- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 61
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Your Haveing some real problems with the term 'spirit', here. Yes literally it's breath but the Holy Spirit is not air. He is also called the 'Comforter' promised by Jesus in the Upper Room. Denying the person and deity of the Holy Spirit isn't going to get you reform, it's a denial of essential doctrine. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike will reject something like that as nonchristian to put it mildly.Ok so what is the real name of the Holy Spirit? What it boils down to is that God is NOT a Spirit. The English word 'spirit' doesn't actually exist in the real Bible because it is a mistranslation of the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew word ruach.
One thing's for sure. The TITLES of the three do not change in meaning. For example if one passage alludes to Father and Son, and then another passage, using the same two Greek words, likewise refers to God, we should be consistent in the translation. That is to say, we shouldn't do something like this:
(1st passage) - Read it as Father and Son
(2nd passage) - Read it as Mother-in-Law and Uncle.
That would be stupid, right? Certainly. So we need to be CONSISTENT on how we translate the titles of each member. This means that if we can find even ONE VERSE where the title of the third person IS CLEAR, then we must read that same title into ALL the parallel passages (if they use the same Greek words as a title of God) - no exceptions, no inconsistencies.
Fortunately we can form a pretty reliable hypothesis because, historically, there are really only two contending translations of the Greek word pneuma:
1. (Immaterial) Spirit.
2. (Physical!) Wind or Breath.
Since we've already seen that option 1 is a PROBLEM, option 2 is the most reasonable choice.
After all, the distinction between physical and non-physical is crucial if we want to avoid cognitive idolatry. In my mind, am I suppose to worship a physical being with actual dimensions? Or am I suppose to worship a non-physical, dimension-less being devoid of size and shape? Orthodoxy has always insisted on the latter position, despite the testimony of Scripture (viz. Moses speaking to God face to face).
Is God a foolish teacher? Does He write in a way to FOSTER confusion and cognitive idolatry? The point is this. If 'Spirit' were the correct translation, God would be foolish to create a Bible that mentions physical wind/breath in the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of third-person activity, because such might mislead us to favor the translation (physical) Wind/Breath over (immaterial) Spirit.
Conclusion: If we can find even ONE PASSAGE where physical wind/breath is mentioned in the context of third-person activity, we can JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDE that His title is "The Holy Wind/Breath".
Fortunately there is MORE than one such passage. The most clear is John 20:22, "Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy [Breath]". Jesus was expelling PHYSICAL wind/breath from His nostrils. Therefore the traditionally accepted translation, "Receive the Holy Spirit", is incredibly weak. In fact, classical scholarship held in consensus that "Receive the Holy Breath" was a legitimate translation.
Let's look at another example. The waters of the Red Sea did not divide instantaneously but rather were parted slowly by a PHYSICAL WIND over the course of an entire evening. According to Moses, this wind a blast of breath from God's nostrils (Ex 15). The Hebrew word used there for 'breath' is ruach, it is the SAME word mistranslated 'The Spirit of God' by mainstream theologians.
Third example. On the day of Pentecost, the 120 saints all heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind. 'And they were all filled with the Holy [Spirit ?]'. They were filled with the Holy SPIRIT? Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. They heard the sound of blowing WIND. Therefore, "They were all filled with the Holy WIND." Even a 10-year old child raised in an ancient Greek city could have easily figured out the correct reading based on the context.
Fourth. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens formed, the starry hosts by the breath of His mouth." Here the word 'breath' is the SAME Hebrew word often mistranslated 'Spirit of God'. When we speak WORDS, we exhale physical breath/wind. This passage reveals that the third Person, in the form of physical Breath/Wind, goes forth from God's mouth to perform any needed miracles. Thus He performs miracles by speaking. Which is precisely the teaching of Isaiah 55:11, "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please." Notice that it RETURNS to God. As even the Protestant Keil-Delitzsch commentary commented on Isa 55:11, the verse clearly denotes a SUBSTANCE exuding from the mouth of God into the region of need, performing the miracle in that vicinity, and then RETURNING to God. And here's what you need to understand. These dynamics MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS GOD IS A PHYSICAL BEING. After all, if you were a magical spirit (a kind of wizard or witch), you could perform a miracle by simply shouting an incantation FROM AFAR. There would be no NEED to travel into the physical vicinity to perform the miracle WITH YOUR OWN HANDS (viz. God's Breath/Wind pushing the waters apart).
Fifth. Take a look at Psalm 18. Has a couple of allusions to the fiery Breath/Wind of God's nostrils (the same Fire/Breath seen on Pentecost). This psalm uses that same Hebrew word mistranslated 'Spirit of God'.
Sixth. "He will baptize you in the Holy [Spirit?], and fire" (Math 3:11). Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. John refers to the farmer's fan that used breath/wind/air to separate the wheat from the chaff cast into the fire. The better translation is, "He will baptize you in the Holy Wind, and with Fire" (almost certainly an unmistakable reference to Pentecost).
Upvote
0