Holy Spirit has Female gender ... Bible suggests

[ERose]

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.

I think you are making a big leap here. To be honest your conclusion does not come deductively or inductively from your premises and as such without more foundation your argument is invalid.

I give you the point that yes the Trinity was involved with the creation of man, but no where does that conclude into one of the persons of the Trinity being overly feminine compared to the others.

Again as was stated by myself and others God is spirit and truly has no gender. He is referred in masculine pronouns, because of reasons outside of gender. 1) The Old and the New Testaments portray God with a masculine personality. 2) Method of creation. 3) Through Jesus Christ’s use of masculine pronouns for both the Father and the Holy Spirit. and 4) Jesus Christ being born male.

 

[BRB]

I give you the point that yes the Trinity was involved with the creation of man, but no where does that conclude into one of the persons of the Trinity being overly feminine compared to the others.

l.

Good point. No it doesn’t prove. But, it implys the possibility that H.S. might in particular be able to convey both female and male spiritual aspects to mankind.

 

[rpp]

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

You are wrong to falsely accuse of others of what you yourself are doing. You started this topic and refuse to acknowledge the fact your statements have been repeatedly refuted. Then you twist what others write. You are wrong in your assertion of gender qualities of the Persons of God.

This whole series of posts you have made are not logically consistent in their content. I do not believe you are making these statements from a sincere point of view. Thus, you have demonstrated that you are not really interested in the truth, but rather in just annoying and mocking people.

As a consequence, I see no value in following up as I previously said. This thread is not worth my, or anyone else’s time.

 

[davidv]

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.

Do you believe God is immutable. If you do, then if God is a “we” on day 6, He is a “we” on day 1 as well. So your distinction makes no difference.

It also seems to me that you are interchanging male/female with masculine/femine. These are not equivalent pairs and cannot be used interchangeably.

Also, the last I checked, male/female are attributes of a body. Since God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a body they cannot have either of these characteristics.

 

[ERose]

Good point. No it doesn’t prove. But, it implys the possibility that H.S. might in particular be able to convey both female and male spiritual aspects to mankind.

Look, remember that it is the whole Trinity involved in the creation of man. How would you single out the Holy Spirit?

That being said, God should be everything for you and can be. He does have the ability to be a Mother to you as well as Father. Many Saints in the past have refered to God as a Lover especially mystics. God, I believe with my whole heart, is Love. When you love someone else whether it is a Mother or Father or Child or Sibling or Husband or Wife or etc, you are on a certain level sharing God with that person or better yet experiencing God with that person. The love your mother has for you is a reflection of the Love God has for you. The love your father has for you is a reflection of the Love God has for you.

Anyway I hope I am making since here. We preceive God as masculine but when it comes to Love there is no gender.

By the way I have to take offense about your comment about women normally love their children more that men. For I am a Father and I love my children far more than anything else on this planet and I truly do not believe that my Wife loves them any more less or more than I do. Unconditional love is unconditional love.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Does the Catholic Church have an official position on this issue? If so, where and when was it declared or written?

 

[BRB]

By the way I have to take offense about your comment about women normally love their children more that men. For I am a Father and I love my children far more than anything else on this planet and I truly do not believe that my Wife loves them any more less or more than I do. Unconditional love is unconditional love.

You are the exceptional in this regard. Most men and ladies clearly have experienced more love from their mothers.

No offense intended … but, the facts are heavily weighted on the side of mothers being more nurturing and loving to their kids.

Now, I’d bet Christian men do a much better job in this regard … at least they should.

 

[BRB]

I do not believe you are making these statements from a sincere point of view. Thus, you have demonstrated that you are not really interested in the truth, but rather in just annoying and mocking people.

As a consequence, I see no value in following up as I previously said. This thread is not worth my, or anyone else’s time.

You have a thin skin my friend. Take part in internet discussions w/o making personal attacks and throwing a hissy fit. :hug1:

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You are the exceptional in this regard. Most men and ladies clearly have experienced more love from their mothers.

No offense intended … but, the facts are heavily weighted on the side of mothers being more nurturing and loving to their kids.

I don’t think that this is at all true. Most men love their children as much as mothers do. They just express it differently. I agree with you that women are usually more nurturing than men. That is part of the feminine psyche more than it is part of the male psyche- it’s your gift. But fathers have qualities they can give their kids which women don’t tend to have as much as men, and which are also crucial. Mothers and fathers love their children equally, but they express it in different ways.

I certainly experience the same intensity of love from both parents, and that’s what I observe in all the families I know. It is expressed in different ways, though, because the genders tend to have complementary gifts rather than the same gifts.

 

[BRB]

I certainly experience the same intensity of love from both parents, and that’s what I observe in all the families I know. It is expressed in different ways, though, because the genders tend to have complementary gifts rather than the same gifts.

You too are very lucky.

Usually when divorce happens … moms fight harder to keep the kids.
Put an athlete on TV … which parent does he say hi to ?
When a child is hurt / crying … who does he run to ?
Who takes best care of you when you are sick ?
Who never forgets your birthday ?
Who spend all the time in kitchen cooking for you ?
Who cleans up after you ? Seriously, do dad like diapers ?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You too are very lucky.

Usually when divorce happens … moms fight harder to keep the kids.

Maybe that’s true. You haven’t given a citation, so I don’t know that it’s true. But if it is true, it isn’t proof that the moms love their children more. A lot of the fathers might just be more selfless .

Put an athlete on TV … which parent does he say hi to ?
When a child is hurt / crying … who does he run to ?
Who takes best care of you when you are sick ?
Who never forgets your birthday ?
Who spend all the time in kitchen cooking for you ?

These points are about nurturing. Nurturing is part of the feminine psyche more than the male, I agree. Nurturing is the way women express love, and women nurture more than men do, I agree. But that does not mean that male ways of expressing love are any less sincere or valuable. The man often teaches leadership, judging between right and wrong, individualism rather than the reliance on a social network. The woman teaches the reliance on that social network, which is good, just as the more frequently male individualism is.

Men don’t spend time away from their homes, leaving the above tasks to women, because they don’t want to be around their kids. They go because they need to got work and earn money to keep the family functioning. They feel loss when they have to leave their family for a suspended period of time.

Love is the same for both parents. They simply have different functions, and neither is more valuable or more loving than the other.

Who cleans up after you ? Seriously, do dad like diapers ?

Actually, my Dad shared diaper duty with Mom. But if my Mom more frequently did it, because she was home more often, that wasn’t because my Dad loved me less. It was because he had work to do to keep the family afloat that took him away from home.

You seem to be perceiving nurturing characteristics as the only way of being loving. That misses completely the value of the male gender role, and might mess some with your ability to understand why God revealed himself as a Father and a Son in the Bible. The masculine qualities of God in the Bible were judging, discriminating between right and wrong, powerful leadership, immense courage (most obviously seen in Jesus, at Gethsemane), and the willingness to lay his life down for his beloved (Jesus for the Church).

These are crucial qualities, and every bit as loving as the qualities women have. Children should learn these qualities from a parent, and they do learn them, usually from the father. Women, of course, teach children other extremely valuable qualities, many of which tend to be part of the nurturing characteristic you have very validly praised.

The roles of men and women are different but equally loving and necessary.

 

[Seraphim25]

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.

wait just a minute here… Lets take a look at what Genesis says. First note that there are two accounts of creation. One (paraphrasing stating that God created mankind before the animal kingdom and then the other states just the opposite whereby the animal kingdom was created first then God created mankind.
The implication that I was saying is that God created Adam first and from Adam did God create Woman. For Woman by itself means out of her man this one has been taken. Secondly I am not deny at the master builder/architect just suddenly decided to create woman. That is not at all what I am getting at. In the second account of the creation story God allowed ADAM to decided what the animals would be called. Eve was not mentioned here yet. At Gods own appointed time did God create for Adam Eve is wife.
Look at what 1 Conithians states here. “A man on the other hand should not cover his head because 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. So God did create man first and then woman. Now also note that in the same place as above it says Woman is not independent from man or man of woman in the lord. For just as woman came from man so do man from woman. BUT ALL THINGS ARE FROM GOD. From the commentary it states that “In the Christian economy the relation between the sexes is characterized by a mutual dependence which is not further specified” “But the ultimate significant fact is the origin that all things have in common”.
So Men need Women just as Women need men. Just has Man was created first then women. Man was created from woman through unification of the sacrament of marriage. All things come from the same origin for all things were created by God.
Paul affirms in the same place that Christ is the head of the church but that husbands are head of their wives. This statement is not at all intended to be sexist based whatsoever. It is the order of things at which it was created. Also, the statement at which the commentary says; " And creation narrative in Gen 2, in which each of the sexes is created seperately (first the man and then the woman) from man and for him, to be his helpmate.Gn 2, 20-30”.
God well knew what he was doing and when he was creating.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

wait just a minute here… Lets take a look at what Genesis says. First note that there are two accounts of creation. One (paraphrasing stating that God created mankind before the animal kingdom and then the other states just the opposite whereby the animal kingdom was created first then God created mankind.

That’s not true! There is one big creation story first, Genesis 1, and the second hones in on the creation of mankind more closely and describes it in more detail. But it doesn’t say that God created man before the animals. It doesn’t contradict Genesis 1.

The implication that I was saying is that God created Adam first and from Adam did God create Woman. For Woman by itself means out of her man this one has been taken. Secondly I am not deny at the master builder/architect just suddenly decided to create woman. That is not at all what I am getting at. In the second account of the creation story God allowed ADAM to decided what the animals would be called.

The first creation story never says anything contradictory to this. It simply doesn’t comment on the naming of the animals.

 

[Seraphim25]

That’s not true! There is one big creation story first, Genesis 1, and the second hones in on the creation of mankind more closely and describes it in more detail. But it doesn’t say that God created man before the animals. It doesn’t contradict Genesis 1.

The first creation story never says anything contradictory to this. It simply doesn’t comment on the naming of the animals.

Okay: seriously here that is not my message anyways. However please read Chaperter of the of the second creation story. It is very clear that Adam named the animals that god had formed out of the earth.
Gn 2 18-21 “The lord God said:It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the lord god formed out the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them;whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle all the birds of the air and all the wild animals but none proved to be the suitable partner for them man.”
Clearly, Adam dose in fact name the animals. I never stated that the two stories contradicted themselves. This thread is going way off course.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

The very concept of “gender” implies that you are lacking something in your own body in order to reproduce. To assign God to either gender is to say that He lacks something. God lacks nothing. God, being complete (genderless) contains all the qualities and abilities needed to produce life. We have divided these qualities into “male” and “female” because that’s how we reproduce,but really they’re all just divine attributes that cannot be assigned a gender. So, the “maternal” and the “paternal” aspects of the faith are all contained within the one God without distinction.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay: seriously here that is not my message anyways. However please read Chaperter of the of the second creation story. It is very clear that Adam named the animals that god had formed out of the earth.

Agreed, but it doesn’t say whether Adam named the animals God had created a few minutes ago or a few days ago or a few million years ago.

  Gn 2 18-21 "The lord God said:It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the lord god formed out the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them;whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle all the birds of the air and all the wild animals but none proved to be the suitable partner for them man."
 Clearly, Adam dose in fact name the animals. I never stated that the two stories contradicted themselves. This thread is going way off course.

Okay.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

Thanks for finding this and posting this. Much more thorough than what I posted earlier. I think the bold part should render Scott Hahn’s name out of the discussion as a supporter of this stream of thought.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Does the Catholic Church have an official position on this issue? If so, where and when was it declared or written?

Not sure if there is an official position, other than God being pure Spirit (CCC#370). But CCC#692 clearly says the Spirit title, Paraclete, is translated, “he who is called to one’s side.” Paragraph CCC#691 says, “him who is personally God’s breath, the divine Spirit.” But ultimately, as we have all said here of God’s pure spiritual nature, it reads, “the inexpressible person of the Holy Spirit.” Our language cannot capture the essence of the Spirit. It is merely an expression of the Spirit.

The nurturing qualities of man and woman, father or mother, are all aspects of God’s love, and His nature. (see again CCC#370)I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. But He transcends gender as already shown. He cannot be reduced to male or female (save His incarnate self).

 

[BRB]

I think the bold part should render Scott Hahn’s name out of the discussion as a supporter of this stream of thought.

Actually, Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberly feel the H.S. possesses [feminine] spiritual pychosocial attributes. But, because some in/outside the Church have accused him of saying H.S. is ‘only female’ … he has had to restate what he believes, so as not to be accused of being a heretic.

Perhaps the H.S. has both feminine & masculine aspects[natures/persons]. God is family … Father/Son/H.S. And the H.S. proceeds from the Father & Son. The final words of Christ on Cross were dealing with family issues. Establishing mother/son relationships with Mary & John, and yielding His Spirit up to the Father.

Sometimes I need the Spirit to be strong and firm [masculine] with me … to tell me “This is your final warning”, “Stop speeding”, etc. Othertimes I need the Spirit to bring me to tears, to comfort, to nurture. At these times I clearly see a Motherly H.S. at work.

Since the H.S. is a key aspect of Family of God … the H.S. has familial role.

If Scott Hahn would like to expound further on the matter … I think we could all learn from his theology on First Comes Love.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

##** It would help a great deal if people could only get it into their heads that sex is not the same as gender:**

• Gender distinguishes grammatical items
• Sex distinguishes animals
  **To talk of animal gender is nonsensical & meaningless - though very widespread. This kind of ignorance comes from ignoring the teaching of grammar ****Sloppy grammar leads to, & re-inforces, sloppy thinking; which in turn leads to sloppy theology **