Talk:God and gender/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holy Spirit and Gender

"However, John's record of Jesus' teaching about the Holy Spirit implies the masculinity of the Spirit, by applying a masculine demonstrative pronoun to the grammatically neuter antecedent" - This needs to be rephrased. While one may certainly infer that that John's unique use of language here implies the masculinity of the Spirit, this is disputable. Certainly, there is a consensus among biblical scholars that the masculate language (which absolutely does break the rules of Greek grammar) is used to demonstrate the personhood of the Spirit, but the conclusion that it has specific implications regarding the gender, or masculinity vs. femininity, of the Spirit does not necessarily follow...

"personal, not a "thing", but does imply that he is masculine." Ditto on this.

Also, I can provide several "citations" for contemporary theologians who advocate the use of feminine language for the Spirit, as I noted that the page requested a citation. Since this is actually my first shot at contributing to an article on here, perhaps it would be best to direct that information to someone with more experience at editing the pages. :) Andowney 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding citations needed, please either give a citation for the sentences that already stand in the text, or better still, rewrite those sentences to give a more informative description of the view of those theologians.
Regarding interpretation of the John text, one thing the John text will not allow is a feminine Holy Spirit. That is certainly ruled out, as a side effect of ruling out the "impersonal force" understanding of the Paraclete. I agree in principle, that the HS need not actually be understood as masculine, just a genunine person in his own right. You can understand how odd it would be, though, to have Father, Son and Spirit, who is personal, non-feminine, non-neuter but not masculine like the other two. The reasoning behind the mainstream Christian position is pretty obvious, it's not sexist, just a product of a straight-forward reading of the NT, but of course, the NT could be wrong, and exotic interpretations could be correct.
Please remember this page is shared with many other religions, the reader is getting lots of points of view already and doesn't need the full rainbow of all Christian views, just the main ones and a feel for what is considered majority/traditional, what new and relative numbers perhaps.
Finally, feel free to ignore me and say anything you like. All editors are equal at Wiki, however new they may be. You are encouraged to put sourced material into the text at any time, and to delete unsourced or inaccurate text any time also. If others don't like your changes, they can reverse them. Likewise, you can revert the reverts if you wish, until someone gets bored or you get to talking on this page. Have fun! and Welcome! Alastair Haines 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Andowney, welcome! As you can see above on this talkboard, Alastair and I had an extensive discussion about the phrasing of these particular sentences. I still feel like they read as an essay rather than an encyclopedia, and would be very supportive of having them rephrased in a more NPOV style. It doesn't really matter if things are proven (if indeed things can be proven at all), or if the majority view or whatever. With all due respect to Alastair, I am still concerned that there's a bit of a linguistic steamrollering going on here, with one view being presented as concrete and even the possibility of any others dismissed as alternative or kooky. Maybe they are alternative and kooky, but surely we need to be objective and excise anything dogmatic from the language of this article. I would welcome all additions of alternative viewpoints with citations, as long as they conform to WP:RS and so on of course. Andowney, just go for it and add them yourself! Other eds will clear the page up if you get into difficulty with formats etc, and new eds are always welcome to learn by doing. -- TinaSparkle 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll follow your example Tina, I won't revert anything that is backed by published sources, nor allow anything that isn't. Good luck finding any contrary opinion though. Go to any library or bookstore and check any of the dozens of English versions of the Bible, and check the pronouns chosen by the scholars of all sorts of differing theologies when they refer to the Holy Spirit. There are more copies of the Bible than any other book in the world, and more in English than any other language, and as far as I'm aware they all say He, that's got to be one of the most widely documented facts you could possibly get. What stands in the text is not my opinion, it is the opinion of thousands of scholars. Cheers. ;) Alastair Haines 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just found a great site for Holy Spirit as female.
What do y'all think? Alastair Haines 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, not a lot. It possibly be slotted under polytheistic religion but not in the Christian section (Landau7 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
We agree, but Tina may not. Alastair Haines 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! No, I think it's mad, and clearly it doesn't even begin to present a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Alastair, old chap, please try to understand: I have no interest in presenting the Holy Spirit as feminine. I have no interest in presenting Christianity one or another way. I really have no agenda here, aside from the fact that I think the article is interesting and I am concerned with maintaining encyclopedic style. I don't have any objection to there being no reference to the Holy Spirit's femininity in the article at all if there isn't any such reference in a reliable source. However, in any case, I am concerned with keeping the article's tone neutral and undogmatic.
Your point about the published English-language bibles using 'he' and 'thousands of scholars' agreeing is quite irrelevant. You are fully aware that the point in the article is about previous versions of the bible in other languages. Anyway, the fact that a majority of scholars subscribe to something doesn't make it true. Otherwise the earth would actually have been flat in the 12th century, and the sun would have gone around it. What we're supposed to be doing with this article is providing a guide to the different significant scholarly points of view, not coming down on one side or the other. Wikipedia's own guidelines make this abundantly clear.
I admire your dedication to this article and your scholarship, but it is very frustrating for me that you seem to keep setting me up as a strawman. I'm not here to add frivolous nonsense to the article, and nothing I've done should give you any cause to think I would wish to. Nor do I have a religious or political agenda with regard to it and, again, you would have no grounds for thinking I might. I just want what we write to be neutral, encyclopedic and informative. It would be a great boon to me if you would assume good faith and have a glance at the NPOV tutorial. -- TinaSparkle 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I set up a straw-person in our friend who argues for Athena as Holy Spirit, not you Tina. Apologies if you feel baited.
People who believe there is no God or that the New Testament is unreliable are not neutral, of course. The only people who are true neutral are people who are ignorant of the issues -- agnostics if you like. Even not caring about an issue is not neutrality, but a kind of position. Sometimes it is most appropriate position. The same thing applies to any debate. Wiki is based on the way these things work in human motivation.
Anyway, anyone with an intelligent opinion or new to the subject, can see the relevance of Modern English translations of the New Testament to a Christian view of God and gender. If the translations use masculine pronouns for the Holy Spirit, they are sources of Christian opinion on the subject, secondary sources of the highest quality. The only higher sources are the primary sources. The translations are, in fact, sources on interpreting the primary material also.
But the bottom line is just what you say Tina, the Christianity section is not about truth as such, but about what Christians think is truth and why. I mentioned this in a previous post. (Given a range of different opposing views, it is certain that no more than one of them can be correct; quite possibly all are false.) The important thing here is that the reader is presented with sufficient sources to both verify that masculine HS is overwhelmingly majority Christian opinion, and with sources to evaluate the basis of that opinion. Alastair Haines 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)




Shaddai

Question Regarding El Shaddai: Feminine or Masculine? Here's an interesting question and I hope it proves a point. Let's consider the Hebrew "El Shaddai". Some scholars argue that the title means "Big Breasted One". Assuming this is true, is El Shaddai (the God) masculine or feminine? How would we be able to tell? Drumpler 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are different views on this. Greek and Latin translators assumed the title referred to omnipotence and so have most Bibles rendered the title, "Almighty God". However, El Elyon better fits that rendering. Liberal scholars think the word shaddai is derived from the Akkadian shadu meaning "mountain". A far more satisfactory explanation is to be found in the Hebrew itself (e.g. Deut.32.17, 2 Ch.11.15) where the Hebrew shed or shad means "spoiler" or "destroyer" and is the equivalent of the Greek daimon or demon. El Shaddai literally then means "the Mighty One over/who conquers demons".

"The taste of the manna was as a cake baked with oil. Rabbi Avuha said: Do not read “leshad”(cake) but “shad” (breast). Just as an infant finds many flavors in the breast, so did Israel find many flavors in the manna as they were eating it. Some say “le-shad” means a demon: even as the demon changes into many colors, so did the manna change into many tastes".

— Talmud, Yoma 75a

The title could then have nothing to do with gender at all but be a descriptive of God's power over dark forces. (Landau7 07:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

That seems to read more into it than what is actually there. Note this quote from [1]:
  • An alternative view proposed by Albright is that the name is connected to shadayim which means "breasts" in Hebrew. It may thus be connected to the notion of God’s fertility and blessings of the human race. In several instances it is connected with fruitfulness: "May God Almighty [El Shaddai] bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers…" (Gen. 28:3). "I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]: be fruitful and increase in number" (Gen. 35:11). "By the Almighty [El Shaddai] who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lies beneath, blessings of the breasts [shadayim] and of the womb [racham]" (Gen. 49:25).
I don't know of any source that states that it means "conquering over demons", but I'm open to that since I'm no expert on Hebrew grammar (if you could provide a reputable source outside of Strong or Trimm, that is). However, "El" in Hebrew also means "big" (Hebrew is a pictorial language, so "El" is a pictorial word). The only other explanation I heard is that it means "mighty demon" (understanding the word "demon" in its classical Greek sense of referring to a deity, good or evil). There's also the "god of the mountain" and the traditional "Mighty God" hypothesis.
There's actually a reason I bring this up, but I want to see Alastair's thoughts on the issue. Within the context of the Hebrew, do references to El Shaddai contain feminine or masculine pronouns? Is El Shaddai a feminine or masculine title? If this can be answered in the way I think it could be, I think it could prove my point.
As a side note, in Hebrew, if I understand correctly, my "spirit" would ultimately be referred to in the feminine, if I understand correctly. Does this mean that my spirit is male or female (or perhaps genderless)? Once more, there's a reason I ask. Just because something is grammatically feminine doesn't mean it is literally feminine. Drumpler 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Drumpler. Hebrew words are normally made up of only three consonants. There are exceptions like YoM - day, AB - father. Most of these words are such common words, the experts think they are very old, maybe from before the three consonant pattern became normal. More normal examples of Hebrew words are: BRA create (the A stands for a silent consonant I won't explain), ARTs earth/land (the Ts is considered a single sound and consonant in Hebrew), RVCh spirit (the V changed to a U sound and the Ch is like Ts, a single consonant in Hebrew), QAL voice/sound, QRO call (Koran/Qur'an comes from this word, Jews use it for prayer, "to call on God", O is another silent consonant), ADM man, ChYH life and Eve.
Shaddai is a word made from the three letters ShDD (the Sh is a single consonant in Hebrew). The way the Hebrew language works, sometimes when letters are doubled at the end, it means they came from shorter words of only two letters, and the last sound was doubled to make a new word. Often these words have similar kinds of meanings, that's why the experts think this is what could have happened. For example KLL, KL and KLH all mean versions of "everything/all/complete" in Hebrew.
My favourite example is the Hebrew word for "star" KKB. It is unusual because normally Hebrew words only double letters at the end, never at the beginning. The experts think this word was originally KB (pronounced "kav") but then they made it kav-kav and later it shortened from KBKB to KKB, pronounced kokav.
Another way two letter words become three letter words is by adding H at the end. An H at the end of a Hebrew word is normally one of the things that used to be called grammatical feminine. Some modern writers don't use silly names like masculine and feminine for these things now, they call them "noun classes" instead. All words with similar sounds follow similar grammatical patterns, and just sound better with various verb and other markers that kind of match the sounds of the nouns.
Having said that grammatical masculine and feminine are silly names in most cases, they are not completely silly. Our great grand parents were not dumb. People did tend to use certain sound patterns to talk about things that are really female, like mares, and she-goats, and Queens of Sheba. But they also used these patterns for ordinary things like time and spirits and so on. So the whole bunch got called feminine by the grammarians, but they could just as well have called them "nouns-ending-in-h-type-words-and-other-words-like-them". I wonder why they didn't?
Anyway, Shaddai is a pretty normal Hebrew word, the ai at the end is just a suffix meaning my. The main word is ShDD which has to do with power, but has many uses and nuances, the most popular of which is like a title for Yahweh -- His majesty George, Her royal highness Elizabeth, My lords, ladies and gentlemen -- My Lord Yahweh.
However, like nearly all words with a double letter, there can be a history of association of ideas between forms like XZZ, XZ and XZH. The XZ and XZH forms associated with Shaddai are SD=Shed and SDH=Shadah. Shadah (breast) is actually masculine in Hebrew, it refers to the breasts of animals as well as women's breasts. (Although I said words ending in H are feminine, this is not always true, it is complicated. Professors earn their pay.) Shed in Hebrew means demon.
Anyway, to summarize Shaddai is from the basic word ShDD and means "My powerful one". Shadah is from ShDH and means "Breast" and Shed is from ShD and means "Demon". They are different words and different meanings. This contrasts with KLL, KL and KLH, which are very similar in meaning in Hebrew. But anyone who tells you that this pattern always means overlap of meanings is making Hebrew a lot simpler than it really is. It's a human language and humans do very illogical things with language sometimes. It's raining cats and dogs here in Sydney. ;)
Shalom Alastair Haines 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Alastair. I'm going to sum up a few points and you can tell me if I grasp it on a basic level with a simple "yes" or "no" if you so choose. :)

While Hebrew does have a "feminine" gender, this was done more for the convenience of classification and isn't all inclusive. For example, female breasts are defined in "masculine" terms in Hebrew and spirits in "feminine". From my basic understanding of languages such as Latin and Koine Greek, this does not make the object in question male or female since terms such as "male" or "female cases" were tacked on later for the sake of convenience. Thus I'm assuming its erroneous to call God's spirit "female" just because an "h" is tacked on the end of it? It would then seem that the minority opinion is insisting on the spirit's "femaleness" based on a faulty understanding of grammatical classification and not the actual nuances of the Hebrew language? Drumpler 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes", you are exactly right. But for people who want to understand why, and who don't trust my judgement, here are the facts to check out.

  • Every noun in Hebrew belongs to one of two classes. These are traditionally called masculine and feminine.
  • Words for men and male animals are usually, but not always, masculine class words.
  • Words for women and female animals normally, but not always, add H to a masculine word -- e.g. SVS > stallion sus, mare susah.
  • Words for abstract things often are made in the same way -- e.g. TVR > torah instruction, HKM > hokmah wisdom.
  • Hebrew like most languages gives females priveleged status, something is normally added to words to make them feminine. If the addition is not made, you can't quite tell what it is -- male, female, neutral or a mixture.
  • If the feminine addition is made, this often implies exclusively female -- not male, not neutral, not a mixture.
  • For example, stallion is not really an accurate translation of sus, it is just a horse, it is "gender-unspecific", if you like. But susah must be a mare.
  • There is rarely any ambiguity, if words refered to things that don't have a natural sex, it didn't matter what class the word belonged to.
  • If words refered to things that have a natural sex, but the word belonged to "the wrong class", it didn't trouble anyone, because everyone knew the thing, and the class of the word meant nothing on its own.
  • The reason reference to the Spirit is tricky, is because its basic meaning is wind.
  • It later was used to mean breath (the wind that comes out of the body).
  • Later again it was used to mean "life-force" of a person or animal, in other words it was a metaphor.
  • The word NPSh > nephesh meant neck then throat then soul, for similar reasons.
  • The word LB > leb meant heart but came to be used for the idea of thinking.
  • Hebrews spoke of thinking with the heart and feeling with the bowels. Strange to us, but that's how they thought.
  • Ruakh when it refered to the life-force, would presumably have been understood to have the same sex as the person or animal to which it refered.
  • The grammatical gender class remained feminine, whether it was the life-force of the king, or the life-force of a bull or stallion.

What is fascinating in the New Testament is that the same things are true, but Jesus was not satisfied with leaving the sex of the Holy Spirit up to people's imagination, he chose a masculine pronoun for him, rather than using "it" which would have matched the class of the word.

In the Old Testament, I think there are cases of prophets refering to Yahweh's spirit using masculine pronouns, however this doesn't tell us the Holy Spirit is masculine, because Yahweh was considered masculine. It would simply have sounded right to people, although it "broke the patterns of grammar", because that was OK if you wanted to refer to the real sex of something.

Lets assume the Old Testament actually says something directly about the Holy Spirit, as a distinct person in his own right. This is not certain at all, Jews are not crazy, there is only one God in the Old Testament. But let's suppose it does refer clearly to a distinct Holy Spirit. If it wanted to tell us the Holy Spirit was feminine, it would need to be more direct than using pronouns. Genesis says God created man in his own image, ..., male ZChR and female NQBH. This word NQBH would concisely have expressed the femininity of the Holy Spirit. It was not used. All reference to a divine spirit in the OT are either of Yahweh's "life-force" which may be masculine (for logical reasons) or feminine (for grammatical reasons), or vague references that could be both taken to refer to Yahweh, and later interpreted as also refering to the Holy Spirit.

Drumpler my friend, I don't expect people who have personal commitments to particular opinions to change those merely because the evidence is against them. I only waste time I could be using editing several other articles. It doesn't matter to me if there's only one such person, or there are fifty. Where I am familiar with the literature, I will enter published material into articles and delete text that is inconsistant with published material, and revert any vandalism. Where I am ignorant of the literature, I don't try to guess if editors are biased or not, I have nothing to contribute, I stick to my own areas of expertise. If people think I have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, they are entitled to that opinion, I'm happy for them to express it, and I will not defend myself. Alastair Haines 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alastair. I'm asking you because I think the answer you gave relies on the significance of the minority argument. There is quite a few places in the article that indeed does say that the Hebrew ruach is feminine. It is true that "scholars" like Trimm are in the minority.
I have additional questions, but I don't think they relate to the topic on hand. However, there is one paragraph that particularly bugged me and I thought I'd post it up:
At least one bible translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic, the Hebraic Roots Version Scriptures(HRV) acknowledges that the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaQodesh) is referred to in feminine terms unlike the masculine terms applied to the Father and the Son.
"Acknowledges that the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaQodesh) is referred to in feminine terms"? This argument seems to present it as fact, even though it is a minority opinion, and the term "Ruach haQodesh" makes me fairly certain of the identity of the person I think posted it up (either Lil'Dummy or Landau). If what you say regarding Hebrew grammar is true, and I'm judging this based upon your status as a post-grad student (?), I think you've presented the most convincing argument. I think the article should be amended with some of the evidences presented in this discussion -- that indeed, the Holy Spirit is grammatically female in the Hebrew, but that this is no clear indication of literal gender. The article seems to leave these minority opinions uncontested in a few places.
Another reason I think this is unfair is because if you've actually read the introduction to Trimm's Bible translation, you will find that he himself doesn't believe the Holy Spirit is female. This seems to twist his own position and make him seem to arbitrarily support something he indeed does not. Drumpler 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing . . . I've heard that the Hebrew qodesh (holy) is gramatically masculine. Is this true? And if so, what about when you put ruach haqodesh together? Drumpler 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler, you are doing excellent research. You are evaluating arguments and weighing them carefully to see which provide the best explanations. You are recognizing both the inconsistencies between arguments and the inconsistencies within. You consider the possibility of writers having pre-set conclusions, that may distort their evaluations, however, you do not let that dominate your evaluation. Great stuff!
  • QDSh > qodesh is an adjective in Hebrew. As such it doesn't have gender itself. Rather it adopts the gender of the word to which it refers. So, a good man is ADM TB > adam tov and a good woman is IShH TBH > ishah tovah. Likewise, a good horse is SVS TB > sus tov and a good mare is SVSH > susah tovah.
  • Because RVCh > ruach is always feminine, the adjective should always be feminine, RVCh QDShH > ruach qodeshah. This says nothing about the wind actually being feminine, nor about breath being feminine, nor about life-force being feminine. However, if all we have is RVCh QDSh, then we actually have the rules of grammar being broken to tell us that this is the "life-force" of one who has masculine sex. It would be a strange thing for Hebrew to do, unless the speaker thought the listener didn't know the sex of the person, and wished to make that clear.
Anyone who says Ruach HaQodesh is speaking ungrammatical Hebrew. Ruach HaQodesh means the Spirit is holy (and male). Grammatical Hebrew for Holy Spirit is HaRuach HaQodeshah. This does not imply anything about femininity of this Holy Spirit, it is merely grammatical.
Wiki has a good rule. Every single sentence of Wiki really ought to have references. If it's true, someone will have published something somewhere. Some things are so obvious we don't bother referencing them. As soon as there is doubt about something though, there should be a citation. Use the {{Fact}} tag to request citation of things you think are doubtful. Alastair Haines 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

I've heard "Ruach haQodesh" used often though, from various sources. Where is this coming from? Any clues, ideas? Drumpler 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: In the Christianity Section, I'm assuming that the depiction is of someone representing God the Father reaching His finger toward someone representing Adam. Who does the person representing God the Father have His left arm around?Lil'dummy 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good observation! Most interpreters think it is Eve -- a very nice thought, and I think it to be true. Michelangelo is not scripture of course, and the point, in the context of the article is that the Father is conceived of as male, that's all. Thanks for the cute observation.
Regarding Ruach haQodesh, I don't know where it's coming from. I'm a boring, traditional Hebrew scholar, I can tell you where crazy views of the Song of Songs come from, but not where other unconventional views of the OT come from. God only gave me one life. ;) Alastair Haines 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RVCh and QDSh. the above would be true if one didn't have a view that the Ruach HaQodesh is subordinate to the Father and is derived from the Father-- both Elohim, but Yahweh is superordinate over all. My understanding is just as the husband is supposed to be a covering over the wife and sets her apart, makes her special from other women, likewise Yahweh's sets apart the Ruach HaQodesh, except She doesn't have competitors-- the Qodesh is the action of the Father toward the Ruach. If English was a gender specific language and I said "my wife" sure, the "my" would be masculine, but it wouldn't change the fact that "wife" is feminine. Even if after the Hebrew NT manuscripts are discovered, it turns out that the masculine pronoun in John still stands, it could be argued that it is there for the purpose of role-- the Holy Spirit is superordinate over the assembly of believers (the body) or even individual believers who are subordinate. As for Trimm's view, IMO he distanced himself from the feminine view in the introduction because he didn't want maculine primacists to not buy his translation ;).Lil'dummy 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be reading a whole lot of theology into one word. What about where QDSh is used and isn't in reference to Yahweh or his Spirit/spirit? I think I remember reading in Strong's Concordance that "qodesh" actually means "separate" and can even refer to temple prostitution[2]. So unless you want to say that Yahweh somehow "sets apart" temple prostitutes, I'm not sure if this is a good argument to make. Strong's has this listed as "qadesh", but since Hebrew does not have vow points, where is the distinction made? Likewise, I'm sure there are other places where "qodesh" is used and not in reference to the above. Drumpler 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Chris or Warren, whatever your name, I think the verse you need is 1 Corinthians 11:3.
  • The head of every man is Christ
  • The head of woman is the man and
  • The head of Christ is God
Scripture makes it very clear that God created woman to be equal with man in value, but complementary and subordinate in relationships. Although the second is completely contrary to the "wisdom of the world", no one really thinks heads of state, or bosses are superior humans because we submit to them. If there were any doubt, the fact that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father in relationship, though equally divine in value, ... this fact shows what we should know anyway, that subordination does not imply inferiority.
I suspect that you, Warren, and I are very similar as spiritual leaders. I have had endless difficulty with people who are uncomfortable with the Bible's teaching that women are forbidden to teach or lead men (1 Timothy 2). All pastors who care to apply the scriptures to congregational life face similar problems, and address it in different ways. I point to the Father-Son relationship -- equally God, yet God submitting to God (Philippians 2) -- as an analogy for men and women -- equally human, yet human submitting to human. It would appear you point to Father and/or Son -- and Spirit proceeding from them. This also is a perfectly valid theological analogy, even if the HS is male.
You are in a very tight corner indeed if you insist that grammatical gender of spirit conveys any information regarding the gender of the HS, because the OT has female and the NT has neuter. Has the spirit changed? Or which is the real scripture? I can see how important an Aramaic precursor to the NT is for you. However, even if the NT was written in Aramaic, the word spirit primarily means wind, then breath, only by metaphor does it mean spirit.
In English, Christians call the celebration of Jesus' resurrection Easter, a word derived from a pagan Spring festival celebrating a fertility goddess, whose name is also behind the English word Estrogen, a female hormone important in the reproductive cycle. We cannot conclude any theology about Easter based on the pagan goddess. To base theology on Hebrew use of a feminine word for wind, used by association for spirit, is to be trapped by a very similar linguistic trick.
Anyway, if Hebrew is so vital to understanding God's Word (and it is), I highly recommend you purchase a course in Biblical Hebrew, the grammar of HaRuach HaQodesh to use an adjective attributively -- the Holy Spirit -- as opposed to Ruach HaQodesh -- the Spirit of The Holy Male One -- or Ruach HaQodesha -- the Spirit of Holiness -- or even Ruach Qodesha -- a holy spirit / a spirit of holiness -- is well worth knowing. Hebrew is a very simple language, that is its structure is very simple, although I must admit I find it hard to absorb all the unfamiliar vocabulary, especially as all the words are three letters long and the letters so similar to one another.
Finally, I wish you well in your ministry, spiritual leadership is hard and people can be very unforgiving. But thankfully it is our heavenly Father who we answer to, and he is infinite in forgiveness. Grace and peace, alastair. Alastair Haines 17:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: wind/breath-- careful, that is the trap that a lot of the binarists fall into. If I tell my daughter to be my eyes for me, when watching her brother, it doesn't mean that she loses her personhood. Re: women teaching men-- In the Complete Jewish Bible translated by Stern, it says something in reference to Women continually teaching over men. As for the HS teaching all believers including men, I view it as a Mother instructing Her children, and so see no conflict. Just to clarify, I'm not Chris Warren. Peace.Lil'dummy 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew's a pictorial language. For example, the word for oak and deer are one and the same. Likewise, ruach means wind, breath and spirit. Its more of a matter of function.
And even though my opinion is probably worth two grains worth of salt, I'm still not even convinced on the spirit's personhood. Maybe I should finish studying the Greek I once started. I purchased a book on Amazon.com some time back written by a professor from Stanford. Then maybe, just maybe, I can be on par with Alastair. ;) Drumpler 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
All occurences of the Hebrew ruach according to Blueletterbible.org in the OT: [3] Drumpler 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


DRumpler, is it Derek? (A Hebrew name for path or road or metaphorically "way").
Regarding QDSh, the root does not primarily mean set apart, rather it means "of or pertaining to a deity or deities". It existed long before Moses and even Abraham. Essentially, in the Bible, it means "belonging to God". Things that are "set apart" as belonging to the gods, or for exclusively religious purposes are also called holy. To say God is "holy" is probably to say that no one "owns" him. He is who he is. Temple prostitutes "belonged" to the gods, hence they were called "holy". A slang English usage of holy is quite close to the true sense of the word -- a holy Joe is a religious man -- that is, he is strongly associated with God. Because God is good, and the source of goodness, goodness is holy and sometimes holiness means goodness in contemporary English.
In the Bible, believers are holy, not because they are good, but because God takes possession of them. Because God owns them, they are taught to live their lives in a way that reflects their owner's character. Alastair Haines 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that. However, if I understand correctly, I think the initial argument of Lil'Dummy's is that the "Ruach haQodesh" (as such) is "feminine", but the "qodesh" makes "her" "masculine" because "she" derives "her" authority from Yahweh. I think its the same trap as the beginning. I think there is more being read into "qodesh" then is actually there and the point I was trying to make with my earlier question is, "Okay, can we then say temple prostitutes belong to Yahweh because of their similar usage of the word?". Does that make sense? You've already claimed "qodesh" wasn't the actual word used and so I'm not understanding Lil'Dummy's confusion myself. Drumpler 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, QDSh and RVCh are very ordinary words used in very ordinary ways. In the OT we only have reference to the spirit of Yahweh's holiness, which was vague enough that Jews did not think it refered to a person distinct from the Father of the New Testament. I am not familiar with the Aramaic New Testament, I think much of what has been presented depends on acceptance of an Aramaic NT, plus textual reconstruction of it, plus particular interpretations of that textual reconstruction of a hypothetical document. All these hypotheses seem to be based on very slim evidence.
There are thousands of copies of the NT in Greek, going back as far as the second century, they agree with one-another very closely. Greek grammar is very well understood, not only from the NT, but from extensive non-Biblical material going back 1,000 years before the NT. There is a continuous history of interpretation of the Greek NT of almost 2,000 years. This is extremely convincing evidence. If it is not evidence that supports a conclusion, it is often worth exploring other motivations people may have for defending it. But in saying this, I am going beyond what is appropriate, so will stop here. Alastair Haines 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Drumpler to clarify, I did not mean that Qodesh makes the Ruach masculine, what I was proposing is that "Qodesh" is describing Yahweh the Father's superodrination over the Ruach, and so therefore there is no conflict with "Qodesh" being masculine. Also, I don't recall temple prostitutes belonging to YHWH, but rather belonging to pagan deities.Lil'dummy 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, "qodesh" is a simple word used in other contexts. I knew you weren't saying it was masculine, but were rather stating what you just did. Thanks for clearing it up.
I brought up the whole temple prostitute thing because they are "qadesh", which in ancient Hebrew, as far as I know, is spelled exactly the same. I was arguing if what you were proposing were true, they should be considered "subordinate" to Yahweh. You can't build such a theology off a simple word (which according to Alastair, "Ruach haQodesh" is improper Hebrew and basically only means "the Spirit of the Holy male one". Drumpler 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just want to say thank you to the contributor of the Branch Dravidian (and others) section. I really appreciate this clearly written and informative section. If necessary I will fight to defend its place in the article. It is very relevant indeed. It teaches me things I would not easily find elsewhere. Bravo! Alastair Haines 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I thought mention of the Branch Davidians did well for its notability. I think there are a few places where the language should be cleaned up (I think using language such as "click here (numbered link)" to be just a little too sloppy for an encyclopedia). I also think we can remove the very first reference to R.P. Nettelhorst (found in the Hebrew Bible section) since it is dealt with in the new section. Overall, good job! Drumpler 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, Alistair. It finally dawned upon me that although I consider the Branch Davidians, and some messianics to be within the rubric of Christianity, that you didn't want the exceptions representing the mainstream in that particular section, so sorry for the delay. Lil'dummy 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I like you people! :D It seems you have personal differences, but you actually forgive and move on. Academic issues and gender of Holy Spirit aside. I pray the Spirit is at work among you, for the glory of God the Father, and his Son, our Lord Jesus. Shalom my friends. :D Alastair Haines 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alastair. Drumpler 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to get reported for this, but certain people were mentioned in this thread that I know would not like to be mentioned. I have edited out remarks regarding them. Feel free to file an abuse report because I feel justified in what I did. As a more personal example, I think if anyone's address or social security number were mentioned on here, they'd do the same. I think situations and events that people have requested that I keep private fall within the same rubric. Drumpler 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that Drumpler not be reported for removing what he did from the thread, since I was one of the victims of what was said. Also, Drumpler, to show your true sincerity, I have two requests. You have my permission and request to remove the name that you ended the discussion thread on the MLT article with. And also I ask that you no longer contact anyone in my household but me.Lil'dummy 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So is this the mob mentality of MLT coming out again? Please. I do not need to comply with anything you say. My website and blog provide more than enough information as to the fraud within the group you choose to associate with. Hence, I feel justification talking to the people I do and feeling about your behaviour the way I do (once more, I do not consider you the enemy). I'm sorry that you feel the need to lash out at me because I've demonstrated that the group's own prophecies were fraudulent (remember C.S. Lewis?[4]). I'm sorry for standing up against the group because the same fraud who gave those false prophecies almost killed me with one of her own false prophecies. I'm likewise sorry that she pretended to be several "Satanists" in the Illuminati in order to gain control over people and manipulate life situations and events. I'm also sorry you continue to associate with the man you do (Landau7) who does nothing more than cover up these situations and events. This isn't good enough for you. What more can I do?
This is the last time I'm speaking of this subject on the thread, Lil'Dummy. When your behaviour changes and you cut off your association with the group that you have, plus consider some form of psychological help or counselling, I may very well comply with your request. I am, however, not your enemy. Drumpler 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't want to buy in to personal, real life, personal issues. Wiki would probably be the first to allow text related to that sort of thing to be removed. I'm not the "reporting" type. Alastair Haines 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What, Drumpler, I'm a mob of one??? You need to learn to count. All I ask is that you be consistent, and it is just as I thought: your "thoughtful concern" for people who would not like to be mentioned is just a ruse to cover your own asssssumptions because my comments shown you for what you were-- a busybody meddling around with other people's families through the wife(s) with a feigned concern for families staying together. I ask a simple request, that you cease and desist all contact with my wife and request you remove a snide little nickname you called me in a different thread and you can't honor that?!? You have the delusion that you are some kind of authority over me? And make off the cuff assessments of my psychological fitness? Wow, new frontiers in being arrogant, huh?. Oh yeah, that's right, you are a deist who thinks you are the deity (according to your profile when I last checked). Guess what, kid, you are the only one who thinks so-- pretty lonely, huh. Why don't you grow up. If you can't honor those two simple requests, then I retract my advocacy for you. If someone wants to report you, then so be it. Lil'dummy 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion elsewhere. It need not be discussed here. Personal issues aside, this does not effect how I view Lil'dummy's constructive contributions. Drumpler 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also removed the nickname. Drumpler 05:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Lil'dummy 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware that I posted a message on your own personal talk page. Click your name and then "discussion" to find it. Drumpler 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, but I replied to your regular email because for some reason the false sockpuppet stigma didn't allow me to send a message back within wikipedia.Lil'dummy 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy Spirit in Old Testament

I thought I'd go and check what I could find in my Old Testament about the Holy Spirit. There are eight locations where the two words are in the same verse. In one of those, holy described God, and God's spirit was mentioned later in the verse, they are grammatically separate. Below are the seven other references. The four references in Daniel actually speak of the spirit of the holy gods; that is, these references are to a plurality of gods, who are described as holy. So, there is one spirit in Daniel, coming from many gods. Of course, these might have included goddesses, it's a masculine plural, but such references don't actually tell you real sex in the same way a feminine plural would. The Daniel references are all in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew, but the important thing is that holy refers to the gods, not the spirit. Clearly it is a polytheistic phrase, in the mouth of a Babylonian king.

  • Daniel 4:8 — ruach elohin qadishin (Aramaic)
  • Daniel 4:9 — ruach elohin qadishin (Aramaic)
  • Daniel 4:18 — ruach elohin qadishin (Aramaic)
  • Daniel 5:11 — ruach elohin qadishin (Aramaic)

The reference in Psalm 51 is the spirit of your holiness (your is masculine in form) and in Isaiah both are to the spirit of his holiness. These would naturally have been interpreted as references to Yahweh's "life-force", because Jewish scripture was understood monotheistically. It may be appropriate for Christians to understand these as refering to the Holy Spirit. That is not our current question. The masculine suffix pronouns refer to Yahweh and don't tell us anything about the sex of the spirit. The adjective doesn't help us either actually, because it doesn't actually refer to the Spirit. We can tell that, because it is masculine. Here, the adjective is being used substantively -- "holiness". Like in English, I like that shade of blue better than the other one. Ruach is in what is known as the construct state, which means it belongs to the substantive that follows it. So we have the spirit of your/his holiness.

  • Psalm 51:11 — ruach qodesheka (Hebrew)
  • Isaiah 63:10 — ruach qodesho (Hebrew)
  • Isaiah 63:11 — ruach qodesho (Hebrew)

Conclusion: although all the markers are masculine in reference to this holy spirit, and although that might seem strange when the word is grammatically feminine, as it turns out, in this case it is not sufficient to tell us the sex of the spirit. Nor can we even be dogmatic about whether it is the same Holy Spirit as the New Testament.

Alastair Haines 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, I had a question regarding this verse. It seems you use John as your support for the Spirit's masculinity. Is it the only book in the Bible that supports this?
masculinity -- yes. individual personhood and divinity -- no. (see below)
I read this Scripture in the NIV some months ago and compared it to other translations and actually disagree with how they translate it. Here is how it is quoted in the NIV:
  • 1Cr 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
I don't think "Spirit" should be capitalized because capitalization seems (to me) to obscure Paul's point. In fact, I think it should read something like this:
  • 1Cr 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the spirit of God.
The comparison is made between man's spirit and then God's spirit. As far as I know, my own spirit is not a unique being, so I'm imagining, due to the nature of the comparison, that Paul is referring to a PART of God, God's own spirit, and not a third being called "The Spirit".
good thinking -- yes and no on this one -- best people go both ways -- but it is only one text and doesn't prove HS is not separate person, just doesn't prove he is. (see below)
Is John the only book that refers to the spirit in masculine terms? You have some groups that view the Holy Spirit as an extension of God, much like God's hand, toe or foot. So where does the assumption come that the Holy Spirit is a being at all, outside of the Gospel of John (I'm analyzing each book in the Bible as a separate document, not as a whole called the "Holy Bible")? Drumpler 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This page makes a pretty convincing argument that the Holy Spirit may be a non-being period. I want to look into this, as I believe, if the claims in it are true, or at least verifiable, we should edit this paragraph:
I'm sorry but the writer of this article hides the fact that a masculine pronoun is used to refer to a neuter noun. The article says many true things, but hides a truth that it cannot cope with. - Alastair

Are you sure? The entire article basically argues that the masculine pronoun can just as easily be translated as "it" depending upon context. I think one should avoid the trap of making an argument for the Holy Spirit's masculinity because of a few verses in John. Drumpler 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • However, in the New Testament, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as masculine (John 14-16).[3] He refers to the Holy Spirit as Comforter (masculine in Greek), and uses grammatically necessary masculine forms of the Greek pronoun autos.[4] Grammatical gender says nothing about real gender; however, Jesus also speaks of the Holy Spirit as Spirit (neuter in Greek).[5] When Jesus does this, he uses the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (that male one).[6] This is a clear indication of the Holy Spirit's masculinity, because it "breaks the rules" of Greek grammar, to communicate the real, rather than grammatical, gender of the Spirit.[7] This was particularly significant when Christians were debating whether the Holy Spirit was a divine person in his own right, or just a "force". The clarity of the New Testament has meant that Christians who respect it as normative have never questioned the masculinity of the Holy Spirit.
I can already envision Alastair pounding his head against his desk. ;) Maybe it'll be a real life equivalent of this game after he reads this (good thing I'm in the USA!). Drumpler 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I want to make it known that I'm sure of the bias of the article, since its written by a Unitarian group. But I don't see any reason not to trust it, unless a convincing argument can tell me otherwise. Drumpler 08:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! :) No, I am not frustrated. You ask good questions and make good suggestions. My thinking on this is that we have to assume the Trinity in the Christianity section, just like we'd have to assume NO Trinity in a Unitarian section. Unitarians are NOT a sub-branch of Christianity. This article doesn't aim at giving pros and cons of Islam v Hinduism. nor should it give pros and cons of Christianity v any other religion. Those are best covered in the main articles for those religions, or in a Comparitive religion article.
I'm not trying to hide debate over the Trinity, in fact I put the text in that refers to the Trinity because it explains that Gender and god in Christianity is a little more involved than with other monotheistic religions. There is a link to the main article on Trinity in the intro to this article. Unitarian challenges are probably already covered there, but if they are not, you should certainly "write your source into the text" of that article. Try not to put it into the second sentence of the article, let the article fully develop the idea of Trinity and then include it in Criticisms and/or Other points of view, whatever they have.
To give you my response to where you are at in your thinking about what the Bible teaches regarding the Holy Spirit ...
There are only four references in John where ekeinos is used with to pnuema. One would be enough. It is Jesus speaking. This was good enough for the early church to decide the Holy Spirit was a whole person, and come up with a Trinity rather than a Binity of just Father and Son. But it was not the only evidence.
Consider Jesus' baptism: Jesus is in the water, the Father speaks from heaven and the Spirit comes down like a dove. My personal favourite is Hebrews 9:14 speaks of Jesus giving his life as a sacrifice to the Father, through the Spirit -- all three persons involved at the cross.
There is a lot more evidence as well. The Holy Spirit is described as writing scripture. Hebrews 3:7 says the HS wrote Psalm 95, then 4:7 says David wrote this same Psalm. Hebrews 2:11-12 say Jesus wrote Psalm 22 (though we know it was David did too). Best of all, 2 Peter 1:21 says, "No prophecy came from man, but men spoke for God, it was the Holy Spirit that moved them." But finally, look at the meaning of the texts in this article, not just the gender of the pronouns. Jesus says he must go, so he can send the Spirit. When the Spirit comes, he will teach truth (just like he did with the prophets). In fact, the message taught by the Spirit is, in a way, the same for prophets and for Christians -- "Repent!" This is why all Christians are encouraged to prophesy. We should remind one another to repent and encourage unbelievers to repent.
I'll stop the sermon there. The main thing is, niether the Father nor the Spirit died on the cross. It is the Spirit, not the Father or the Son, who teaches Christians in our hearts today. It is the Father, not the Son or the Spirit who elects to eternal life and who sits in judgement. It is the Father who sent Jesus, not the Spirit, nor Jesus himself. Sure, in the end, they are all working together for the same purpose. "Take this cup away from me, but if it is your will, so be it!" Jesus always does his Father's will, but he has a will of his own, which is why the Devil tempted him.
The Spirit is the hardest of the three persons to get an understanding of, but there are enough texts in the Bible, especially the NT to get a handle on what he is and what he does. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Look at the Trinity page to get a brief intro to the fascinating subject and a few links to follow. LoL, if you genuinely want to know more about the HS he will guide you, don't you think? :D Alastair Haines 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, Alastair, I'm an unreligious Deist, but I do thank you for your response. It is tricky because where one tries to prove one point, they forget several other points which may or may not back their position. I think many of us have fallen into this trap. :)
I had only envisioned the head banging because I thought of the whole female Holy Spirit thing and saw how it was frustrating you before a compromise was reached. ;) But I still think, wherever one stands on their view of the Holy Spirit, that there are instances within the text of the Bible where "spirit" should be translated over "Spirit" yet doctrinal notions get in the way. I don't know, though. I'll have to think over this. Drumpler 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, is binity even a word? ;) Drumpler 09:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, binity is used occasionally by Christian academics as they go over the same issues again and again. It is never acceptable to good Chistian academics to say, "the church has believed this for 1,500 years, therefore we must believe it." Nor is it acceptable to say, "a majority of people now think ..." Good Christian academics stick to understanding the Bible and how it applies to current society -- sometimes supporting, sometimes condemning, sometimes saying nothing at all. Society changes, so the academics have different things to think through, but the Bible never changes. Over time, the knowledge of the Bible has improved -- just think of the thousands and millions of Christian people and the thousands of FAQs.

The masculinity of the Holy Spirit debate is mainly a modern phenomenon, that comes about because for a couple of decades people thought feminists might be right when they say men and women are not very different. That is all changing slowly now as people are realising that ordinary men and women kind of like who they are and like their differences. Also, that learning to work with these differences, rather than pretending they don't exist, is much more useful towards human happiness.

If there is no God, then the Bible is just made-up ideas and they reflect human imagination (mainly male imagination). If you are a feminist and don't believe in God, you will be very suspicious of the whole thing. They have to be very open minded to question their assumptions about God and gender not existing. Some are brilliant and get a grip of how the Christian view works and maintain a respectful disagreement, others try to change Christianity, or give up and ignore it. Each to her or his own I say. I love freedom of speech, it is the way we communicate, learn and grow.

Unfortunately, some can't listen to others, without thinking that their different views are motivated by some perverse motive. I try to do the exact opposite, and challenge people's ideas even when I know their motives are wrong. I try to be patient and friendly enough that they feel comfortable about changing their mind. It rarely happens though. Mind you, I end up discovering all sorts of interesting places where I've been wrong, or where there's something I've never seen before.

The Unitarian article is very naughty, because whoever wrote it knows enough to know they are not telling the whole truth. If you want to know more, what is in this article is not my opinion, there is a quoted source. A lot of people have translated Bibles into English and they all have worked out the HS is masculine. There is no argument about it really, that's just the way it is. However, they do argue a lot more about verses like the one you mention. There is quite a lot of variation between Bibles on which verses get capital S for spirit. However, even in Bibles with the fewest capital Ss, there are still heaps of 'em.

Keep reading your Bible mate ... in English! Let me know if you find anything you can prove wrong in there. I bet you can't. ;) Alastair Haines 12:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, if you were married to a wife in the earlier part of the previous century, it would not have been uncommon to refer to your wife as "Mrs. Alastair Haines." Now people could debate ad nauseam whether or not that was a sexist practice , but the point is that no one believes that she would have suddenly turned into a man when called by that title.Lil'dummy 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Another example that shows that a formal linguistic category need not imply anything about real gender. In the current century, some same-sex couples choose to be known as Mr and Mr, others as Mr and Mrs. In the latter case, Mrs X said he was delighted with the civil ceremony, would clarify the real sex of Mrs X. Alastair Haines 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, this is the second time that you referenced the "same-sex" couple comparison. I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, so I'm asking it in all earnestness. Do you view the notion of male-female couples as a natural entity but same-sex couples (particularly male-male couples) as a supernatural entity being a reflection of your view of the all male god-head? Lil'dummy 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_and_gender/Archive_2&oldid=140345782"