The word God means to exist; when the snake said we would become gods, it meant we would become beings; aware of our own existence. God says that he just knows he exists; "I am that I am" ...from there he somehow created everything; our ability to copy that effort depends upon our faith in his ability to do it. I have no clue how God created everything, but I can plainly see that he did it, so I believe he can do it through me. This is what the valley of vision was all about; I do not for one second believe that I could order up the first resurrection; but I do believe that God could do it at my command. So based upon my faith in God, I will hiss for you, and a thousand generations will spring back to life.

Gasoline is a spirit. Paint thinners is a spirit. Wine is a spirit. Your physical breath is a spirit. But this is not the same spirit as the spirit of life, the spirit of existence; which existed before this creation ever saw the physical light of day. That's why we must be born again; we are born with Adam's spirit of life that lasts 70 years or 80 years if you're lucky. Jesus distilled a better spirit than passes through the imminent death of the first life; we must be born again with the spirit of resurrection; his resurrection, to obtain the eternal spirit; the permanent spirit of life.

God is not a volcano. God is not a bottle of wine. God is not piss in the wind. God is not the physical sun or the 12 zodiacs or any other carnal knowledge. No passion that arises from this life is equal to the spiritual world that preceded it. God is that first being who existed... how(?) is incomprehensible, but then, how(?) is an idea that connects to the carnal world; here things were created, built, destroyed, reared back up, there is a lot of how(?) involved; versus the spiritual world just exists; it wasn't created, built, destroyed, it just is.

As long as all creation isn't a mirage; as long as all that we think of as real isn't actually just a dream that will end when God suddenly awakes, then our existence is real; we are all gods; the offspring of God, we have existence for a season and hopes of eternal existence. In the final analysis, God is just the first being who brought forth everything; the physical creation is temporal and of little importance; our physical lives also, but the spiritual world with all these spirits (read: gods or angels) is not the product of the physical universe; neither does it operate by our laws. You have to discern between the two worlds; God is the former and he brought forth the latter, electricity, fusion, gamma rays be damned, nothing belonging to the latter is able to alter or erase the former... when our paltry human lives are done, God will still building his long term designs, and if we are lucky, we might be included in them.

If you are answering the post from yesterday. I wasn't really asking what or who God is. I supose I was just trying to trace back to when first the word was used and for what it was then used. And there fore what the word means. not anyones definition or conception of it now. Thanks though. x

"And there fore what the word means. not anyones definition or conception of it now"

The etymology of the modern english word "god" is unclear - many various proposals. Majority tend to lean toward the modern word handed down from the Old English, itslef from early German "gott" - its own etymology and meaning, also unclear - but quite often linked to be cognate to the proto-germanic uÄa or uÄan - itself from the proto-indo-euorpean huto [e.g., that which is invoked); [hau-, to call upon or to invoke]; and [heu-, to pour out]. The later being similar to the Hebrew yare - meaning to pour out - a word you often see translated today into English as "fear".

It was an inspiring question, I'm not sure I was trying to answer, but it made me think enough to squeeze out the post. There's a trivia question for ya that would ruin the board game; "Define God"... in 30 words or less. Oh sure, sounds easy, but it isn't.

That brings up the question:

The Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity, if the Father is God & the Son is Jesus, who is the Holy Spirit? Who is the third in the Holy Trinity?

"who is the Holy Spirit?"

Probably a better question would be to ask "What is the holy spirit", rather than "who".

In the Christian Greek texts "pneuma" is always designated as a neuter noun - meaning the writers understood it as a what or a which but never a who, let alone a he or him [note for clarification for those who would hope to salvage the "who" for trinity purposes, ho parakleetos is a descriptive masculine noun used in reference to the neuter noun pneuma in John 14:16, 26 and John 15:26. The demonstrative pronoun of ho parakleetos is ekeinos, meaning "that" or "that one." The author has appropriately used ekeinos in reference to ho parakleetos as "that one," whereas most translations incorrectly translate ekeinos as "He." ]

This is consistent with the Hebrew cognate ruach [the Hebrew word you often see translated as "spirit"], which merely means, literally, in its concrete, an impersonal force which enacts upon other things. Like the "wind" which enacts upon the leaves of a tree and appears to make the tree animate. "Wind" is in fact how the word ruach is first used in the biblical text in Genesis.

One example: John 3:8, "“The wind [pneuma] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit [pneuma].” [ESV].

The same word and gender and form is used in both places. In one instance, those performing the english translation hold true to existing koine Greek grammatical rules - and in the second instance, they blatantly depart from those rules - any suppositions as to why?

It's perfectly reasonable to conceive of existence as a process arising from a necessary ground and flowing into the array of contingencies that we experience (including ourselves). As a general proposition, it makes as much sense as any other.

The problem arises when you try to get more specific, because then you're writing fairy tales. Kabbalism, for example, elaborates an exquisite system of interlocking unseen entities that "explains" everything. But there is no good reason that these entities and not others are implicated, because they are chosen ultimately for aesthetic and devotional rather than ontological reasons.

Do I have any objection to that? No, so long as it is recognized to be for contemplative, not scientific, purposes. It is perfectly understandable that man seeks a conceptual relationship with ultimate (non-experiential) realities. But the conceptual part is like Wittgenstein's ladder--if it properly serves its purpose, a point is reached where it is no longer needed and should be discarded.

Instead, because livings are to be made in the ladder business, we see a lot of ladders being hawked and--both comically and tragically--being toted about by people unclear as to their intended use.

fortunateson:

"who is the Holy Spirit?"

Probably a better question would be to ask "What is the holy spirit", rather than "who".

In the Christian Greek texts "pneuma" is always designated as a neuter noun - meaning the writers understood it as a what or a which but never a who, let alone a he or him [note for clarification for those who would hope to salvage the "who" for trinity purposes, ho parakleetos is a descriptive masculine noun used in reference to the neuter noun pneuma in John 14:16, 26 and John 15:26. The demonstrative pronoun of ho parakleetos is ekeinos, meaning "that" or "that one." The author has appropriately used ekeinos in reference to ho parakleetos as "that one," whereas most translations incorrectly translate ekeinos as "He." ]

This is consistent with the Hebrew cognate ruach [the Hebrew word you often see translated as "spirit"], which merely means, literally, in its concrete, an impersonal force which enacts upon other things. Like the "wind" which enacts upon the leaves of a tree and appears to make the tree animate. "Wind" is in fact how the word ruach is first used in the biblical text in Genesis.

One example: John 3:8, "“The wind [pneuma] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit [pneuma].” [ESV].

The same word and gender and form is used in both places. In one instance, those performing the english translation hold true to existing koine Greek grammatical rules - and in the second instance, they blatantly depart from those rules - any suppositions as to why?

Can I have that in simple English, you are throwing around words & terms I've never heard of & have no clue what they mean. I don't even know if you answered my question or not.

:-)

God has three persons, first, second, and third... otherwise known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are made in God's image; we have three persons; ever talk to yourself? Before he breathed out all those angels he was all those angels; before he breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of Life, he was the breath of Life, before he breathed on the disciples at Pentecost and told them to receive the Holy Ghost, he was the Holy Ghost.

#1 commandment: the lord your God is one God.

The Holy Spirit is just God... It's a personality thing.

people who can't decide which doughnut to buy at a bagel shop are the keepers of the Kabbal.