Holy Spirit has Female gender ... Bible suggests

[Contarini]

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

Of course we can. That is to say, we can interpret intelligently, which seems to be what you mean by “picking and choosing.”

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.

Well no, because it’s always been seen as symbolic. Are you saying that Mary literally is some sort of giantess with large flaming celestial bodies around her head? I find this degree of literalism hard even to imagine!

You are seriously out of touch with the teaching of your Church here.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve always felt that H.S. had ‘replaced’ my earthly mom. The first time I saw mom after my conversion … I instinctively knew her role in my life had been superceded by 24-7 H.S. presence.

Recently I heard Scott Hahn give a talk on this subject … and he covers it in Chp. 10 of his book First Comes Love. He proposes that OT & NT scriptures support a strong female (creative) aspect to the H.S. He also mentions that many Catholic philosophers and theologians have held this belief in past. He also states that Pope Benedict has written some about this subject … in support of.

It makes perfect sense to me. In the beginning, the H.S. moved over the waters … and life was created. Man/Women are created in the image of God … thus, the Trinity must have female characteristics.

**That does not follow. If it did, we would all be hermaphrodites. **​

John was intrusted with taking Mary as his Mother … John is the most Spiritual one of the NT. Gospel of John, 3 books of John, and Revelations are non-stop testimony to power and manifestations of H.S. John wrote his gospel last … in his final years. He had read the other gospels and attested to their truth and accuracy … yet, he felt they didn’t emphasize the H.S. enough. Thus, he wrote his own account … emphasizing what he thought was key importantance.

As Christians, we are Rebirthed into the H.S. … a generative/female process. The Church (led by H.S.) is the bride of Christ. Christians individually are spiritually married to Christ … via H.S. [especially true for celibate Priests ! ]

That is a revolting idea.​

Who has the most love for us … humanly speaking ? Always is mom … right ? Dr. Mom has the touch that heals. At confirmation we are touched by hands … and H.S. enters us by touch. Even earlier at Baptism, we are first healed by H.S.

##** Not at all - some women, including some mothers, are very far from maternal. **

God is Love. God is H.S. Thus, could we not say the H.S.
Personage of Trinity] … possesses most especially female gender ?

**The Holy Spirit is God, yes - but God is not the Holy Spirit. The two statements are not synonymous - as can be seen from this: **​

• This Greek is Socrates
• This Socrates is Greek

Christianity is all about family. God is family Father, Son, and perhaps Mother ? ]. Isn’t Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mother of the Church ? Why was she given this role … if not to show the feminine aspects of God … and to complete the family portrait ?

**This leads straight to the idea that Mary is the Wife of God the Father. It may not be what we want people to think, but the logic of ascribing these relations to the Divine Persons & to her leads to that conclusion. **​

**A better way of talking about the Blessed Trinity & the BVM has to be found; what we say influences our thinking, which influences what we say. Not a word in that paragraph forbids us to think that Mary is not the Divine Consort of God, by Whom He became the Father of Jesus: our only safeguard against such an idea is that the Bible knows of no such a Mary. **

I’m not saying that Mary represents the H.S. … because H.S. preceeded her. But, she symbolizes the female nature of God and clearly bestowed much H.S. upon the apostle John. Thus, he put her in Revelations … in the Queen role … as head of Church.

**If she can “symbolise the female nature of God”, that implies that she is co-equal with Him, differentiated from Him only by sex. Such a suggestion fits like a glove the notion that she is a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit. ****Which has the fatal flaw of re-mythologising the Judaeo-Christian notion of God: after a long interval, God has a wife again. And nothing good has ever come of religions in which the Supreme God has a wife. **​

**BTW: Mary is not, was not, will not be & cannot in any sense whatever be “head of the Church”. Christ is Head of the Church - & no-one else. **

God is not a family. **That idea is a form of tri-theism - God is One God, not three. **

Can anyone find scriptures that contradict or would tend to disprove this belief of many former and modern day Catholic theologians ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

**There is no firm reason to suppose the woman of Rev. 12 is Mary at all. The Marian interpretation: **​

• does not fit the immediate context
• it makes a nonsense of the parallel with Rev. 17
• **makes hay of the bridal imagery at the end of the book **
• **corresponds very poorly with the Nativity narratives **
• ignores the traditional interpretation of the woman as the Church
• ignores the theology of the book
• ignores the literary genre of the book
• ignores the author’s use of Scripture.
  **To assume without question that the Woman of 12 is the BVM takes far too much for granted. The Woman has some BVM-like features - that does not make her the BVM. **

**The book is highly symbolic, as the OP said: this is a feature of apocalyptic books. To take it literalistically would require us to think that a seven-headed dragon fell from Heaven, along with a number of angels. That in turn would prompt questions about how they avoided burning up when they hit the atmosphere, what their rate of fall was, & whether the ten crowns of the dragon lost their shapes through friction experienced as a result of g-forces. **

**If satan really is a dragon - why did it not fly from the war in heaven ? Or was it the same kind of dragon as Tolkien’s Glaurung, who breathes fire but cannot fly ? If satan does breathe fire - how could it vomit water ? **

**Literalistic readings of the apocalyptic parts of the Bible make them ridiculous, needlessly Such readings turn Revelation into a guide to celestial herpetology. **

 

[BRB]

**There is no firm reason to suppose the woman of Rev. 12 is Mary at all. . **​

The Church teaches this … you’re talking heresy

 

[rpp]

The Church teaches this … you’re talking heresy

Actually, the Church does not officially teach this. However, the Woman Clothed with the Sun in Revelation is thought to be the Blessed Virgin Mary by many Bible scholars. I myself hold this view. But to disagree with this interpretation is **not **heresy.

On the other hand, believing that the Holy Spirit is feminine is a heresy.

 

[BRB]

Actually, the Church does not officially teach this. However, the Woman Clothed with the Sun in Revelation is thought to be the Blessed Virgin Mary by many Bible scholars. I myself hold this view. But to disagree with this interpretation is **not **heresy.

On the other hand, believing that the Holy Spirit is feminine is a heresy.

Say … I proposed the initial thread question … with word ‘perhaps’. I’m still in the formative stages on understanding all the nuances of Catholic dogma and lesser beliefs.

I can understand why alot of Revelations may not be considered in Dogma. Everytime I read it I see a different angle/interpretation.

Heretic : “one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma”

I’m not a dissenter … I’m questioning to get Catholic perspective. Anyways, all true heretics are allowed to recant, before they light the pyre.