God is a He and this post is not worth the time or effort.

@TheGreatBout@xanga -  I didn't realize that you were saying that you weren't taking Jesus' word for it but rather that we should expound upon the reasons behind why Jesus said what he did.  I apologize for the confusion and any tone I sent out in my reply.  I think you could understand my indignation at )he idea of what I thought you were trying to say, hence my reply.  Again, sorry.  Thank you for clarifying.  I can understand why you would say that.  I guess chatting from one Christian to another, however I guess I felt safe with leaving it at a basic " 'cuz Jesus said so." 

Anyway, the proverbs that you mentioned that refer to wisdom as a she.... well I think that's just the author (though God was the "muse") being poetic.  Here are verses that lead me to this belief.

Proverbs 9:13-18 (though I'm only going to type out 13-14).
"Folly is an unruly woman; she is simple & knows nothing.  She sits at the door of her house on a seat at the highest point of the city."

I think we all can plainly see that this is a metaphor/analogy.  There isn't a literal woman named Folly being referenced here. 

Exodus 35:31
"and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills"

This was the closest reference I could get to what you said about the Bible (or perhaps you only meant Proverbs?) mentioning wisdom with the Holy Spirit.  Well.... I think we can see that neither the author nor God intended for the meaning to be that the Holy Spirit IS wisdom, understanding, knowledge, skills, etc.  Certainly this is plain as well. 
I do believe, however, that when one is "filled with the Holy Spirit" that we have more wisdom (and all its synonyms) than we have without it.  However, I do not believe that they are interchangeable. 

This is why I do not believe that the Bible references any part of the Holy Trinity as anything other than male.  And just as Jesus was not bothered by being under the headship of God the Father I have no issue with being under the headship of my husband - nor women generally being under the headship of men. 
Besides - women vote, purchase land & homes, can work any job they want, can have a sex change to become a "man" if they wish, can be in law, politics, even the president of the country!  Other than pay for jobs (which I've mentioned is a bit irritating) being a bit lower than a man - I do not see any injustices in our country.  It is illegal to discriminate based on gender, etc.  So I guess this is why I tire of any conversation where women whine about a perceived inequality.  Again, they could raise the pay for women to be equal to men in all career fields, jobs, etc.  So I have no clue what it is they are trying to change or do.  It almost feels that some groups of women would not be happy with equality, but would rather that women dominated.  I strongly feel that is not in our best interest.

@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - Does he have female or male genitalia? Is he beyond gender due to his uncreated nature? Is he expressing his mysterious and unknowable nature (in its fullness) through those actions? Does he not fit the typical confines of what beings we refer to as "he?" If so, perhaps. If not, then no. The reason that example doesn't meet par with the discussion we're having is because it deals with a being that meets a certain criteria. He fits within a box of gender. He is male. He is a human being. Human beings are male and female. God is... not human. Not male nor female. No more "he" than "she." Not truly. He is other. If your friend gave birth to a baby or nursed from his bosom the story may change a little though wouldn't it?

@PrincessVictoria_2004@xanga - I'm not arguing if the Spirit is a he or she but rather if it is ever appropriate to refer to the Spirit as "he" or "she." There is a great difference. I've clearly stated that I don't believe God or any persons within the Trinity are male or female but rather something beyond gender. This is what birthed the conversation in the first place. Since the nature of God is beyond that of humans we have to admit that "he" is a lacking term, though used in scripture. It is a grace, a service to us humans who can't think outside of what we know. That said, perhaps "she" is also a term that could be a grace and service to us in the proper context. I'm not attempting to argue against scripture. This issue may seem simple here and now but this has been a serious issue for theologians in our past. Is it worthy of our fear for a person if they want to travel through the same trains out thought? We should never be afraid for those who seek knowledge and wisdom or to draw closer to an understanding of God. 

I'm glad you don't take my opinion as scripture, I certainly wouldn't ask or expect you (or anyone else) to. That'd be foolish. I'm also not arguing that things that go against scripture's words, ideals, patterns, movements, and author(s) are praiseworthy or anything but lies. However, you're not answering my questions at all. The issue of how we define the term "he" is crucial. We're talking nature of God here, and addressing of God. It's not as though God were born, a doctor saw a penis and said "It's a boy." The matter is less simple than that. So how ought we to define "he?" Do you think Origen and Jerome were pushing heresy or fallacy? I'm very interested in your take on these men and their statement. Do you believe they are liars or expressing something that is in opposition to the scriptures they studied? How do you approach men like Origen and Jerome?

@MyTwoCentss@xanga - It's all good. I can see how my words may have come off. Anyway, you're right that it is poetry and thus poetic language. You're also right that the Holy Spirit is not wisdom herself in that passage. The Wisdom of Solomon (an apocrypha book which may or may not be scripture for you) has passages that lead to the connection as well. Probably more so than the Proverbs. Anyhow, I'd agree that wisdom and Spirit are not necessarily interchangeable just as wisdom and Christ are not interchangeable. Both are the Wisdom of God but are the same as wisdom by itself nor is either one merely wisdom alone but much more. I just think the connection between persons and wisdom, which is referred to repeatedly in scripture and tradition as female, is noteworthy. In the post I even mention that it doesn't make Christ a female, since he had a male human body, but the Spirit doesn't have the same nature entirely so the Spirit is left a little more open.

As far as the male dominance ordeal you have to remember that you (and I) live in a very unique time and place. Most of what you are referring to are recent developments and are not widespread worldwide or even accepted by the entirety of our own land (even if accepted by the government). A student of history and literature must admit that to make any part of God a "she" would be problematic 2,000 years ago. The Apostles were getting themselves in enough trouble just by making females heroes and mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. To go a step beyond and call a person of the Trinity "she" could have been a bit much. Perhaps humanity wasn't yet ready for such a bold move.  Sure, there were female deities floating around (some very prominent even) but none of them in the Jewish tradition, which was very much male dominated. A few hundred years later after a society in which there is "neither male nor female" had been established it is possible that such a statement could be made with less trouble. I don't know. I just wonder about the cultural aspect of it all and if it has any affect. I'm not sure how much of that answer we can really ever know unfortunately. 

BTW - EVERYONE, loving this conversation. It's a fun one. ;) Thanks for putting up with me. I know I'm a handful.

@MyTwoCentss@xanga - I'm not trying to harp on the past but to take an honest look at it. That's just part of incorporating cultural context into reading the Bible and seeking to understand the movement of the Spirit therein. What makes that poetic approach seem pointless (perhaps in opposition to being poetic about wisdom, Christ, the Father, or the Church; all of which are in scripture). To me, being creative and artistic about theology is absolutely necessary. We have to be careful with it but if we go without it then we don't worship fully. That's just how I feel about approaching God poetically though.

I think the ultimate goal of this post was to allow us to think in broader terms, without being so left out, as so many Christian congregations do to people who don't march exactly like them.  No matter what we call the spirit, God does expect us to help the poor and needy, respect those of other nations and not just our own, and try to understand those with differences so that maybe they can one day understand us.  I do not for a minute believe the Bible inerrant.  That comes from charismatic preaching, not the 500 times the Bible has been interpreted since 1640.  You just simply cannot come up with something perfect that many times.  Was Rome inspired when she took the original texts and added much abused hellfire and damnation?

I've never thought of God in this way before. I've always just...pictured Him as male. It made sense to me that, since God was the father of Jesus (who was a male in every physical sense), and he "impregnated" Mary, that He was male.

But then again I haven't read far enough into the Bible (although I'm working on it) to know that God essentially defined Himself as "I am." Gender neutral.

I guess if someone has an issue relating to men, viewing God as either simply an existence or even as a female might be easier for them. Whatever gets them through The Gates, I suppose, will work.

My mother always referred to the Holy Spirit as "she" because she looked at "her" as a mother.  As a kid I assumed everyone referred to the Holy Spirit as she, though I know better now that I'm older.

@MC_Shann@xanga - Hey! I don't know if you remember me--we had a conversation a long time ago here on revelife. I remember that you knew a lot of etymology. In particular, you seemed to know a lot about the original phrases/language of given passages.

In modern Greek (which I speak/read/write fluently), many nouns have one of three genders: masculine, feminine, or neuter. The gender of a noun doesn't always correspond to the gender of the object. For instance, table (το τραπέζι) is neuter whereas chair (η καρέκλα) is feminine, both feminine and neuter words exist for women (η γυννέκα, το κορίτσι), and masculine and neuter words exist for men (το αγόρι, ο άντρας).

I wonder whether it is actually justified to infer the gender of the Holy Spirit just from the gender of the article used to describe It/Him/Her in the Bible. Just because people all over Greece refer to chairs as "she" doesn't mean that chairs are actually female/feminine in nature.

Perhaps referring to the Holy Spirit as "It" was undesirable because such language detracted from the idea that the Holy Spirit is a being rather than an inanimate object. In this case, the Holy Spirit could have acquired an implied gender through a transnational faux pas: using "He" rather than "It" to refer to the Holy Spirit.

I don't often comment on revelife posts anymore--though I do read them occasionally--but I thought this conversation was interesting enough to jump in. I hope you can provide some insight into the original language used to talk about the Holy Spirit.

@jim_the_american@xanga - Hello friend, I do remember you and our conversation! I hope life is treating you well these days. It's awesome that you are so fluent in modern Greek! The rules of interpretation are precisely the way you note above.

One thing to note in this conversation is that both testaments Old and New use exclusively masculine terms when speaking about the persons of the Godhead. While there are feminine terms used to describe the persons of the trinity they are exclusively used as metaphor, describing character traits and such of God. For instance in a quote above I mentioned God being called El Shaddai. Which literally means 'many breasted one." It would be a mistake to take away from this verse the thought that God had many breasts. The idea being put forth is the notion that God is the All Sufficient supply. I would hold that modern translations reach there masculine conclusions by careful study of the syntax in the languages. It's specifically there (in the syntax) that the He conclusions become clear.

I agree with you over what you say about the rules of interpretation and I also agree with the notion that the Holy Spirit (as well as God) transcend gender. My gripe with this post is the "why" go out of the way to call the Spirit as She when the scriptures never do the syntax is clear and there is so much "people pleasing " and removal of anything offensive going on within Christianity today. When I see posts like this I always wonder who are they trying to appease and bring into the fold of Christianity without calling to repentance now. I would totally agree with a post that perhaps highlighted some feminine characteristic of God via metaphor but to jump past that just to call Him a her is puzzling...

Grace and peace!

~Michael

@jim_the_american@xanga - Hey Jim,

Sorry that I did not respond to this for such a long time. I did not see that you wrote back because Xanga failed to send me a reply notice. I don't want to come off as "blowing off" the conversation as people pleasing. I see a specific agenda in this post and others he has written that causes me some concern. I see in his writings as well as a couple of others he is friends with some serious presuppositions being brought to the table that upon further examination have nothing to do with the texts, nor with historical orthodoxy.

Im sure you are aware of the many groups that are fighting for the idea of gender neutrality in society today. Parents raising their children as neither boy or girl in hopes of either erasing "roles" or sexual identity from humanity. Many Christians see these people (as well as other groups) they want to reach out to them and share their faith but they feel they need to change the gospel in order to make it palpable. They begin removing ideas of sin, repentance, God's soverighnty, male headship, homosexuality as sin, and now gender roles and identity from scriptures that are so clear on the subjects.

Yes it's true that women have a long history of oppression and other atrocities however, none of these actions can be found in the New Testament. I agree some examination on gender roles are needed. But you also say looking at identity is needed. I'll need you to flesh that idea out a bit more. Because as i see it the idea behind that is that just because the person has boobs or a vagina does not make it a female. Or just because it has a penis doesn't make it a male.

Grace and peace Jim,

~Michael