Who is the Holy Spirit?

[marco]

The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit inspires folk. The Muses had that role too.

Is the Spirit a reality outside of our reality, one who can - like Proteus - appear in different forms as the notion takes him? Divinities in Classical mythology had their functions: they oversaw the arts, or healing or war. What would be the point of the Holy Spirit? If God wished to inspire fisher folk he could do it instantaneously by a moment's thought; instead we have a curious waiting period, then comes the Spirit into a room and literally inspires. Are we not just a little suspicious that this is a borrowing from an existing mythology, a dramatic explanation of Christ's propaganda?


Is there sense in the Holy Spirit being some divinity? Or is he a personification of inspiration? How do we view him?

[marco]

Nearly all, if not all great mystic literature is allegorical social commentary and thus closely tied with the times and cultures into which they are written.

For the most part, the allegory comes after the event; we read depth according to the intricacies of our own thought. This is readily seen when we view apparent rubbish in modern art and are informed we are staring at a masterpiece. So too with Revelation. It has a perfect format for multiple interpretations, just like the inkblot in the Rorschach Test.

[bluethread]

Nearly all, if not all great mystic literature is allegorical social commentary and thus closely tied with the times and cultures into which they are written.

For the most part, the allegory comes after the event; we read depth according to the intricacies of our own thought. This is readily seen when we view apparent rubbish in modern art and are informed we are staring at a masterpiece. So too with Revelation. It has a perfect format for multiple interpretations, just like the inkblot in the Rorschach Test.

Or the music of John Cage and the art of Jackson Pollock? There is a point to their works, though I find the works themselves to be quite repugnant. That point is easily lost on those who do not pay attention to the culture and times into which they were speaking. That is also true with regard to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Few recognize them for what they are, because, they do not understand the culture and times into which they were written. It is the same with the Revelation. Though it is subject to multiple interpretations, recognizing that it's composition and purpose are derived from the Tanakh greatly narrows the options. Do you feel the same way about other examples of mystic literature in the writings of the prophets, i.e. Daniel and Ezekiel?

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to marco]

Hello Marco,

This post is an answer for your post#34. I see that I'm a little bit behind.

As a child I was fully conversant with the God I adored but when I was a child I spoke as a child.

Did you during your childhood learn and knew of your need for repentance and that Jesus is your savior? Did this knowledge increase as you grew? No one outgrows respect and gratitude for a person that delivered him from crippling debt.

There's always the danger of going through years doing "churchy" things without grasp of the reality of what's revealed about Jesus and His plan. Childish things are laid aside as knowledge of Jesus is increased, not as He is forsaken (1 Corinthians 13:11).

The odd thing about belief in X is that those who believe in Y say exactly the same thing. Maybe all roads do indeed lead to Rome.

It is unfortunate that Biblical truth is split to pieces because of sectarian division and breakage into factions. Scripture tells us there's one church (Ephesians 4:4-6). It is written,

"4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Ephesians 4:5-6)."

I repeat that one may not fully know a person by what others say about him, but only by the person himself.

Unfortunately, too many "outgrow" God and forsake the great treasure of the gospel to return to the deadness of the old, unregenerate life.

Some became disillusioned because of burnout from trying to be "good enough" apart from knowledge of God's saving grace.

In the passing of seasons there are no voices in the wind and only poets see in snowflakes the fingers of a divinity. That is a nice thought. I don't believe a supernatural being inspires such thoughts but if there is a dimension beyond mine where deities dwell, my door is open.

Belief in no supernatural or divinity? But you are speaking to a person who has witnessed the reality of God and the supernatural firsthand. We go through life only once with no possibility to return and make corrections. If God is sovereign and pure with His word, has He not the right to command us to trust and believe Him and His word as the ultimate in authority? We may take it or leave it but it's still there waiting for us if we leave it. He that's born of the spirit gets to know the holy spirit (holy ghost) you have asked about first hand.

The precious Biblical truth we discuss came to us at a great price and is not cheap.

* * * * * *

About your remarks in post #37.

Father is a term given to a male human parent. Applied to God it is used in a figurative sense - he made people so he is LIKE a father. When God made us he did not need a feminine part for completeness. When Jesus recommends that we say: Our Father... he is using figurative language.

Although true that the term,"father" is earthly, God empowered Mary to be the earthly mother, thus making Himself the sinless father of the child Jesus.

He was able to die because he was flesh and blood. That he died "for us" is a theory based on the idea that the invented first two people, allocated names Adam and Eve, did something for which the rest of humanity are held unjustly responsible. The theory makes little sense, based as it is on fictions.

You are correct that He was able to die because He was flesh and blood. But the difference is that He lived sinlessly in flesh and blood that's prone to sin. Scripture shows that unlike Adam and Eve that fell for temptation by the enemy, Jesus resisted the temptations and thus resisted the penalty of death. Unworthy of death for Himself, he died the death we deserve. Because of Adam we are fallen. Because of Jesus, the "last Adam," eternal (spiritual) life is available for us (I Corinthians 15:46). But it's up to us to accept it.

The word of God must be rightly divided and delivered in its proper context. Knowledge of it out of context is counterproductive. But one must make sure that his heart is ready to receive it in its correctness.

The theory you expound is not known or accepted by much of humanity, so choice doesn't come into it. Regardless of how inspired we are, we die. That we escape death metaphorically is a nice idea.

My speech is based on revealed Biblical fact, not a theory. Although true that all of our bodies will naturally die as you indicated, there's a spiritual side of us that remains beyond bodily death. Death of the spiritual body (the second death) is the thing that the Bible warns against and is what we must avoid at all cost. Those that escape the second death will liive eternally in the spiritual body. This is the LEAST of all things for us to miss out on--the VERY LEAST!

You are correct that when the wise counsel of God and the gospel is revealed, the greater portion of humanity tends to reject it to its own hurt. But there are hearers. The scriptures have warned us that the world hates Jesus because it prefers sin. We witness the consequent turmoil around us daily. Peter informs us that only eight souls were saved from the flood of Noah's day (1 Peter 3:20). Only Lot and his daughters escaped the destruction from the judgment of Sodom (Genesis 19:24-29). God has His church today whose total number will be a remnant that will escape the future judgment of the world.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 40 by marco]

Hello again, Marco. This post answers your post #40.

And thus you believe, while I think something else and yet others think other things. We can read biblical verses and take an interpretation from them. Who is to say this interpretation is correct? Do we seek out really clever people and ask them for their opinion and then believe what they say? Does the Holy Spirit guide such people?

Would you like to consume the rest of your life in the agonizing search for whose words, beliefs, and opinions you should trust? Unless the word of God is trusted as the ultimate authority that it is, there's nowhere else to go. Don't we see the massive confusion we see around us because of the lack of godly trust? Don't we remember the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident ...endowed by their Creator (God)...," etc. The abundance of freedom we enjoy and take for granted is based on freedom to trust the authority of God.

Trust in God also includes trust in the person God sends to expound His word to us along with discernment to know who and who is not genuine when the heart of the hearer is pure.

When it comes to interpretation, I agree with Pipiripi that the word of God interprets itself. None of us have a perfect understanding of 100% of the Bible. But when God has a word from it for us personally as individuals, please be rest assured that our understanding will be clear. God is not the author of confusion. When that tiny bit is obeyed, God opens up understanding to more of His living word.

Earl

[marco]

That is also true with regard to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Few recognize them for what they are, because, they do not understand the culture and times into which they were written.

Lewis Carroll had his own demons when he wrote Alice for Alice. If one is a polymath, as he was, then inevitably what one writes will enjoy depth as well as surface entertainment. Perhaps you make too much of its being of its time and place; great literature spans the ages.

Do you feel the same way about other examples of mystic literature in the writings of the prophets, i.e. Daniel and Ezekiel?

My approach to the prophets is not yours; I regard them as poets and preachers and I believe a good poet does occasionally spark a truth. People have seen modern science in Ezekiel: I suppose, as I said already, we can find what we want and the richer the poetry the more open it is to wide interpretations.


A figurative interpretation of being engulfed in flames or thrown to lions and blissfully surviving is that truth withstands the storms of adversity and remains intact.

[marco]

Did you during your childhood learn and know of your need for repentance and that Jesus is your savior? Did this knowledge increase as you grew? No one outgrows respect and gratitude for a person that delivered him from crippling debt.

I learned these things under penalty of torture and death, so to speak. My knowledge grew negatively: the more I enquired the less I believed. Perhaps one does not outgrow one's gratitude but with age one learns where gratitude is due. I do not malign my religious background; it provided knowledge and experience from which to make adult judgments.

I repeat that one may not fully know a person by what others say about him, but only by the person himself.

Unfortunately Christ chose not to communicate to us in writing so we do have to rely on second hand reports. That is a problem.

Unfortunately, too many "outgrow" God and forsake the great treasure of the gospel to return to the deadness of the old, unregenerate life.

Some became disillusioned because of burnout from trying to be "good enough" apart from knowledge of God's saving grace.

There are many good reasons for apostasy as well. Christians today are extremely lucky that they can abandon their beliefs without being burned; in another principal religion apostasy means death.

But you are speaking to a person who has witnessed the reality of God and the supernatural first hand. We go through life only once with no possibility to return and make corrections. If God is sovereign and pure with His word, has He not the right to command us to trust and believe Him and His word as the ultimate in authority?

And I am duly impressed. When you say "IF God is sovereign" you must remember that this is the start of a conditional sentence; your conclusions are based on the fanciful IF.

Although true that the term,"father" is earthly, God empowered Mary to be the earthly mother, thus making Himself the sinless father of the child Jesus.

This is too close to the myths about Zeus fathering demi-gods to be taken seriously. Obviously for Jesus to gain passage through the corridors of minor deities in the prevailing beliefs he had to be given a magical birth. Which of his biographers witnessed it?

Unworthy of death for Himself, he died the death we deserve. Because of Adam we are fallen. Because of Jesus, the "last Adam," eternal (spiritual) life is available for us (I Corinthians 15:46). But it's up to us to accept it.

Can we agree there was NO Adam? The theory that rises from this fiction is itself bogus. Humanity does good and bad, meriting praise or censure, but not because Adam ate unworthily.

[marco]

Trust in God also includes trust in the person God sends to expound His word to us along with discernment to know who and who is not genuine when the heart of the hearer is pure.

In modern times identification is a necessity when people come calling at the door. Hearsay is not proper identification. Doubt and ambiguity muddy the waters.

None of us have a perfect understanding of 100% of the Bible. But when God has a word from it for us personally as individuals, please be rest assured that our understanding will be clear. God is not the author of confusion. When that tiny bit is obeyed, God opens up understanding to more of His living word.

While this is nice advice it is entirely based on your own ideas. One cannot say with certainty what God does or how he elects to do it. One can invent, based on one's complete faith in one's faith.

[TSGracchus]

Some of the early Christians thought Jesus was a holy man. Some thought he was the son of God. Some thought he was God. Some thought he only appeared to be a man. Some thought he was a spirit, slain in a heaven just below the moon. They could not agree. They damned and anathematized each other. Then they decided to compromise on a MYSTERY.

[TSGracchus]

Some of the early Christians thought Jesus was a holy man. Some thought he was the begotten son of God. Some thought he was the adopted son of God. Some thought he was God. Some thought he only appeared to be a man. Some thought he was a spirit, slain in a heaven just below the moon. They could not agree. They damned and anathematized each other. Then they decided, under political pressure from the state, to compromise on a MYSTERY.

Thus, Christians were presented with the TRINITY and were told to believe it or else. It makes no sense, but gullibility (faith) is all you need to be saved. And there will be pie in the sky by-and-by when you die. Until then, slaves be subject to your masters and obey them in all matters.

[bluethread]

Lewis Carroll had his own demons when he wrote Alice for Alice. If one is a polymath, as he was, then inevitably what one writes will enjoy depth as well as surface entertainment. Perhaps you make too much of its being of its time and place; great literature spans the ages.

Presuming Carroll was simply musing and not engaging in social commentary, the structure and imagery are clearly of his time. Also, at that time writing fictional tales was a common way to get around the legal limitation on speech. The reason why great literature spans the ages is because of the concepts and issues it addresses. However, in order to properly understand what is being communicated regarding those concept and issues, it is important that the historical, grammatical and cultural contexts be taken into account.

Do you feel the same way about other examples of mystic literature in the writings of the prophets, i.e. Daniel and Ezekiel?

My approach to the prophets is not yours; I regard them as poets and preachers and I believe a good poet does occasionally spark a truth. People have seen modern science in Ezekiel: I suppose, as I said already, we can find what we want and the richer the poetry the more open it is to wide interpretations.

I think that your skepticism with regard to Ezekiel's vision is well founded, but not because one should not take historical and cultural factors into account. I think that interpreting it using scientific principles is to ignore the historical and cultural factors in favor of myopic materialism.

A figurative interpretation of being engulfed in flames or thrown to lions and blissfully surviving is that truth withstands the storms of adversity and remains intact.

Sure, that is a lesson that one can derive. However, if one ignores the historical context, one misses the underlying issues, i.e. the problem with absolute rule of law, in the case of Daniel. Sometimes the purpose of literature is not to provide answers, but to raise questions.