The Holy Spirit

Originally posted by Palynka
I completely disagree, experiencing something is not understanding it in my opinion.

Correcting me if I'm wrong, but according to scripture every man is salvageable and has the ability to turn to the Christian faith. So if every man has the potential to "see" I think your analogy was incorrect, even if we agree to disagree on the previous tangent.

Yes, every man is salvageable! Every man has the potential to see
the things of God correct again, but in order to see the things of God,
one requires the Spirit of God. There are not two groups of people on
the planet, those gifted to see the things of God without God, and
those that are not without the ability to see God even with God.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Please read the post about synaesthesia--it offers an explanation of how a blind person may see colour.

Was there more than the blind saying, "The blind man answered, it was like the sound of a trumpet.’ ?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Was there more than the blind saying, "The blind man answered, it was like the sound of a trumpet.’ ?
Kelly

There was a bit more than that, yes.

What do you make of that statement on its own, though? Doesn't it show that a blind man "understood" the colour red? On his own?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
There was a bit more than that, yes.

What do you make of that statement on its own, though? Doesn't it show that a blind man "understood" the colour red? On his own?

"The blind man answered, it was like the sound of a trumpet.’

Well we know he understands sound, that is what we know. He can
understand numbers, he can understand feeling, taste and so on.
That is not the same things as 'hue' or 'brighter' or 'darker' or
whatever other visual descriptive term we can bring to the discussion.

Have you seen the movie, 'First sight?' It is a well made movie,
true story about a man who was blind most of his life getting sight
after an operation, worth the time to see. Just listening to the
words would not bring home the message of the movie.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The blind man answered, it was like the sound of a trumpet.’

Well we know he understands sound, that is what we know. He can
understand numbers, he can understand feeling, taste and so on.
That is not the same things as 'hue' or 'brighter' or 'darker' or
whatever other visual descriptive term we can bring to the discussion.

Have you seen t ...[text shortened]... time to see. Just listening to the
words would not bring home the message of the movie.
Kelly

It sounds more like you can't understand the blind man rather than he can't understand color.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It sounds more like you can't understand the blind man rather than he can't understand color.

'Sounds' like it to you uh? I guess we don't 'see' eye to eye uh!
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
It sounds more like you can't understand the blind man rather than he can't understand color.

Well said.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It sounds more like you can't understand the blind man rather than he can't understand color.

I am afaid the blind cannot lead the blind.

The point still exists that the blind man cannot 'see' the red colour. He will only have his own interpretation of what it looks like.

If you are sprirtually blind, the best you will ever have is your own interpretation of what the Holy Spirit is like. If you have never experienced it yourself, nobody can explain to you what it is like. However once you experience it you will know, and you will not 'see red' in your imagination, you will know that it is indeed 'red'.

Becker, Kelly, anyone else:

What do make of Metamorphosis' comparing the HS to an identical phenomenon assigned different names in other belief systems (prana, chi, ruach, etc)? It's a few pages back from here.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Becker, Kelly, anyone else:

What do make of Metamorphosis' comparing the HS to an identical phenomenon assigned different names in other belief systems (prana, chi, ruach, etc)? It's a few pages back from here.

To the best of my understanding, none of those are considered as persons/entities to the same level of the HS. This is a fundamental part of Trinitarianism.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Becker, Kelly, anyone else:

What do make of Metamorphosis' comparing the HS to an identical phenomenon assigned different names in other belief systems (prana, chi, ruach, etc)? It's a few pages back from here.

I saw a HGA not HG, I could have missed the page your refering to.
What page, because the Holy Spirit is not an angel so that isn't
really comparing apples to apples there.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I saw a HGA not HG, I could have missed the page your refering to.
What page, because the Holy Spirit is not an angel so that isn't
really comparing apples to apples there.
Kelly

Quoth Metamorphosis,


"Holy Spirit is known variously as...


Ruach in Judaism
Prana/Kundalini in Hinduism
Joriki in Zen
Chi in Taoism
Mannas in Polynesian shamanism

and so on. It appears to be a universal force noted in all spiritual cultures [...]
This "energy" seems to be present in different expressions or across a broad spectrum of frequencies, from gross (physical energy) to subtle/rarefied (pure intuition or spiritual guidance)."

Here's a link on Christ & the Kundalini in which (among other things) Kundalini & HS are compared:

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/8_01.htm

Regarding the Pauline conspiracy doing the rounds in this forum, I found the following extract to be of interest:

Consider this idea: The term 'Jesus of Nazareth', does not (say German theologians) relate to Christ's times in Nazareth. Proper understanding of the original language shows that such a term is not linguistically possible (despite the fact that Paul uses it). The original term is more likely, "Jesus the Nazareen." Nazareen is an Aramaic word meaning "one who has bound himself to the service of God" or "one who is anointed." Compare this to the meaning of Yoga, "Union with God" and 'Yogi' – one who has union with god or to descriptions of the awakening of the Kundalini, "the mystical anointment". The Nazaria were a group of Gnostics contemporary to Christ. They taught a mystic spirituality similar to the Eastern ideas already described. It has been suggested by some authorities that this Gnostic word is ultimately derived from the Hindustani 'Nazar.' This is a yogic term for the point between the eyebrows and above the nose (the 'third eye'😉 where sages of old performed meditation. 'Nazaren' means to envision or behold. Then a more accurate meaning of "Jesus the Nazareen" would be "Jesus who has Yoga or Self Realisation" or "Jesus who meditates". Considering Christ's status as the" Son of God" perhaps a more appropriate meaning would be "Jesus who is the object of meditation". Was Christ himself the object of meditation as are many deities in Eastern cultures? Christ himself might well be the Nazaren.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Quoth Metamorphosis,


"Holy Spirit is known variously as...


Ruach in Judaism
Prana/Kundalini in Hinduism
Joriki in Zen
Chi in Taoism
Mannas in Polynesian shamanism

and so on. It appears to be a universal force noted in all spiritual cultures [...]
This "energy" seems to be present in different expressions or across a broad spe ...[text shortened]... of meditation as are many deities in Eastern cultures? Christ himself might well be the Nazaren.

There are many spirits in the world, but only one Holy Spirit. I'm
not sure I'd go along with saying that the Holy Spirit is also some
of the other names in other religions.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage


Here's a link on Christ & the Kundalini in which (among other things) Kundalini & HS are compared:

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/8_01.htm

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the "Secret Book of John" that the link refers to? It seems that most comparisions are made through statements in this book...

Originally posted by Palynka
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the "Secret Book of John" that the link refers to? It seems that most comparisions are made through statements in this book...

Look up the Gnostic Gospels (& other apocrypha). These were texts declared heretical at the Nicean Council, 325AD, when the current canon was drawn up.