No a physician attending a birth is not the one giving birth. And I do not know of any idiom in Greek or Hebrew thought that would reflect something like that. My question remains. Did Jesus' 1st century Jewish audience understand Jesus to be saying "born of the blowing wind?" Back that up with scripture.
(Sigh). I HAVE backed it up - with several exegetical arguments that stand uncontested and unrefuted.
(1) The Titles of the godhead do not change (see last post, and 3 and 5). So if we have hard evidence for the 'Holy Breath/Wind', you can't change the title to 'born of the Spirit' at 3:8.
(2) The Title 'Holy Spirit' is a misuse of language (again posts 3 and 5). Totally unacceptable. Therefore the correct title (the only other plausible choice) is 'The Holy Wind/Breath'. Again, you can't suddenly revert back at John 3:8 to a title already shown to be a misuse of language.
(3) The CONTEXT of John 3:8 informs how to translate the title. It clearly refers to Him as a living Wind, a person who blows wherever He WANTS to. Conveniently - and conspicuously - you avoid that argumed. I've also shown examples such as John 20:22 and Exodus 15 where the Greek and Hebrew words for the Third Person as Breath/Wind LITERALLY refer to Him as blowing wind.
(4) To accept your reading, I must regard God as an imbecile of an instructor. Becuse again, there are only two plausible translations:
(A) The Holy Breath/Wind (physical)
(B) The Holy Ghost/Spirit (immaterial)
If an intelligent instructor wanted to clearly convey the latter, the LAST thing He should do is introduce blowing Wind into the context.
(5) I demonstrated in an earlier analysis of the passage, that traditional readings of John 3:5 (three verses back) have NEVER been seamless. I followed up with a seamless version based on the 'The Holy Breath/Wind' - the only seamless translation I've seen in 2,000 years. This passage SHOULD be seamless because it's the Son's magnum opus on how to be saved (look at verse 16).
Having conveniently ignnored five Scripture-based, exegetical arguments - all of which seem pretty much irrefutable as far as I can see - you try to shift the burden of proof - ONTO ME! Has anyone seen anything more absurd? Five proofs is NOT enough? And you've provided - none?
And to make matters worse - your request is self-defeating! You're saying that, in order to tip the scales one way or the other, the exegete must PROVE that his idiom gels in the mind of a Jewish audience. You don't see why that is self-defeating? Let me spell it out for you. That means YOU TOO MUST PROVE the same. And you said it must be proven FROM SCRIPTURE. Fine. Prove to me, from Scripture, that 'immaterial birth' is an idiom that PERFECTLY GELS in the mind of Jewish readers. Good luck with that. (I can discuss the idom-problem more, but right now it's a moot point since it doesn't help your case).
Your whole 'argument' consists of shifting burdens of proof onto me, while providing no proofs of your own. I've already provided five proofs. Does everyone see where this is going? NO MATTER HOW MANY BIBLICAL PROOFS I PROVIDE, he's still going to keep insisting that there's more that I need to prove (and OF COURSE he's going to insist that I need to provide APODICTIC proofs where I myself deny that such is possible - all I can do is expose the most COGENT intepretation of Scripture). To the extent that, as you'll see below, he BEGINS TO DISCREDIT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL PROOF ITSELF - he begins to accuse it of non-literacy as a way of undermining my proofs.
Could ANYONE win a debate under such stupid conditions? Impossible.
Foxes actually existed at the time of Jesus, was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him one?
Really? You're so desperate for a rebuttal as to fall back on the Scripture-was-never-a-literal-book-in-the-first-place position?
Actually I'm fine with someone who takes that position, as long as he's consistent with it. But then he shouldn't be debating Scripture! What would be the point? I debate Scripture with people who have a similar set of assumptions as I do, for example:
(1) The Bible does have some sections intensely poetic-based, vision-based, dream-based etc that raise serious doubts about literacy.
(2) It ALSO has some intensely historical and didactic sections, such as the gospels and epistles that seem to be MOSTLY literal, one obvious exception being when the text has disclaimers such as 'Jesus told them a parable, saying...'. I refer to these sections as the literal texts of Scripture.
Therefore when reading a (seemingly) literal section of Scripture, I'll regard a particular verse as a metaphor only if I can find no other viable reading.
But that's not the real issue here. The only reason you'd presume materialism to be a non-viable reading is to come to the text with Platonic bias. Which means you have to dismiss HUGE AMOUNTS OF SCRIPTURE concerning the material. Unacceptable. Makes God look like a poor instructor.
So don't pretend that such a position is BASED on the teaching of Scripture. On the contrary, it's the claim that Scripture is NOT to be trusted to teach us anything because it is NOT literal.
I don't think that's really your position. I think you're just struggling to save face here.
Satan actually existed at the time of Jesus, was Peter literally Satan when Jesus called him that?
I think Jesus was speaking to Satan, who may (or may not) have entered into Peter at that time.
Thunder actually existed at the time of Jesus, were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that?
Well, actually yes, in a material metaphysics, sons of God LITERALLY are sons of the divine Thunder. 2 Sam 22:14 is one example but there are more.
Even in English we say the wind blows but we don't attribute personality to it.
And we shouldn't. The LAST thing I'd want you do is bow down before ordinary wind, clouds, pillars of fire, smoke, thunder, and sunlight.PLEASE don't attribute personality to ordinary wind.
However, what about the Fire in the burning bush that had a conversation with Moses?. When Fire begins TALKING TO US, do you suspect, just maybe, there's some personality there?
You might ask, how can we tell the difference? That's precisely the same question as 'How do I know that a carpenter named Jesus is Lord and God - as opposed to some OTHER carpenter?'
The answer is simple - the Third Person can identify Himself by convincing/convicting the heart/conscience. That's ONE way that Moses knew the Fire to be God (of course the other fact is that the bush wasn't actually consumed).
Forget about what you learned from Plato. Just take a look at what SCRIPTURE SAYS. God appears on the scene time again, as material substance. THAT'S WHAT THE DATA STATES.
And if that weren't clear enough, He NAMED THE THIRD PERSON AFTER ONE OF THOSE MATERIAL SUBSTANCES - The Holy Breath/Wind. How much more clear can He be?
You must think God is an imbecile of an instructor. Your position boils down to:
(1) God is not material.
(2) But He keeps showing up as matter!
You realize how self-defeating that would be for God? He Himself would be tempting people to bow down before material objects without justification! Again, only an imbecile would take such an approach.
Nonsense! Assumes that Jesus' audience thought as you do. And there is no evidence that they thought the wind had personality.
In addition to the burning-bush, we have pillars of Fire, pillars of Cloud, etc, speaking DIRECTLY with the people. You do know that the ten commandments didn't originate on stone, right? The pillar of Fire SPOKE them audibly to all Israel (Ex 19-20).
"Shapeshifting"!!! I feel sorry for you in this fantasy world. Perhaps you should read Exodus the pillar of fire and cloud did not change on their own.
Right. After all those material passages that you dismiss by mere hand-waving, I'm still waiting for one clear verse proving immaterialism. Oh I forgot. You got that from Plato.
"Shapeshifting"!!! I feel sorry for you in this fantasy world. Perhaps you should read Exodus the pillar of fire and cloud did not change on their own.
So you deny that the shekinah Glory was God Himself? God wanted HIs people TOTALLY OBSESSED with adoring, bowing down to, and conversing with created substance? Marching it around in specially crafted tents and tabernacles and treating it with the utmost reverence? This is the kind of wise instructor He is? That's really your view of God?
Let's call this argument 6:
(6) Tertullian's argument for a material mind based on the mind-body problem stands unrefuted for almost 2,000 years. Since the human mind is material, the divine Presence couldn't interact with it unless sufficiently material.
See what I just did? I didn't just regurgitate Plato. I gave you a proof. You'd do well to do the same. Oh I forgot - you don't HAVE any proofs of immaterialism. You live in a fantasy world of unverifiable, illogical immaterialistic mumbo-jumbo even while matter is staring you dead in the face.