Thx, another also gave some traslative words as well. As it turns out, it's not really any separate entity or an entity at all. But a feeling one may have. Like having a spirit and rooting for one's favorite sports team. In this case, a spiritual feeling of a god.
If, I remember correctly. You posted LDS? I have had conversations with LDS sisters. That subject was not discussed.
We will need to agree to disagree concerning that interpretation. Note: the word holy spirit is in the O.T.
In ancient times, air and spirit were synonymous. People back then didn't know what air actually was and thought it was alive.
I'm glad you spoke up about is. I told him the same awhile back in the thread. Well, at least we both tried to convince him that he is incorrect on this point.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23 How can Jesus Christ know us if not by his spirit? And by his knowing us, we then know him divine by our having been known by his spirit. In so doing, we are brought to a remembrance of him, that he is God and that he lives, and that true life is in him rather than in our lives or ourselves alone. Therefore the iniquity of those who practice in his name resides in having read about him and presumed to elect themselves to his service, as if to command God and dispossess him of his agency, telling God who will be his servants as if the living God had no choice in the matter or did not truly live. Who in honoring and loving God would presume to dictate to him as if he were too old and unable to form his own words or bless his own. Does or does not God live and have all power. So what then do men practice in his name without his express authorization, but iniquity, having put him away. Gods throne is Gods, not ours from which to make decrees. God by his spirit calls men to all things divine. Men can call themselves to nothing divine in truth. So why do those who Jesus Christ has never known by his spirit, pretend to be his servants. Therefore his judgment is just and true when he will say, " I never knew you."
No it's not like that at all. It isn't something we conjure up or emote. It is his spirit. It is divine. And it comes from him. Gods spirit is his messenger.
The only reason it’s called the Byzantine Empire is because of historians from the Holy Roman Empire who called it that because they considered their empire to be the legitimate heir to the western Roman Empire. People who lived in Constantinople/Byzantium and the surrounding lands considered themselves Romans.
I’m glad your glad. I know, I read your post. Yes, we did. Our physical body is simply a temporary dwelling for our spirits. Greek Words House ~ oikia: a house, dwelling Phonetic Spelling: (oy-kee'-ah) Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Short Definition: a ho Tabernacle ~ skēnos: a tent, for the body Phonetic Spelling: (skay'-nos) Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter Short Definition: a tent, for the body Meaning: a tent, for the body From skene; a hut or temporary residence, i.e. (figuratively) the human body (as the abode of the spirit) -- tabernacle.
Yes, as a part of several possible translated words. Thy Holy - apartness, sacredness Spirit - breath, wind, spirit Again, one can take anything and any of the possible translated words and make them into something they want to believe. It's the best thing the Bible has, a meaning for any one and all who can fit it to how they want it to fit.
Not exactly. Some may interpret it that way. But as @CharisRose and @Dirty Rotten Imbecile have pointed out, the ****w words has a few translations. “Spirit” Hebrew word is… ruach: breath, wind, spirit
You're confusing a being, "The holy spirit", with words of having god's holy spirit/wind/breath. I said, as I reposted above, The Holy Spirit wasn't invented until the trinity. This is when The Holy Spirit was invented.
This actually resembles an older, Egyptian creation myth, involving their god of Magic, Thoth, who created the world, through merely his speaking the words, by the power of his utterance. Personally, though, I prefer their even older story, about Atum, who rose out of the Sea of Chaos, alone. But when he masturbated, his semen brought forth the world/life; I like the more visceral quality-- it doesn't feel overly refined, abstracted, and stylized. According to the version below, Atum's seed created his first two children, air & moisture (Shu &Tefnut), who then proceeded to create earth & sky (Geb & Nut). <Google Snip> Atum was said to be “he who came into being by himself”and he then created his first two descendants, Shu (air) and Tefnut (moisture) from his bodily fluids. Shu and Tefnut then created the next pair of gods, Geb (earth) and Nut (sky), providing the physical framework for the world.Apr 6, 2022 https://smarthistory.org › creation-... Creation myths and form(s) of the gods in ancient Egypt - Smarthistory
If you will forgive my saying so, it sounds as if you are no stranger to internal justifications, yourself. It comes across, that you believe you can actually be certain, of that thing which any reasonable person, will admit: that no one has the means for knowing what, if anything, exists on the other side of death. That includes, by the way, the impossibility of knowing that there is nothing there. Many great thinkers, were also religious. Some, like Isaac Newton, may only reflect their childhood, societal programming. But real free thinking iconoclasts, like Leonardo, also believed in God. Or Newton's contemporary, and equally as great a scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, also had metaphysical beliefs, though his were also uniquely his own; he wrote a book about his beliefs, called "Monadology"-- not to be confused with Monadism. Roughly speaking, he believed in what could be seen as a network of these local, ruling powers, that were all part of a kind of hierarchy. I didn't study it, but my initial association, was with the tree of Emanations, in the Hebrew Kabbala tradition. Since I just accidentally posted, I will end with someone who I see as a visionary genius: psychologist (& mystic) Carl Gustave Jung. He was another, who felt unbound by conventional thought. Yet he still believed in a Divine force (on top of making contributions to psychology, that dwarf those of nearly anyone else). In his own philosophy, this was the inner spirit which was manifesting all life, which Jung considered God's quest for an appropriate form for Its own, physical expression. IOW, God was, to Jung, all powerful, but did not know exactly what It wanted-- so WAS NOT OMNISCIENT. All I am saying, is that the dismissive attitude, I feel I perceive from you, could be leading to your missing out on a big part of the picture. Then again, as you imply of the religious type, maybe you don't want to consider ideas, outside of your already formed, conceptual framework.
Here is another example of how Trinity was inserted into the Bible after the fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
I've never said anything about what is on the other side of death. Since I haven't experienced it, nor know anyone who has experienced and told me about it. So no, I don't know what is on the other side of death. Not sure how you came up with that. I don't actually have a formed conceptual framework. I am not sure how any of your response to me is related to the Omni God I was addressing. In a post I made responding to one that anyone can predict something based of past things and/or assumptions, is not omniscient. For omniscience is not predicting at all. By definition. If you feel that is dismissive, not sure why, as I posted the definition of omniscient and prediction isn't part of the definition. If I were to put God in some sort of box or context, I would say God is energy. And have alluded to that in the past.
It is the clear message that is sent, when one criticizes the hypocrisy, of the religious (or denigrates their intelligence, etc.)-- though, granted, it does not prove the case. But to be fair to myself, as well, I never said that I knew your beliefs: DEFinning said: ↑ If you will forgive my saying so, it sounds as if you are no stranger to internal justifications, yourself. It comes across, that you believe you can actually be certain, of that thing which any reasonable person, will admit: that no one has the means for knowing what, if anything, exists on the other side of death. That includes, by the way, the impossibility of knowing that there is nothing there... ... All I am saying, is that the dismissive attitude, I feel I perceive from you, could be leading to your missing out on a big part of the picture. Then again, as you imply of the religious type, maybe you don't want to consider ideas, outside of your already formed, conceptual framework. "It sounds as if;" "It comes across;" "I feel I perceive;" "maybe." I think I included enough reservations, so that you shouldn't have taken my post as an outright assertion, or verdict, on my part-- no? Perhaps I had misread your meaning, but you were limiting your comment, to apply only to those who "believe in a deity," and the word "justify," seems strongly to imply self-delusion, or lying to oneself. Can you not see where I could get that impression, from your text, even if it may not have been your intention to give that impression? dairyair said: ↑ And the vast vast majority believe in a God that is ... The three “omni” attributes of God characterize him as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Each of these involves the other two, and each provides a perspective on the all-embracing lordship of the true God. But I often say, all people will adjust God, to fit their personal opinions and beliefs. It's how they justify how they can live with a good conscience and still believe in a diety (sic). I was not addressing that part of your post (which I had shrunken, in your quote-- and enlarged the part that I was addressing). I feel this was plainly apparent-- did you not make that observation? dairyair said: ↑ And the vast vast majority believe in a God that is ... The three “omni” attributes of God characterize him as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Each of these involves the other two, and each provides a perspective on the all-embracing lordship of the true God. But I often say, all people will adjust God, to fit their personal opinions and beliefs. It's how they justify how they can live with a good conscience and still believe in a d(ei)ty <End Quote> So, if you hadn't been talking about religious hypocrisy, would you interpret for me, the point which you had been trying to make?
Interesting bit of information. I'll repeat again what I said earlier, I would be surprised if there weren't earlier versions of the creation story. Long before anything was ever recorded on "paper" the story was passed down orally from one generation to another. Along the path of that story telling details were naturally changed. This is not an uncommon human factor in the retelling of any story. Embellishment is what humans like to do when they tell the stories of their people. My somewhat simple exegesis of the emphasis of the Genesis story being that of the integrity and power of God's "spoken" words was just that -- a simple one, absent a thorough examination of the exact figures of speeches used in the chapter. Figure of speeches used in the Bible are used very carefully and serve to emphasize that which God (assuming the words are inspired by God) wants to specifically draw the reader's attention to. Thus, in my humble opinion, based on study, the first thing God established in the Bible is that you can trust the Word of God to come to pass because the evidence is right in front of our eyes. Of course it goes without saying that if you don't believe in the Judeo/Christian God none of it really matters. It's all a myth.
