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

Re: gywpnwm/RS

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Dec 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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.