Protestantism

» Migisi - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by pink101:

.
Give some of your examples out of the Bible with chapter and verse. I would like to check them out.
.
If you enter 'spirit' in your online Bible reference, you can browse through the verses with the key word 'spirit' (both cap S and lower case). Use mine if you like: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?sea...

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Spirit OF God?

In response to Pagan roots posted by Migisi:
.
Every one of those examples can be used to support my thesis that Spirit or spirit is a representation of something other than itself and that exists in conjunction with a person who is in on the relationship. The Spirit OF God? It is a human perception.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by redback:
.
suggest capitalisations have different values...the former examples an identifier of reverence, the latter simply a proper noun.
.
Grammatically, the capitalized word 'Spirit' indicates a proper name, just as the Bible capitalizes 'God' when referring to the Hebrew's God specifically. It further identifies with 'Spirit of God', etc. When I come across capital S 'Spirit', it's always associated with 'God'. As in Acts 2:17 - "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people...".
.
The lower case spelling indicates a nonspecific noun, a general class or category. In the Bible, the 'spirit' is expressed as relating to a human state of mind (in 'high' or 'good' spirits, 'bitter' in spirit, a 'stubborn' spirit, 'one in spirit' as with Jonathan and David, and implied by Jesus - he one with God). Or a demonic spirit, a ghost, or a life force as in Matthew 27:50 - "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit." Or as an inner ~gut~ feeling, (as you've suggested), as in Mark 2:8 "Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts...". (Note 'spirit' is lower case in these verses because it pertains to Jesus, not God.)
.
'God' and 'god' fit the same pattern, as in EX 20:1 - "And God spoke all these words:"... 3 "You shall have no other gods before me." And in Acts 28:6 - "... but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him [Paul], they changed their minds and said he was a god." A ~nonspecific~ 'god', not the 'God'.
.
I'm a tad unsure of the spirit within us as it seems to me there's at least two. Crikey, could there be three?
.
Or perhaps a pot pourri of all our ancestors' spirits? Like God might be a guzillion spirits all rolled into one? Why limit ourselves to only two or three?
.
But that Spirit as far as I understand it is simply a part of God.
.
Like my spirit is a part of me. It is my life force - my substance. Just as Spirit is God's substance. Without my spirit, can I exist? Vice versa - can ~my~ spirit exist without ~me~? Religions which aspouse to an afterlife say 'yes'.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Spirit OF God?

In response to Spirit OF God? posted by pink101:

.
spirit is a representation of something other than itself and that exists in conjunction with a person...
.
I agree with "in conjunction"... in a state of being joined. I believe Spirit is God's inseparable essence or substance, and both 'God' and 'Spirit' are proper names for the ONE.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Jewish rejection

.
And interesting discussion here, from TRINITY
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...
....
"In the Middle Ages the nature of the Trinity was discussed in every one of the numerous disputations between Christians and Jews, the polemic of Abraham Roman (in his "Sela' ha-Mahaloket," printed in the "Milhemet Hobah," Constantinople, 1710) being especially bitter; while in his well-known disputation Nahmanides wrote as follows:("Milhemet Hobah," p. 13a)...
.
"Fra Pablo asked me in Gerona whether I believed in the Trinity. I said to him, 'What is the Trinity? Do three great human bodies constitute the Divinity?' 'No!' 'Or are there three ethereal bodies, such as the souls, or are there three angels?' 'No!' 'Or is an object composed of three kinds of matter, as bodies are composed of the four elements?' 'No!' 'What then is the Trinity?' He said: 'Wisdom, will, and power' [comp. the definition of Thomas Aquinas cited above]. Then I said: 'I also acknowledge that God is wise and not foolish, that He has a will unchangeable, and that He is mighty and not weak. But the term "Trinity" is decidedly erroneous; for wisdom is not accidental in the Creator, since He and His wisdom are one, He and His will are one, He and His power are one, so that wisdom, will, and power are one. Moreover, even were these things accidental in Him, that which is called God would not be three beings, but one being with these three accidental attributes.' Our lord the king here quoted an analogy which the erring ones had taught him, saying that there are also three things in wine, namely, color, taste, and bouquet, yet it is still one thing. This is a decided error; for the redness, the taste, and the bouquet of the wine are distinct essences, each of them potentially self-existent; for there are red, white, and other colors, and the same statement holds true with regard to taste and bouquet. The redness, the taste, and the bouquet, moreover, are not the wine itself, but the thing which fills the vessel, and which is, therefore, a body with the three accidents. Following this course of argument, there would be four, since the enumeration should include God, His wisdom, His will, and His power, and these are four. You would even have to speak of five things; for He lives, and His life is a part of Him just as much as His wisdom. Thus the definition of God would be 'living, wise, endowed with will, and mighty'; the Divinity would therefore be fivefold in nature. All this, however, is an evident error. Then Fra Pablo arose and said that he believed in the unity, which, none the less, included the Trinity, although this was an exceedingly deep mystery, which even the angels and the princes of heaven could not comprehend. I arose and said: 'It is evident that a person does not believe what he does not know: therefore the angels do not believe in the Trinity.' His colleagues then bade him be silent."
.
(my bold emphasis)

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - The Entire Concept

.
The entire concept of the Trinity has--within it--the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is, by and large, ignored by Christian spokespersons the world over.
.
Let that sink in just a bit as it is such an audacious statement.
.
God--up and out there someplace--is the Supreme entity over all. As such, we are told by the priesthood that [he/she/it] is untouchable by us as each one of us falls short of God's glory--we are condemned already--there is no hope for us.
.
Jesus--on earth as a human being just like the rest of us stands up against the priest hood and breaks the barriers set up by the priest hood to touch God. God responds with the exclamation that Jesus is [his/her/its] son in the flesh. And Jesus goes around telling people that they can be at one with God in the same way that he is at one with God. He lays the foundation for the existence of God's Spirit in any human being. All to the consternation of the priesthood. They hate his Gospel for blowing the whistle on the priesthood which is exactly what he did. They called it blasphemy.
.
The Spirit--within each person is the result of the relationship that is brought about when the person is at one with God. The Spirit is the presence of God that each person senses; but, it is not God nor is it Jesus. It is a production of that relationship. It is not a breeze that rustles the leaves of a tree like the ancient Hebrews believed; but, it is the essence of the relationship a person experiences when they are at one with God. In Spirit.
.
THAT, in and of itself, IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
.
It doesn't have anything to do with heaven or hell. It's all about the here and the now.
.
IMO.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - The Entire Concept

In response to The Entire Concept posted by pink101:
.
They hate his Gospel for blowing the whistle on the priesthood which is exactly what he did. They called it blasphemy.
.
Pink, if you get the time, read this article:
CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO JUDAISM:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...
.
Especially the sections "Jesus as a Man of the People" and "Jesus' Teachings".
.
(snippets from 'Teachings'):
.
"Many of his teachings can be traced to rabbinical sayings current in the Pharisaic schools; and many sentences, if not entire chapters, have been taken over from Essene writings (see Didascalia; Essenes; Golden Rule; Jesus of Nazareth; Matthew).
.
"On the other hand, there are utterances of striking originality and wondrous power which denote great genius. He certainly had a message to bring to the forlorn, to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. x. 6, xv. 24), to the outcast, to the lower classes, to the "'am ha-arez," to the sinners, and to the publicans. And whether the whole life-picture is reality or poetic imagination, in him the Essene ideal reached its culmination....
....
"The vehement language of Jesus, in denouncing Sadducean misrule and the hypocrisy and narrowness of the Pharisaic leaders, was not altogether new and unheard of: it was the privilege of the Essene preachers, the popular Haggadists (See Pharisee and Sadducees). Most of his teachings, a great number of which echo rabbinical sayings, and have been misunderstood or misapplied altogether by the late Gospel compilers (see Gospels, The Four), were addressed to a circle of men who lived in a world of their own, far away from the centers of commerce and industry. His attitude toward Judaism is defined by the words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. v. 17). The rejection of the Law by Christianity, therefore, was a departure from its Christ, all the New Testament statements to the contrary notwithstanding. He himself declined even the title of "good master," because he wanted to reserve this epithet for God alone ("Matt. xix. 17): Christianity, contrary to all his teaching, turned him into a God." (end)
.
Jesus was a temple-educated Jew. Read on in "Paul's Antinomistic and Gnostic Views", to understand how Christian ~doctrine~ developed.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - These Areas

In response to The Entire Concept posted by Migisi:

.
These areas are what the devout followers of organized religion are warned to stay away from. I don't think we're going to get very many such followers to be involved. They're afraid they will lose their faith.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - These Areas

In response to These Areas posted by pink101:

.
I don't think we're going to get very many such followers to be involved. They're afraid they will lose their faith.
.
Fear of any kind of loss is unsettling, and it's often what prevents personal growth. I do understand that fear. I had to overcome it myself.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Fear of Freedom

In response to These Areas posted by Migisi:
.
And, so did I. Afraid that I would be condemned to an eternity of falling into endless space.
.
It's called the fear of freedom, isn't it?

-- posted by pink101