sex, so we will no longer have to have these constant Battle of the Sexes discussions.
Click to expand...
In heaven we will be perfected how God originally intended for us to be. God originally created us male and female. Therefore in heaven we will still be perfectly male and female. The Virgin Mary is female and will always be female. That was how God created her and that’s how she ascended into heaven. When we are resurrected our bodies will be made perfectly holy again and then we will be resurrected into heaven as male and female. I’m not sure if you believed that in heaven we would have genderless bodies or no bodies at all but regardless both theories are incorrect. But they are popular misconceptions.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
Benadam:
relative to humans they are better imaged as masculine. Relative to God they are better imaged as feminine.
Click to expand...
So femininity = inferiority? Gee, thanks.
Click to expand...
NO, NO, NO.

That’s not what @Benadam was implying in any way whatsoever.

It’s has to do with general attributes, nothing with one being better than the other.
 
Aren’t there something like 50 now, according to the Progressives?
 
Angels are usually referred to as masculine; Daniel speaks of “the man Gabriel” and Tobit meets a “man” who turns out to be the Archangel Raphael, it is three “men” who greet Abraham, when God sends an angel with the Israelites he refers to it as “he” when he says “my name is in him.” So, masculine pronouns, even though angels are generally understood to be genderless. Interesting note: In the apocryphal “Book of Enoch” the angels (alluded to in Genesis 6) who mated with women are said to have “made themselves male.” Even if you don’t believe the Book of Enoch to be scriptural, we know it goes back at least to the 1st century BC (probably much before) because of the Qumran copy, and it tells us that prevailing belief at the time was that angels didn’t have gender.
 
Last edited:
Well, given that language has limits, it is still unlikely we will start referring to God as “It”, which is our generless form of referring to something without gender.
 
You might want to re-read some of the OT and how it refers to women… there were some serious firebrands back then, and they were treated quite well in the OT…
 
And having been raised by a woman who likely, were she to be analyzed, would be determined to be “passive-aggressive”, I can attest that such behavior “generated” much consternation. 😝
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Leigh Ann Hester awarded the Silver Star, the first woman ever to be awarded one for valor in close quarters combat.

Hester maneuvered her fire team through the kill zone and into a flanking position, where her squad leader, Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, and she assaulted a trench line with hand grenades and M203 grenade launcher rounds. Nein and Hester assaulted and cleared two trenches. During the 25-minute firefight, Hester killed 3 insurgents.

So no, warriors are not always masculine.

And if you ever happen to run into her while she is acting within her duty as an MP, I would suggest you don’t make her mad.
 
Which may be due to the fact that popular though, which is largely the provence of popular thinkers, is the result of popular thinkners not being able to wrap their minds around St Thoms’ teachings. 🤣
 
Bof! This exterminates the substance of this entire site. Good luck finding an all theological one. Best of luck.
 
Angels are formless, genderless, pure spirit. Angel only refers to their office (messenger), not their nature.

Angels, can manifest themselves in human form, and when they do, may be male or female.

Pax et Bonum!
 
I was talking in generalities.

How about this, most warriors are male but there are exceptions like the MP you are talking about and St. Joan of Arc or my great grandmother who was a resistance fighter in World War II Southeast Asia against the Japanese. She managed to strike fear in the hearts of the Japanese and up to this day villagers still talk about her.
 
Last edited:
As you might gather from the cluster of my responses, I needed a bit of hunor for the day, and found it in this thread. And I most certainy will not imply tht you intended the word “always”, but I could not resist having a bit of fun.

And seriously, I would not want to make her mad. Nor, for that matter, your grandmother.

Language is always limiting. we ximply have no term (at least, off the top of my head) for an intelligent being which is pure spirit, and so we fall back on what we have, based on the vast majority of our experience - which is gender driven. Sentient beings for the most part are either male or female, there being no other category. And so, when we refer to a pure spirit - be that God or an angel, we fall back on what we can express, which drives us to “male” and “female” categories.

And add to the confusion, that when God or an angel is manifest, it is within our known categories; thus the kefluffle over angel apparitions. As our perception is limited, we are captive.
 
Last edited:
I don’t have to argue how influential and popular Aquinas is all these years later still. It’s not a topic that a lot of theologians have spent a lot of time on because there isn’t really a way to count them. Peter Kreeft is on the side of Aquinas with the similar ideas.

“the hierarchy of angels over men parallels the hierarchy of men over animals, and the hierarchy within angels parallels the hierarchy within animals. If the arrangement of animals tells us something about the Creator’s style and principles and preferences, it’s reasonable to expect to find his style and principles and preferences manifested in angels too.”

If God created countless species and subspecies and classes of insects, fish, birds etc etc etc, it’s only reasonable to assume that angels were also created similarly.

If it’s good enough for Aquinas and Kreeft, I’d classify that as popular thought. 2 intellectual giants.
 
Last edited:
AEach individual angel is a unique species unto itself so there goes our ability to generalize.

I get your point.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top