small tortoiseshell wrote:
>>>>> You have a right to
>>
>>>>>>>>your nomenclature and your set of definite criteria for what is A or
>>>>>>>>what is B.
>>
>>>>>the below criteria is the only criteria I had in mind,
>>>>>and when you said that experiencing the Holy Spirit as you did
>>>>>not necessarily lead one to believe in the bible nor go to church,
>>>>>obviously it is not in accord with Christian belief and thusly
>>>>>according to that faith,
>>>>>saying that you experienced the Holy Spirit is not correct.
>>
>>>>the Holy Spirit is independent of any particular faith or doctrine.
>>
>>>That depends what you fill the word with.
>>
>>Perhaps, but it's also not dependent on particular words is it? Spirit
>>is Spirit.
>
>
> Yes that might be so, but it also expresses itself in different ways,
> obviously, regardless of what words we apply, and the name given by
> Christ as the Holy Spirit
> is case specific so to speak in that it is inextricably connected
> with his sacrifice and resurrection as recorded in the Bible.
> It is the same spirit as has always been, that is true,
> but it is now incarnated as Christs Spirit on earth,
> as the redeeming power of gods unconditional love,
> which it previously to his sacrifice was not,
> as far as I understand it at least,
> so as long as you dont believe in that,
> we are not talking about the same Jesus as it would occur to a
> Christian
> and thusly saying that you experienced the Holy Spirit
> but do not acknowledge the above part,
> would not be correct from that point of view.
> It does not mean that we ( including the clerk) are of the opinion
> that you did not experience the Spirit of god, only that you did not
> experience the Holy Spirit, as we ( including the clerk) see it.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>"
>>>Holy is, as might be expected based on the etymology of Holy Ghost, an
>>>Old English term. Its form in about 1000 A.D. was halig and it
>>>derives from the Indo-European root hailo- or kailo- "free from
>>>injury, whole", whence comes also English hale as in "hale and
>>>hearty". There are cognates in the Germanic languages, for example
>>>German heilig , Swedish helig "holy". The only real uncertainty
>>>about holy pertains to the changes in meaning that it underwent. In
>>>pre-Christian times, it probably meant "inviolate, inviolable" (and
>>>that meaning survived into Old Norse), a meaning which would make the
>>>word applicable to the gods. Once Christianity was introduced, the
>>>already-existing word apparently made a perfect translation for Latin
>>>sanctus. However, the OED suggests that the pre-Christian meaning
>>>may have been one of "health, well-being" as in hale (which was Old
>>>English hal). Whatever that original meaning was, it is now
>>>impossible to reconstruct with any certainty as the influence of
>>>Christianity has obscured it. Wyclif produced the first surviving
>>>example we have of holy using today's spelling, in 1382: "Nyl ge geue
>>>holy thing to houndis", from the Gospel of Luke. Interestingly,
>>>Tyndale, in his version of the Bible, spelled the word wholy, clearly
>>>confusing it with whole. That was in 1526."
>>
>>>And spirit "came to English via Norman French spirit from Old French
>>>esperit and/or Latin spiritus, both meaning "breathing, breath, air",
>>>deriving ultimately from Latin spirare "to breathe" (source of
>>>respirate and perspire, among many others). As mentioned previously,
>>>spirit was initially used to translate Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah,
>>>starting in about 1250, and all versions of the Bible from Wyclif
>>>onward use spirit in translation of the Greek and Hebrew. Prior to
>>>the Middle Ages, however, ghost was used. It comes from the Indo-
>>>European root gheis- "fear or amazement", and there are descendants of
>>>that root in most of the Germanic languages, all of them possessing
>>>similar meanings. Some etymologists believe that Sanskrit he'das
>>>"anger" is related, and the general meaning of related words outside
>>>of the Germanic language family appears to have been "fury, anger"."
>>
>>>>It
>>>>is a direct Presence. It existed before Christianity as the Shekinah;
>
>
> Much can be said about teh Shekinah, but in essence, it refers to
> respectively
> Binah and Malkuth in the Kabbalistic tree of life. Christ, in turn, is
> commonly associated with Tiphareth,
> so the Holy Spirit you call Shekinah, is in fact the Mother of god
> as Binah, and your corporeal Wife, as Malkuth, from that point of
> view.
> However, it is not how we ( the clerk is having lunch) see it,
> as Christ, the promised Messiah, did not say that he was sending his
> mother as the Holy Spirit. She is venerated as a Saint by the Church,
> and rightly so, but she is not the Holy Spirit, as we ( the clerk is
> still at lunch)
> see it.
I may not have it right, but I think the Shekinah, rather than Mother,
is the consort or earthly manifestation of God on Earth [Holy Spirit]
which is indeed a female energy that balanced God's male energy in
Heaven. Or something like that. I'm not clear on all the particulars
as I don't have a direct line to the Heavenly Encyclopedia as you do.
:)
Whatever you call it, it rocks! ;)
>>>>>"In Christianity, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is one of the three
>>>>>persons of the Holy Trinity who make up the single substance of God;
>>>>>that is, the Spirit is considered to act in concert with and share an
>>>>>essential nature with God the Father and God the Son (Jesus)."
>>
>>>>I understand that this is how it is given in Christian doctrine, and I
>>>>understand if that is the only version of it that you will accept as
>>>>valid.
>>
>>>How many versions of the Holy Spirit are there?
>>
>>There's likely only one Holy Spirit, but any cosmology or intellectual
>>scheme that creates a cognitive triangle or otherwise is an explanation,
>>not the actual experience.
>
>
> Well, thats one explanation, yet still,
> the Holy Spirit is distinguashable ( dont remember the word) from
> the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
> both cognitively and experientially, as we ( not sure if the clerk is
> back from lunch)
> experience it.
>
>
>>One can understand the basic meaning of the
>>trinity as an experiential reality if it is looked at that way:
>> When we see the Source as separate and leading us from on high we see it as > God the Father;
>
>
> As Christ, god the Father is immanent and incarnated as the Holy
> Spirit
> on earth, right now, and available to anybody who opens their heart to
> him
> as the experientially available Kingdom of Heaven that is within.
> Its actually so simple.
I think that's pretty much what I said; minus the doctrinal exclusivity
is all....
>
>
>>When we see the Source as a friend or guide that we can
>>relate to personally we see God the Son;
>>when we experience Source as
>>internal or The Kingdom of Heaven Within one's own soul, it is
>>experienced as Holy Spirit.
>
>
> Many can use and benefit from your explanation, even if its not
> immediately applicable to the clerk and his employees,
> so thanks for sharing as it might bring comfort to some
> and as such will be in the spirit of Love.
Thank you for that. I appreciate the committee at least thinking that
to that extent I am not so much on the wrong track.
Hi to the clerk as well.
>>>>>>>>I don't subscribe to a particular system 100%% so right there
>>>>>>>>I am probably off your chart and won't win favor even if I reapply.
>>
>>>>>Well, after saintpeter the seventh announced you holier then Moses
>>>>>things have changed. We ( i.m only the clerk btw.) would like you to
>>>>>apply
>>>>>again, but in greater detail if you dont mind. ..
>>
>>>>sure, what do you want to know in more detail?
>>
>>>Thanks. We ( I.m only the clerk again) would like to know if you are
>>>intending
>>>to gather a number of followers and start a new religion as a
>>>consequence
>>>of this or not. The quesion arised in plenum after we ( including the
>>>clerk)
>>>did not see any denouncement of the announcement appear from you and
>>>thusly
>>>concluded that you might have intention of going public with this and
>>>announce
>>>your elf as a prophet of a higher level then Moses and start
>>>gathering
>>>followers who might start to burn and torture christians who belive
>>>in Jesus of the Bible instead of your profound experience/s. We ( not
>>>the clerk this time)
>>>have seen such incident arise before ( some of us are more then 15oo
>>>years old)
>>>so this is only a precaution only. We ( the clerk included) would only
>>>be to happy
>>>to receive insurances from you that such is not amongst your immediate
>>>priorities. If you dont mind. Apart from that, we, that is all of us
>>>here at the
>>>office ( the clerk included again) wish you all the best.
>>
>>That seems a little paranoid. This discussion just came up because it
>>arose in conversation. I'm not planning to start anything. I actually
>>was ordained as an interfaith minister in NY over ten years ago, because
>>I wanted to do spiritual counseling as part of my work. Some people
>>came to me and it seemed to have a good effect for them at the time, and
>>I also had Sunday services on the floor of my apartment at that time
>>which consisted of my parents, my wife and a few friends. They even
>>passed a plate and gave me a few dollars. I even performed one wedding
>>between a Jewish girl and an Italian Catholic guy, put together a
>>wedding service that both families liked, referring to God as "Creator
>>of the Universe" and didn't mention anything specifically Jewish or
>>Catholic beyond that. They were happy with it.
>
>
> I dont know what an interfaith minister is, but it comes as no
> surprise that
> you are an ex minister or preacher of some kind. ;-)
Not really "ex," just in neutral till something activates me.
>>The time I experienced the Holy Spirit was during the Ordination Retreat
>>with a bunch of other crazy Interfaith Ministers-to-be.
>
>
> I see...
>
>
>>If I ever got to the point where I felt qualified, I would like to be a
>>meditation teacher or something like that. I would never put myself
>>forth as the new interpretor of Christianity; that's not really my
>>framework, although I think Jesus [himself] is very cool! :)
>>
>>Tell the committee I'm not planning to step on any toes. I'm here to
>>learn, not sink anyone's ship.
>
>
> We are hilariously glad to hear that. Brother Peter is already in the
> cellar looking for some bubbly wine to celebrate the occasion with.
Well I'll open my own bottle here, but think I'll wait till tonight.
> Pax Vobiscum.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>What is important is to feel your own path and go forward in the way you
>>>>>>>>think is best.
>
>
>>>>>there isnt anything to go forward from. I dont live my life as an
>>>>>echo. I am right where I am supposed to be wherever I am, and I have
>>>>>always been,
>>>>>I am happy to say. But thanks :-)
>>
>>>>>>I wish you truth in your continued journey, just as I'm
>>
>>>>>>>>sure you hold that in mind for me.
>>
>>>>>Most certainly :-)
>>
>>>>>p.s. ( I.m not human)
>>
>>>>how's that?
>>>>I would be interested in knowing what you mean.
>>
>>>" it is not for humans
>>>to really have that kind of certainty."
>>
>>Well, maybe it's for Angels, Devas, Higher Entities, God, or the most
>>Enlightened Gurus. I don't really know.
>
>
> Stay with that! :-)
>
>>Are you one of them? ;)
>
>
> Im nothing. Glad to meet you.
Same here. I mean the second part, although I'm sure the first part is
true too.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - - -
