Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

gywpnwm

Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit and you came up with an interpretation (or whatever you d like to call it) saying to readers,
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2007
      Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit and
      you came up with an interpretation (or whatever you'd like to call it)
      saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get" that the Trinity is
      composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.

      This would have to be a religious view in no way connected to the
      Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book I cited, Steiner's,
      "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox view as well as giving
      insight into the traditional view concerning the Procession of the
      Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah, but what the hell
      would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist bullshit that would
      infect the Society at the turn of the 21st century?

      You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu santo is masculine,
      from the
      > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was translated, and that,
      in
      > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter. In the original
      > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is feminine. All I'm sayin
      is that
      > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't mean anything.
      >
      > Frank
      >

      I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's mind as he spoke
      referring
      to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the translator
      wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.


      You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my guess is that your
      religious view is without much substance and can't be supported
      without resort to "theological sources" on a par with stuff like the
      "DaVinci Code".

      Your offering on language above is intelligent...and ought not have to
      be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally interested in what
      you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's written in support of
      somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:

      You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
      feminine..."...well, according to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,
      the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a masculine noun...G.
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      ... I was not relying on the Christian churches (never do) or Steiner (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the Gnostic Gospels, a serious handicap.
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 1, 2007
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
        <gaelman58@...> wrote:
        >
        > Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit and
        > you came up with an interpretation (or whatever you'd like to call it)
        > saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get" that the Trinity is
        > composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.
        >
        > This would have to be a religious view in no way connected to the
        > Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book I cited, Steiner's,
        > "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox view as well as giving
        > insight into the traditional view concerning the Procession of the
        > Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah, but what the hell
        > would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist bullshit that would
        > infect the Society at the turn of the 21st century?
        --------------------
        I was not relying on the Christian churches (never do) or Steiner
        (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the Gnostic Gospels,
        a serious handicap. And which "Society" do you mean?


        >
        > You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu santo is masculine,
        > from the
        > > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was translated, and that,
        > in
        > > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter. In the original
        > > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is feminine. All I'm sayin
        > is that
        > > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't mean anything.
        > >


        I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's mind as he spoke
        > referring
        > to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the translator
        > wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.

        > You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my guess is that your
        > religious view is without much substance and can't be supported
        > without resort to "theological sources" on a par with stuff like the
        > "DaVinci Code".

        I chose not to answer because, firstly, the question shows that you
        have no idea what I'm talking about: Which pronoun indeed? And
        secondly because you invariably use the stupid argument that my
        sources are unreliable because they don't include RC dogma.
        In this case, again, my source is Elaine Pagels.


        > Your offering on language above is intelligent...and ought not have to
        > be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally interested in what
        > you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's written in support of
        > somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:
        >
        > You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
        > feminine..."...well, according to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,
        > the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a masculine noun...G.

        In the Aramaic spoken during Jesus's time, "rukha d'qoodsha" is
        translated as Holy Spirit. "rukha" = spirit.
        Frank
      • dottie zold
        Frank, my understanding, born out of my looking for the mystery of the Magdalene, is that the Mother is that which holds up the whole world. In order for God
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 1, 2007
          Frank, my understanding, born out of my looking for
          the mystery of the Magdalene, is that the Mother is
          that which holds up the whole world. In order for God
          or Christ to be understood a Sophia is the mediator.
          Kind of like on one level we have the understanding of
          the Mother Mary being the intercessor for Christ etc.

          On one hand this Sophia can be understood in and of
          her ownself from an earthly position, hence, I
          believe, the understanding of the Holy Spirit being
          the fallen Lucifer, or the fallen Lucifer able to
          ressurect from the lowest to the highest. If we look
          at seven levels to every mystery we can find the Holy
          Spirit as a feminine principle. On a higher level we
          are looking at the Trinity and then higher still the
          AinSoph.

          Nothing in the world moves without this feminine
          principle which has been noted as Sophia or other
          terms in ancient Indian traditions, on the lower
          levels or the higher levels. For me always always, no
          matter who say no yada yada yada, I find myself
          looking at Lilith. And everyone and their mother in
          this movement calls this being 'evil' but there is
          something else going on that I think is not taken into
          consideration and I think it has to do with Lucifer.

          All good things,
          Dottie
          --- Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
          > "gaelman58"
          > <gaelman58@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and
          > the Holy Spirit and
          > > you came up with an interpretation (or whatever
          > you'd like to call it)
          > > saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get"
          > that the Trinity is
          > > composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.
          > >
          > > This would have to be a religious view in no way
          > connected to the
          > > Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book
          > I cited, Steiner's,
          > > "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox
          > view as well as giving
          > > insight into the traditional view concerning the
          > Procession of the
          > > Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah,
          > but what the hell
          > > would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist
          > bullshit that would
          > > infect the Society at the turn of the 21st
          > century?
          > --------------------
          > I was not relying on the Christian churches (never
          > do) or Steiner
          > (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the
          > Gnostic Gospels,
          > a serious handicap. And which "Society" do you mean?
          >
          >
          > >
          > > You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu
          > santo is masculine,
          > > from the
          > > > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was
          > translated, and that,
          > > in
          > > > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter.
          > In the original
          > > > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
          > feminine. All I'm sayin
          > > is that
          > > > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't
          > mean anything.
          > > >
          >
          >
          > I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's
          > mind as he spoke
          > > referring
          > > to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the
          > translator
          > > wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.
          >
          > > You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my
          > guess is that your
          > > religious view is without much substance and can't
          > be supported
          > > without resort to "theological sources" on a par
          > with stuff like the
          > > "DaVinci Code".
          >
          > I chose not to answer because, firstly, the question
          > shows that you
          > have no idea what I'm talking about: Which pronoun
          > indeed? And
          > secondly because you invariably use the stupid
          > argument that my
          > sources are unreliable because they don't include RC
          > dogma.
          > In this case, again, my source is Elaine Pagels.
          >
          >
          > > Your offering on language above is
          > intelligent...and ought not have to
          > > be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally
          > interested in what
          > > you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's
          > written in support of
          > > somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:
          > >
          > > You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't
          > have, spirit is
          > > feminine..."...well, according to the
          > Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,
          > > the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a
          > masculine noun...G.
          >
          > In the Aramaic spoken during Jesus's time, "rukha
          > d'qoodsha" is
          > translated as Holy Spirit. "rukha" = spirit.
          > Frank
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
          >
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join
          > (Yahoo! ID required)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • gaelman58
          ... and ... call it) ... Steiner s, ... giving ... hell ... would ... Gospels, ... Frank: You would be Christian by virtue of what? You say you would be more
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 2, 2007
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
            <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
            > <gaelman58@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit
            and
            > > you came up with an interpretation (or whatever you'd like to
            call it)
            > > saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get" that the Trinity is
            > > composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.
            > >
            > > This would have to be a religious view in no way connected to the
            > > Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book I cited,
            Steiner's,
            > > "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox view as well as
            giving
            > > insight into the traditional view concerning the Procession of the
            > > Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah, but what the
            hell
            > > would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist bullshit that
            would
            > > infect the Society at the turn of the 21st century?
            > --------------------
            > I was not relying on the Christian churches (never do) or Steiner
            > (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the Gnostic
            Gospels,
            > a serious handicap. And which "Society" do you mean?


            Frank: You would be Christian by virtue of what? You say you would
            be more knowledgeable in some instances than Steiner, yes?...The
            Gnostic Gospels are in some way more authoritative than Steiner?
            These "Pop Gospels" are equivalent to those indicated by Steiner?


            >
            >
            > >
            > > You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu santo is
            masculine,
            > > from the
            > > > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was translated, and
            that,
            > > in
            > > > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter. In the original
            > > > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is feminine. All I'm sayin
            > > is that
            > > > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't mean anything.
            > > >
            >
            >
            > I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's mind as he spoke
            > > referring
            > > to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the translator
            > > wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.
            >
            > > You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my guess is that
            your
            > > religious view is without much substance and can't be supported
            > > without resort to "theological sources" on a par with stuff like
            the
            > > "DaVinci Code".
            >
            > I chose not to answer because, firstly, the question shows that you
            > have no idea what I'm talking about: Which pronoun indeed? And
            > secondly because you invariably use the stupid argument that my
            > sources are unreliable because they don't include RC dogma.
            > In this case, again, my source is Elaine Pagels.

            No, Frank, if that were the case you would have answered and
            indicated that what you say above was so, simply and directly...you
            didn't answer because you couldn't immediately think of an answer,
            something that is generally your habit...your "Which pronoun indeed?"
            is rhetorical and no answer at all...Steiner DOES NOT SAY dogma is
            untrue, he says the Churches do not supply the means for an
            individual to ascertain those truths...hence, his spiritual
            science...Elaine Pagels?...are you serious?...you would choose that
            modern writer over the indications given by traditional great
            thinkers as well as Steiner?


            >
            >
            > > Your offering on language above is intelligent...and ought not
            have to
            > > be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally interested in
            what
            > > you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's written in
            support of
            > > somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:
            > >
            > > You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
            > > feminine..."...well, according to the Comprehensive Aramaic
            Lexicon,
            > > the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a masculine noun...G.
            >
            > In the Aramaic spoken during Jesus's time, "rukha d'qoodsha" is
            > translated as Holy Spirit. "rukha" = spirit.
            > Frank
            >

            Well, this business about the Holy Spirit should be conducive to
            resolution...and unfortunately for folks desirous of establishing new
            religious ideas to replace pertinent dogma...and here Frank will
            insist I'm touting just Catholic dogma...Steiner is quoted from the
            lecture, "The Nature of the Virgin Sophia", May 1908"..."Spiritual
            science has no desire to lead to belief but to knowledge...We can
            begin to be able to understand how the physical mother of Jesus was
            an external image of the Virgin Sophia (How many bloody Sophias do
            you people want?)...The Father of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit..."

            You, Dottie and others are certainly entitled to have your own
            religious beliefs...but you should really have the decency to refrain
            from suggesting that they are in any way compatible with what Steiner
            had to offer...to my mind any traditional Christian can seek to
            enrich their beliefs through anthroposophy...but not the "little
            popes" To wit: Steiner, in the same lecture, "...those are the
            little popes who form opinions about things they know nothing of and
            who make 'What I do not know does not exist' into a dogma...and the
            truth is, Frank, you folks know squat about dogma, strictly RC or
            otherwise....G.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.