Ruach HaKodesh is Feminine

All,

Let me emphasize that the Ruach HaKodesh as understood in Nazarene Judaism (and Rabbinic Judaism) is not just gramaticly feminine buy figuratively and allagorically feminine just as the Father is not just grammaticly masculine, he is figuratively and allagoricly masculine (but not physically masculine).

In Judaism it is understood that the Godhead is made up of three pillars: The Pillar of Severity, the Pillar of Mercy and the Midddle Pillar which harmonizes the two.

The Middle Pillar is also known as "The Son of Yah" while the two outer pillars are known as Father and Mother. The Ruach HaKodesh is the allagorical "Mother" oposite the Father.

. The ancient Nazarenes believed, not only that the Ruach HaKodesh is more than a force or breath, they actually belived the Ruach HaKodesh to be a Heavenly Mother. These ancient Nazarenes used an apocryphal Gospel called The Goodnews According to the Hebrews which taught this very idea. While this apocryphal Gospel is now lost, several quotes from it have survived in the writings on the ancient "Church Fathers." One of these quotes, found in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah, tells the story of Yeshua's immersion (baptism) this way:

And it came to pass
when the Lord was come up out of the water,
the whole fount of the Holy Spirit
descended and rested upon him,
and said to him, "MY SON,
in all the prophets was I waiting for you
that you should come, and I might rest in you.
For you are my rest, you are MY first BEGOTTEN SON,
that reigns forever."

Here it is the Ruach HaKodesh, not the Father, who is calling Yeshua "MY SON" apparantly refering to Psalm 2:7 see also Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5).

Another important quote from the Gospel according to the Hebrews may be found in a number of anciant writings. In this quote Yeshua is reported as saying:

"Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit,
take me by one of my hairs and carry me
away to the great mountain Tabor." (compare Ezkl. 8:3)
Jerome- On Micah 7:6; On. Is. 40:9; On Ezkl. 16:13]

There can be no doubt that here the Ruach HaKodesh is seen as a Heavenly Mother. Now you may be thinking that these concepts are very strange, but they are not so strange in the context of Judaism. To begin with, in Hebrew and Aramaic Ruach HaKodesh is a feminine term, so that in the original language of the Bible, the Ruach HaKodesh is always a "she". Moreover the Jewish Kabbalists taught that there is a Heavenly Mother as
well as a Heavenly Father, as the following quotes from the Encyclopedia Judaica artical on KABBALAH indicate:

References to male and female appear not only in the
symbolism of father and mother, son and daughter...
but also in the striking use of sexual imagery which
is a particular characteristic of the Zohar...
p. 573

The Sefirot Hokhmah and Binah now become the parzufim of
Abba and Imma ("father and mother")...
p. 599

Now regardless of whether this teaching was believed by the Nazarenes, or whether or not it is "Jewish", our understanding of it must be based on the Scriptures (see 2Tim. 3:16-17; 2Pt. 1:19-21).

Now in Romans 1:19-20 we are told that "what may be known of God is manifest in them his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ..." then in Rom. 1:26-28 we are told that those who fail to percieve these things may fall into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. So when in creation were G-d's invisible attributes manifested in man and made clearly seen. The answer is in the Torah, in Gen. 1:26, 27
where we read:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness...
So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

Now following the parallelism of the passage, "Our image"; "Our likeness" and "male and female" appear to be parallel terms.

Also Is. 49:1-8 and Is. 66:13 where YHWH is described as a "mother" who "comforts"
also note that in the NT the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) is called "the comforter" (see notes to Jn. 14:16).

The ancient Nazarene and talmid of Yeshua T'oma (Thomas) was one of the
many Talmidim that eventually travled into the Parthean Empire. The
account of his voyage to India as well as his work there are recorded in
the apocryphal "Acts of Thomas" (Acts of T'oma). The book is very old.
Most date it to the first or second centuries. Although it was not
canonized many maintained it was the actual work of T'oma (except for the
account of his death).
The book has always remained very popular in the the Church of the East
(Nestorians) who regard it as an accurate account of T'oma's dealings in
the Parthean Empire (from which the Church of the East hails).

Now what is especially significant is a document within this document.
Within this document is a Hymn commonly called "The Hymn of the Pearl" or
"The Hymn of the Soul". The Hymn contains a message sent from heaven which
begins with the words:

From your Father the King of kings,
and from your Mother, mistress of the East,
and from your bother, our next in rank...

The Acts of T'oma contain the SAME godhead formula as that of Kabbalah and
the Zohar!
Here we have STRONG evidence that T'oma himself taught this Kabbalistic
model in the first century!!!!

For more on this issue see:

Signs of the Cross by Andrew Gabriel Roth pages 153-156

And

Messiah Volume 3 by Avi Ben Mordechai
p. 151f

In reply to message #0
 
In 1 Kings 22:24: "Which way did the Spirit of the Lord go...?" the word Ruach takes a masculine verb 'abar', 'went'. So you cannot claim that in Hebrew the Spirit of God is always referred to in the feminine gender.

And no, "Rukha d'Qudsha" in Aramaic is NOT linguistically feminine. It's linguistically masculine - for the bizzilionth time already.

As far as the grammatical implications of the Hebrew language go, there's no warrant for claiming that the Bible teaches a non-masculine element in the make-up of the Deity.

Are you really claiming that the Holy Spirit is literally feminine?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
You stated:
To begin with, in Hebrew and Aramaic Ruach HaKodesh is a feminine term, so that in the original language of the Bible, the Ruach HaKodesh is always a "she".

Would you please revise this statement now in light of 1 Kings 22:24 ?

Accuracy, please.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #2
 

Spirit of the Lord is NOT necissarily the same as Holy Spirit.

Spirit of the Lord CAN refer to the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of the Son.

In reply to message #3
 
Give me a break Doc. And read my post on Romans 8 - and learn.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
� Last edited by Rob on Jan-25-2002 at 09:50 AM (CT)

� Last edited by Rob on Jan-25-2002 at 09:47 AM (CT)

Shalom.

If you want to really split hairs, then we need to appreciate that the construct 'Ruakh haKodesh' does not occur even ONCE in TaNaKh!

Literally, the proper translation of 'Ruakh haKodesh', since it is bismikut (in construct), is 'spirit of the Holy (One)', or even, 'spirit of the holiness'.

In Tehilim and YeshiYahu, 'kadosh' has either a 3p. masc. sing. or 2p masc. sing. pronominal suffix, which makes it definite, even without the definite article 'ha'. Thus, 'Spirit of His Holiness', or 'Spirit of Thy Holiness'.

In Hebrew, if you wanted to say 'the Holy Spirit', you would say, "haRuakh haKodesh". But even here, there is no gender agreement, which grammar requires, which would give us something like 'haRuakh haKedushah'. (But in the Hebrew Bible, 'kedushah' is a temple prostitute)

So, basically, what I'm saying is that I believe the word 'Holy Spirit' to be an inaccurate translation/representation of the Hebrew. "Spirit of His/Thy Holiness', in my opinion, is the best rendering in English.

Just my two cents...
Rob

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama

Point well made Rob. How about we switch to 'Ruakh Elohim' as in Gen 1:2 instead. This is feminine isn't it? ("... is brooding")

Howard

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi Howard,

How about we switch to 'Ruakh Elohim' as in Gen 1:2 instead. This is feminine isn't it?

Yes - as is 'Rukha d'Alaha' in Aramaic - linguistically speaking, of course - not literally.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Howard and Paul!

Sure... 'merakhefet' = feminine participle, same with the Peshitta, with an alaph instead of a tav for the last letter - I don't know the exact vocalization of the Peshitta, though.

Speaking for the Hebrew side of things, most of the time there is number and gender agreement with verb and subject, but definitely not always. 'ruakh' sometimes has a masculine verb. 'elohim' a few times has plural verb, but mostly singular.

And poetry... forget the rules!

Rob

In reply to message #0
 
Allow me to express that the doctrines being taught here by James Trimm are not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination.

Rabbinical, "Orthodox" Judaism does NOT teach any sort of feminine gender association with Elohim, YHVH or the Ruakh or any other attribute as it relates to Hashem in general or in specifics.

What you are hearing here are fringe beliefs as they are extrapolated from Kabalistic sources.

While it may be true that in recent years, the Kabalistic interpretation is getting more press, especially with the efforts of the Kabbalah Center here in Los Angeles and their rather popular adherents and followers such as Madonna, Sandra Bernhardt, & Ricky Martin, this by no means expresses the belief and teachings of mainstream, rabbinical, "orthodox" Judaism in either Ashkenazic or Sepharadic circles.

regards,

Dean Dana