Holy Spirit has Female gender ... Bible suggests

[Contarini]

Uh … lets be reasonable !

Well I guess Christ has yet to come to earth ? And, perhaps John just had a vivid dream of heaven … and was not caught up by H.S. to receive the Revelations ?

Remember … Christianity is based on both faith & reason.

BRB,

Yes, let’s be reasonable. Your suggestion is contrary to both faith and reason. A God who was limited to a physical body would not be God in the classical monotheistic sense. He would not be worthy of worship (in the strict sense called “latria,” though no doubt he would be a very estimable sort of being and worthy of the lesser reverence called “dulia”).

In the traditional, orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity assumes a human nature, together with body, soul, and everything else that makes someone human. However, this does not change the divine nature, which exists from all eternity and too all eternity independently of any physical characteristics whatsoever. Some modern theologians (such as Robert Jenson) have argued that the Incarnation should be given more importance and the traditional doctrine of divine impassibility rejected. But Jenson would not affirm that God the Father has a body, only that the Incarnation does make a radical difference in what it means for God to be God.

As for the vision of St. John–of course that language can’t be taken literally. Are you really suggesting that the book of Revelation is literal? That there will be literal seven-headed monsters running around at some point?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe the OT Jews perceived it this way. They believed if one saw God … he would surely die.

They took the Genesis account of man/women being made in image of God literally.

Moses was hidden in the cleft of the rock as God walked past.

I agree. The OT Jews, at least early on, saw God in an anthropomorphic way. They had not yet grasped the full truth about God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

However, there is a long tradition in the Church of theologians and philosophers seeing strong feminine language regarding the Holy Spirit.

If you are an anthropomorphist, then such a “long tradition” is irrelevant to you. The classical theologians of the Church did not limit the Divine Nature to a physical body, so their language about the Holy Spirit did not mean what you think it meant. You are breaking so radically with Christian tradition that any use of it you may find it convenient to make is quite ironic.

Edwin

 

[BRB]

God created woman from Adam…The apostles themselves are firm at this. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and Woman was created from man. Woman was created for man as a helper and equilizer. God showing all the creatures to man and naming them found alone. Then God said it is not good that man be alone. Let us then create for him a helpmate. God Bless

Does the Churches’ magisterium really believe God started the creation of human … and suddenly decided that woman was needed ? Lets give God more credit here. God had planned man/woman from early on in creation … to be in unity.

Otherwise, why give Adam a sexual organ ? Was all this world made just for Adam alone ? How would Adam ever take care of it by himself … if procreation was not in early designs of God ?

Does a master builder / architect not think thru the plans before a project is started ? Woman was integral to God’s plans … not a last minute add-on to help in kitchen.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes. It is the clearly defined teaching of Christian tradition that God is pure spirit and has no gender or other bodily attributes. As our Anglican 39 Articles put it, God is a spirit “without body, parts, or passions.” Humans are made in God’s image because they have reason and will, not because they have a particular bodily shape. What you are suggesting is the heresy of “anthropomorphism” and was condemned in the fourth century.

Edwin

Come on . . . this is not anthropomorphism. No one is denying that the Spirit is pure spirit, and is not a material woman or man. The Spirit isn’t exclusively male or female. At least . . . I don’t think you are saying that, BRB, are you?

I tend to see the Spirit as more of a “she” than a “he” myself, though I know that really the Spirit is neither. This discussion has to be about whether or not the Spirit has more clearly revealed feminine characteristics or masculine.

The word used to refer to the Spirit in the Old Testament is “Ruwach,” which is a feminine word for wind, or breath. So as far as the Old Testament goes, the Spirit’s pretty much a “she.” The NT word for Spirit is almost always the gender-neutral, “it.” The main time when the scripture deviates from that is when the Spirit is referred to as Counselor, which is a masculine word in the Greek, so the pronoun was correspondingly masculine. At other points, the word “Spirit” was gender neutral.

The Spirit is of course what the word says, “spirit.” Not a man or a woman. But different members of the Trinity tend to have different roles and characteristics, and the Spirit’s role in the Bible often is a more feminine one. “As flesh gives birth to flesh, so Spirit gives birth to spirit,” as Jesus remarked. And there are other references, such as the Spirit’s role as “Comforter,” healer, one who submits to the authority of both the Father and the Son (as a wife or mother might to the male leader of the household), and other characteristics . . . I can’t remember them all offhand.

The Spirit also came to me earlier in my walk with God as female, though I know that technically of course the Spirit is genderless.

According to a pastor I talked with on the subject, the Early Church Fathers tended to shy away from referring to the Spirit as female because they didn’t want the Spirit conflated with the Goddess idolatry held by pagans.

 

[BRB]

As for the vision of St. John–of course that language can’t be taken literally. Are you really suggesting that the book of Revelation is literal?

Edwin

Well, we can’t pick and choose what we want out of Rev.

For example, John describes God and Christ in heaven with male features … arms, face, hair, body, etc .

So, if you deny the Father & Son have a body form in heaven … you just as well toss out the depiction of Mary with stars about head and moon under her feet.

Oh no ! you dare not do this … there goes the main support for the Marian doctrine of Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Does the Churches’ magisterium really believe God started the creation of human … and suddenly decided that woman was needed ? Lets give God more credit here. God had planned man/woman from early on in creation … to be in unity.

Otherwise, why give Adam a sexual organ ? Was all this world made just for Adam alone ? How would Adam ever take care of it by himself … if procreation was not in early designs of God ?

Does a master builder / architect not think thru the plans before a project is started ? Woman was integral to God’s plans … not a last minute add-on to help in kitchen.

That’s true. And Genesis says that both were made in the image of God, not just one. Both reflect God’s character. Besides, Adam was still sinless when he desired Eve, so his desire was in no way wrong. It was a flawless desire and thus united with God’s will. Adam also felt a lacking, or loneliness, without the woman, which suggests that from the beginning he was designed to be with her.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well, we can’t pick and choose what we want out of Rev.

For example, John describes God and Christ in heaven with male features … arms, face, hair, body, etc .

So, if you deny the Father & Son have a body form in heaven … you just as well toss out the depiction of Mary with stars about head and moon under her feet.

Oh no ! you dare not do this … there goes the main support for the Marian doctrine of Church.

Jesus had a resurrected, glorified male body when he rose from the dead. There is no scriptural indicationg that he lost it again after he ascended into heaven. So he’s still presented as male, just as he was on Earth. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t part of his divine personality that supersede the male gender, obviously, for God is spirit. But he also has a male body and his characteristics and roles within the Trinity seem to lean toward the male.

 

[ERose]

How do we know about the lack of gender ?

Yes, Bible teaches God is Spirit … and to worship in spirit & truth.

But, John pictures God in heaven as perhaps male … the ancient of days. God calls Himself Father.
And Son Jesus … is clearly male sex.

We are made male/female … in image of God. If God was only Spirit … would He have an image ?

When “in the image of God” is used, it is not referring to our physical qualities but rather or spiritual/cognitive qualities. We are in the image of God because we can love, use logic, see in things qualities that are not just phyical such as beauty and many others.

God is usually referred in the masculine because of two reasons in my opinion: his personality is usually portrayed as masculine and the method of creation. God created everything out of nothing, which is more similar to man’s part in the procreation of life.

 

[BRB]

God created everything out of nothing, which is more similar to man’s part in the procreation of life.

HA !! This is classic male dominant thinking. 30 seconds of time investment vs 9 months !

 

[mangy_dog]

No one here is suggesting any restrictions on Christ’s power of Cross. God the Father and God the Son are sacrosanct.

However, there is a long tradition in the Church of theologians and philosophers seeing strong feminine language regarding the Holy Spirit. Christ especially talked in terms of marriage, bride and bridegroom, etc … regarding Church and Christians.

How did God creat woman … unless He fully understood the female psyche ? Again, the topic is not so much anatomical structures … as it is feminine and male emotional /psychological makeup. Anyone who would deny the differences of man/women from spiritual/soul standpoint is in denial. Can a male function as effectively as a mother ? Can a female fully function as a surrogate father ?

Man and women are complementary. Neither is superior to the other. So lets not let male chauvenism enter into the equation.

I think modern day theologians and the current Pope have clearly noticed the many feminine aspects to the H.S. I trust their judgement in seeing clearly in this matter.

Stay tuned … the H.S. will get the final word. And, Mother Mary may have something to say on the subject.

You are beginning to sound “new-agey” yourself there Burb.

The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed states: …we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified and has spoken throught the prophets…

Acts 13: 2 also refers to the Holy Spirit as Lord.

And as if that wern’t enough!!!

John 15: 26 calls the Holy Spirit “he”

So enough with the New Age - HP Blavatsky; AA Bailey and A Crowley mumbo jumbo.

Gospa Mir!

 

[BRB]

Come on . . . this is not anthropomorphism. No one is denying that the Spirit is pure spirit, and is not a material woman or man. The Spirit isn’t exclusively male or female. At least . . . I don’t think you are saying that, BRB, are you?

I tend to see the Spirit as more of a “she” than a “he” myself, though I know that really the Spirit is neither. This discussion has to be about whether or not the Spirit has more clearly revealed feminine characteristics or masculine.

The word used to refer to the Spirit in the Old Testament is “Ruwach,” which is a feminine word for wind, or breath. So as far as the Old Testament goes, the Spirit’s pretty much a “she.” The NT word for Spirit is almost always the gender-neutral, “it.” The main time when the scripture deviates from that is when the Spirit is referred to as Counselor, which is a masculine word in the Greek, so the pronoun was correspondingly masculine. At other points, the word “Spirit” was gender neutral.

The Spirit is of course what the word says, “spirit.” Not a man or a woman. But different members of the Trinity tend to have different roles and characteristics, and the Spirit’s role in the Bible often is a more feminine one. “As flesh gives birth to flesh, so Spirit gives birth to spirit,” as Jesus remarked. And there are other references, such as the Spirit’s role as “Comforter,” healer, one who submits to the authority of both the Father and the Son (as a wife or mother might to the male leader of the household), and other characteristics . . . I can’t remember them all offhand.

The Spirit also came to me earlier in my walk with God as female, though I know that technically of course the Spirit is genderless.

According to a pastor I talked with on the subject, the Early Church Fathers tended to shy away from referring to the Spirit as female because they didn’t want the Spirit conflated with the Goddess idolatry held by pagans.

Amen !! A well reasoned insightful post

Yes, I’m suggesting the H.S. be viewed not just in historic psychological ways … but, also looked at from the social theologic family standpoint. Catholicism is pure and simple —about Family relationships. Hermits have a hard time being fulfilled Christians. God thinks in family social terms. The Church mirrows God’s ideals and desired social structures.

The Bible says God can be ‘all things to all peoples’. In other words … God will meet our every need … regardless of race, creed, culture, sexual status.

If a lady sees only a male dominated Trinity … she may be somewhat inhibited and feel inferior. Could not Christ send His H.S. to her in such a way that she feels the spirit’s communion with her in a familiar female way.

Then, on the otherhand … perhaps some males are fearful of dominant females. To them, Christ may prefer to let the H.S. have the desired male features they desire.

As pointed out earlier … some of H.S. language is female… some is male. Perhaps God in His infinite wisdom desires to accommodate us thru either male or female H.S. …depending on what might prove more effective / comforting to us.

Some here say the H.S. is gender neutral. That seems strange … and doesn’t agree with God’s focus on the family.

 

[BRB]

You are beginning to sound “new-agey” yourself there Burb.

!

better new-agey … than mangy

 

[ERose]

HA !! This is classic male dominant thinking. 30 seconds of time investment vs 9 months !

Lets look at how the procreation of life occurs with mankind.

The man provides seed with his genetic information in it to fertilize the woman. The child’s substance or body comes from the substance or body of the woman.

God created the universe out of nothing through the Word which supplied the information or laws by which it is govern. No where did God use His Divine Essence or Substance to create the universe and as such He created it in what we would call a masculine way and not feminine.

I am not saying that women are not created in the image of God as well as men for the image is spiritual not physical.

Let us not forget that the New Testament writers always used masculine pronouns for the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[mangy_dog]

better new-agey … than mangy

Cute…the only thing new about New Age is its modern approach to the amalgamation of heresies.

New Age is the same Luciferian lie from the garden thru today.

Beware of that trojan horse…

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[mangy_dog]

This thread reeks of heresy.

I will not be a contributor to someone sinning against the Holy Spirit.

Good-bye.

 

[rpp]

The idea that the Holy Spirit is somehow feminine ignores the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation which resulted in the conception of Jesus.

Even so, this is not new. The Catholic Church examined this and declared the belief that the Holy Spirit was feminine a heresy around 1000 or 1100 AD. Let me do some checking I will get you the details and the names of those involved.

And I agree with the previous poster. I will also add that Dan Brown is not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Neither is Margaret Starbird.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

One should not use Scott Hahn’s work as a support for the thesis of the thread. Scott Hahn has clearly denounced this heresy, and has made it also clear that he does not think or teach that the Holy Spirit has female gender. Here is a copy of his letter to the New Oxford Review which accused him of the same thing because they, too, misunderstood what he was saying in his book First Comes Love.

In response to your New Oxford Note “A Little Bit of Gnosticism” (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: “He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: “If the Spirit’s role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies – at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph.” As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

Scott Hahn
Steubenville, Ohio

 

[BRB]

God created the universe out of nothing through the Word which supplied the information or laws by which it is govern. No where did God use His Divine Essence or Substance to create the universe and as such He created it in what we would call a masculine way and not feminine.

I am not saying that women are not created in the image of God as well as men for the image is spiritual not physical.

Let us not forget that the New Testament writers always used masculine pronouns for the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Several points in regards to above.

God spoke …and creation occurred. “Let there be light” … for example on Day 1. Days 2-5 … same process … word spoken and creation resulted.

But, on day 6 … now we hear God saying “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over … & …etc. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Very telling ! God creates alone on days 1-5. But, on day 6 … suddenly the Trinity is invoked in the creation of Mankind … both male and female … created in image of Trinity. A group Trinitarian family action by the Almighty and Son and H.S.

Thus, clearly some aspect[person] of the Trinity has female image [likeness].

Moses got it straight from God. I know, some will say Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch. But, that is speculation … and will never be proved.

 

[BRB]

The idea that the Holy Spirit is somehow feminine ignores the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation which resulted in the conception of Jesus.

.

H.S. is one with the Father and Son … and proceeds from both. Some might say this proves H.S. is male.

But, God is the creator of all life … male & female. Thus, the H.S. could convey either male or female genetics to a human union. The fact that H.S. conveyed male aspect of Christ to Mary just proves the H.S. is the lifegiver … not that the H.S. is restricted to only providing male characteristics.

Don’t put God in a box. God has no limits & His creative powers are infinite.