Holy “Spirit”? Wrong. That’s Not His Name.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I asked you a pretty straightforward question because I'm trying to figure out where you stand. I asked, You seem to be saying that the Bible uses the term “faith” in the sense of a leap of faith, that is, jumping to a conclusion without sufficient warrant, that is, to presume a conclusion that I don't really know to be true, as an act of devotion.

I ask again, Yes or No, is this appropriate behavior. Your writing seems to suggest Yes, but I'd like to get a definite affirmative on that before proceeding. Because I can't really respond to your posts if I don't know where you stand.

Sorry, I don't really understand your question, but I have told you, at least twice, where I stand.
I believe the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. I have said that if you believe, or have good reason to believe, something but can't see it, that's faith - if you could see it you wouldn't need faith to believe that it existed.
I also believe Paul when he said that we walk by faith and not by sight. You have said that he meant the opposite but won't say how you know that.

You keep asking me to cover certain topics.

No, I keep asking you to make good your claims.

You claim that most Christians believe that the cross was God's greatest sacrifice, but in fact it wasn't; that you know what it was and that you need to dismantle 2000 years of Christian doctrine because we are influenced by Plato. So what was God's greatest sacrifice and why are we looking through the lens of Platoism?
You claim that you know that Paul really meant to write that we live by sight and not by faith. So how do you know this when all Bibles say the opposite?
You said it is easy to prove that God is not infinite; so why don't you do so?

I've already covered a lot of ground on this thread, I've spent a lot of time and done a lot of writing. I'm sorry I can't cover all possible topics in full.

Then, with respect, you shouldn't make statements, or claims, that you are not prepared to explain. If you have answered the same point dozens of times before, or covered it in another thread, give us the post number or a link to the thread.

And it's hard to invest the time in all possible topics if I don't feel I'm seeing much open-mindedness. I don't think most Christians really WANT reform. Maybe it's just easier to remain in our comfort zones than mustering the effort to reevaluate traditional thinking. I'm sure everyone will deny this - but the fact remains I have to decide for myself whether I'm seeing sufficient openness to cover all the topics.

Firstly, this is the Christians only section of the forum and to post here, and indeed to have the Christian icon, a person has to accept the Nicene creed, as per forum rules. I'm not saying you don't, but you have to understand that this is our starting point.
Secondly, your thread has been moved from General Theology to the unorthodox doctrine section. That should tell you that the arguments in it are questioned, or not accepted, by most Christians.
And thirdly, you say you base your arguments only on Scripture, but then you contradict what Scripture says and say it's not true because you don't understand it.
If you put forward an argument, back it up from Scripture, solid exegesis, evidence of having consulted various commentaries, etc, people will be more likely to listen than if you adopt the attitude "I know x" but don't explain how you know, and ignore Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
drstevej said:
So do you deny omnipresence or are you a pantheist?
I am not a pantheist.

God is a lump of physical substance separate from from all other lumps of physical substances.

Two physical objects cannot occupy the same space. Hence the divine Presence fills the universe sparsely enough to allow room for natural objects.

I'm a Christian and a Trinitarian. Please don't lose sight of that.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Sorry, I don't really understand your question, but I have told you, at least twice, where I stand.
I believe the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. I have said that if you believe, or have good reason to believe, something but can't see it, that's faith - if you could see it you wouldn't need faith to believe that it existed.
I also believe Paul when he said that we walk by faith and not by sight. You have said that he meant the opposite but won't say how you know that.



No, I keep asking you to make good your claims.

You claim that most Christians believe that the cross was God's greatest sacrifice, but in fact it wasn't; that you know what it was and that you need to dismantle 2000 years of Christian doctrine because we are influenced by Plato. So what was God's greatest sacrifice and why are we looking through the lens of Platoism?
You claim that you know that Paul really meant to write that we live by sight and not by faith. So how do you know this when all Bibles say the opposite?
You said it is easy to prove that God is not infinite; so why don't you do so?



Then, with respect, you shouldn't make statements, or claims, that you are not prepared to explain. If you have answered the same point dozens of times before, or covered it in another thread, give us the post number or a link to the thread.



Firstly, this is the Christians only section of the forum and to post here, and indeed to have the Christian icon, a person has to accept the Nicene creed, as per forum rules. I'm not saying you don't, but you have to understand that this is our starting point.
Secondly, your thread has been moved from General Theology to the unorthodox doctrine section. That should tell you that the arguments in it are questioned, or not accepted, by most Christians.
And thirdly, you say you base your arguments only on Scripture, but then you contradict what Scripture says and say it's not true because you don't understand it.
If you put forward an argument, back it up from Scripture, solid exegesis, evidence of having consulted various commentaries, etc, people will be more likely to listen than if you adopt the attitude "I know x" but don't explain how you know, and ignore Scripture.

:clap:
 
Upvote 0

James Is Back

CF's Official Locksmith
Aug 21, 2014
17,883
1,344
51
Oklahoma
✟32,480.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
SIM I must say your patience and energy level must be on a strong scale if you continue to ping pong with this guy.

It seems you're not getting through to him though which is why I admire you tenacity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Strong in Him said:
Sorry, I don't really understand your question, but I have told you, at least twice, where I stand.
I believe the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. I have said that if you believe, or have good reason to believe, something but can't see it, that's faith - if you could see it you wouldn't need faith to believe that it existed.
That word ‘or’ is very important. You say that faith is either:
(1) I just believe something unseen OR
(2) I believe the unseen thing because I have good reason.
Option 1 is blind faith. That’s absolute stupidity. The Bible certainly doesn’t advocate blind faith, and presumably doesn’t even mention it.

Now let’s look at option 2. You seem to say that, in order for it to count as faith, it has to be unseen to the extent that I don’t even see it in a vision. I remind you that consciousness is loudness. In order to believe something, it must be something that your mind’s eye sees, whether by virtue of natural sight or by some kind of mental picture (a mental vision). Typically our mental images are self-generated, for instance based on something we read, but God-given visions are potentially more reliable and persuasive, they can raise our faith/certainty to the highest possible level.

You say that you believe in God as an unseen object by faith. I say, baloney. You believe in God as a conceptual object – an object visible to your mind’s eye. This is a vision and hopefully it was produced at least in part by the influence (enlightenment) of the Third Person on your heart. For your salvation is questionable if your mental image/vision of God was derived exclusively from biblical exegesis. Let me explain why. The ancient Pharisees, the modern Jews, and the modern Jehovah’s witnesses are three groups of people who study the Scriptures making every effort to give praise to the God of the Bible. Are they genuine servants of God? No they are not. Because when THEY read the word ‘God’ in the Scriptures, the mental image self-formed in their minds – regardless of how knowledgeable they are of Scripture – pales into comparison to the beauty and glory of Yahweh. They are merely worshipping an idol, hence they are not saved. Genuine biblical faith requires a God-given vision.
You claim that you know that Paul really meant to write that we live by sight and not by faith. So how do you know this when all Bibles say the opposite?
Ok let’s not play childish games. Don’t misrepresent me. I didn’t say Paul wrote the wrong thing, I said the translation was fine but YOUR understanding of his reference to “faith” was flawed. See above for an explanation.




You said it is easy to prove that God is not infinite; so why don't you do so?
I just did a post on this, I don’t think you read it yet.

And thirdly, you say you base your arguments only on Scripture, but then you contradict what Scripture says and say it's not true because you don't understand it.
Where have I contradicted Scripture? Please don’t misrepresent my views and then claim I contradict Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Where have I contradicted Scripture? Please don’t misrepresent my views and then claim I contradict Scripture.
It's clear comprehension is not in your skill set.

If you can't read what you've said and understand the reason why others are not only telling you your wrong but saying so rather strongly, then you're doing a great job misrepresenting your views yourself with your contradictions, inability to understand translated text or even traditional awareness of the point at hand.

If this is your goal, to remain willfully ignorant, well done
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Strong in Him said:
I believe the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. I have said that if you believe, or have good reason to believe, something but can't see it, that's faith - if you could see it you wouldn't need faith to believe that it existed.
I'll cite Paul again, "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen, for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." I see no other way to understand this text other than a reference to visions. Now here's the rub. Paul says that the Christian life is a walk of faith from first to last. Since the WHOLE of the Christian life is faith, and Paul here mentions visions as part of that life, then faith involves visions. Let’s cite Paul again, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2Cor 3:18). Gordon Fee is one of the most renowned Pauline scholars of this generation. He doesn’t just study one Greek manuscript – he studies them all. So if he finds 20 different manuscripts differing slightly on a particular verse he compares them all – and his specialty is the Pauline epistles. According to him, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to avoid interpreting 2Cor 3:18 as an unceasing vision of God universal to all Christians.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Strong In Him said:
Strong In Him said:
[FONT=&quot]I've also said that I don't know what Platonism is, and you haven't told me that either.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By Platonism I’m referring to a belief in the existence of immaterial substance and, more specifically, the infiltration of this doctrine into Christian orthodoxy to the extent that God Himself is defined as an immaterial substance, as well as the human mind. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You should know that an immaterial human mind poses a contradiction to the material human body – a contradiction utterly unresolved in the last 2000 years. Most seminary textbooks don’t even mention it. At least the famous Protestant theologian Charles Hodge was honest enough to admit he had no solution. I’ll spell out the contradiction here. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let’s suppose I want to make an impact on your mind, I want to inject my ideas into your thoughts. How do I accomplish this? Simple. I blow wind in your direction (i.e. I speak to you). Thus I make an impact on your thoughts by physically impacting you. If the mind were intangible, no flow of matter would affect it any such manner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Or suppose I wanted to dumb-down your thoughts as to cause you to fail a math test. There are a couple of physical ways to do this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) I could spike your food with drugs or alcohol.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) I could smack you on the head with a baseball bat, causing brain damage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]None of these physical acts could have any impact on an immaterial mind. Therefore the mind is physical. These are examples of the body influencing the mind – but the converse is also true, namely that the mind has a physical impact on the body. For instance suppose you are sitting in a chair. You then make a mental decision to leave the room. What happens to your body? It gets up out of the chair and exits the room. Obviously your mind had some kind of physical impact on your body and/or brain. This would be impossible if the mind were intangible. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Or suppose I suddenly feel the urge to relieve myself. My mind has quite a bit of say as to when I actually do so. That is to say, my mind can resist the urge for quite some time, keeping a vice grip of sorts on my bladder, until a moment of my own choosing. The bladder empties itself when the mind chooses to release the grip. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have just proven that the human mind is physical. Now bear in mind that the Greek refers to your inner man using the same term (pneuma) applied to the Third Person (The Holy Pneuma). Given that YOUR pneuma is a physical substance, it stands to reason that the same is true of the divine Pneuma. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote an article arguing that angels are physical beings, because the term “pneuma/ruach, in both Hebrew and Greek, is primarily a physical term indicating wind, air, or breath” (his words). At one point in that article he seemed to come suspiciously close to admitting that God Himself is corporeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,343
26,789
Pacific Northwest
✟728,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I am not a pantheist.

God is a lump of physical substance separate from from all other lumps of physical substances.

Two physical objects cannot occupy the same space. Hence the divine Presence fills the universe sparsely enough to allow room for natural objects.

I'm a Christian and a Trinitarian. Please don't lose sight of that.

I didn't notice whether or not my last post was responded to, but regardless I'll respond to this with some further questions:

This is chiefly to understand your conception of God as a "lump of physical substance".

When God, as a physical and gaseous substance pushed back the waters of the Red Sea. how were the people able to pass through, given that God would have, by necessity, displaced the air making breathing impossible.

Can God be used as a substitute for ordinary aerobic respiration in the place of oxygen? And if so, does that mean that God's atomic anatomy is similarly shaped like an O2 molecule?

Now if I were to use a vacuum pump in the laboratory to create a perfect vacuum in a glass tube, should I assume therefore that God is present in the vacuum, or He was present but was removed by the process? Is glass a substance molecularly porous enough for God to move through?

I have more questions, but I would be interested in your thoughts on these.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

James Is Back

CF's Official Locksmith
Aug 21, 2014
17,883
1,344
51
Oklahoma
✟32,480.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Anyone need any of these:

AspirinBottle.jpg
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ViaCrucis said:
I didn't notice whether or not my last post was responded to, but regardless I'll respond to this with some further questions:

This is chiefly to understand your conception of God as a "lump of physical substance".

When God, as a physical and gaseous substance pushed back the waters of the Red Sea. how were the people able to pass through, given that God would have, by necessity, displaced the air making breathing impossible.
Supplying air to His people is not a problem for Yahweh if you understand His degree of control/dexterity over matter as I understand it. Let me give you a taste of it.

Scientists have never come to an agreement about gravity. Newton's theory of gravity was the first one to prevail for a time – he defined it as an immaterial force/pull exerted by one body of matter on all other bodies of matter - but it's important to remember that he himself never believed his own theory. He basically said you'd have to be a fool to believe in an immaterial force – because the only way for me to pull you or push you would be to reach out and touch you. So he vacillated over whether gravity was the Hand of God or a regular physical energy caused by atmospheric pressure.


One thing we DO know - gravity, regardless of what causes it, upholds the universe, keeping the stars in their relative positions. However, given that the Bible depicts GOD as the power upholding the universe, I agree with Newton's theory that gravity is the Hand of God, which would presumably be a TANGIBLE hand. This means that the divine Pneuma wields sufficient dexterity to exert the proper amount of "gravitational pull" on every existing particle of matter without ever failing even for one second.


And that's just GRAVITY - don't get me started on magnetism, electricity, and electromagnetic forces - and all of this simultaneously? And you seriously think it would be a challenge for this kind of Being to blow a little wind, as needed, into the lungs of His people? Really? Don't make me laugh! Heck, even His very NAME MEANS WIND so why would this be a problem?

Maybe what you people on this thread are not understanding is that I define God as an ANIMATE mass of physical substance that moves/propels/metamorphoses at will, whereas ordinary matter is an inanimate lifeless lump, it’s inert so it just sits there, subject to the laws of physics.

Can God be used as a substitute for ordinary aerobic respiration in the place of oxygen? And if so, does that mean that God's atomic anatomy is similarly shaped like an O2 molecule?
Certainly, if He so deigns for He can assume any material shape/form. He can certainly take a portion of His substance, transform it into a structure closely resembling ordinary air, and then let it serve/function for breathing purposes. Imagine for instance a community unable to breathe after being assaulted with chemical warfare - God could certainly come to their rescue in such fashion.

Now if I were to use a vacuum pump in the laboratory to create a perfect vacuum in a glass tube, should I assume therefore that God is present in the vacuum, or He was present but was removed by the process?
Haven't given this much thought but I would speculate that He's always present.
Is glass a substance molecularly porous enough for God to move through?
Absolutely. He must be present in all matter for gravitational purposes, therefore I don’t believe that any existing matter is too dense to make room for His Presence. Picture electrons orbiting around a nucleus, for example. The empty space in which they orbit would seem to allow plenty of room for the divine Presence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Every time I think nothing else can surprise me in theology, then something like this shows up.

God is wind and not infinite. :doh:
I recently posted an objection to the God-is-infinite view. I see no one has responded to that post.

You can continue to smirk at wind all you like but it hardly behooves a Catholic to do so - after all, you guys believe in the Real Presence. So it's legitimate, in your view, to experience God as bread and wine but NOT as wind? Despite the fact that His name means Wind?

Ok that's pretty weird.

I'm no expert on the names of God but I'm curious to know whether any of them mean bread or wine. If not, looks like my Wind-theory is actually pretty well grounded by comparison.

Anywho, the main point to be made here is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you admit that God is physically present as bread and wine, then you might want to tread lightly when knocking my own physical views.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That word ‘or’ is very important. You say that faith is either:
(1) I just believe something unseen OR
(2) I believe the unseen thing because I have good reason.
Option 1 is blind faith. That’s absolute stupidity. The Bible certainly doesn’t advocate blind faith, and presumably doesn’t even mention it.

Ok, so I probably meant to say "and" there. I was writing close to midnight, and on my tablet, which I find tricky. Now that I'm more awake, I'll try to answer.

I believe in God. I probably started to believe at the age of 4 when I started going to Sunday School. Over the next few years I heard many Bible stories and took an increasing part in church life. Had you asked me then why I believed in God, I'd probably have said something like "because mummy, and people at church, say that he's real." Was that blind faith? Possibly, to an onlooker; they may well have said that I was just believing what I was told without question. But to me, and I believe to God, it was faith - small, immature, shaky, but still faith. To me, I had good reason to believe; because those I loved and trusted told me that it was so.

Now let’s look at option 2. You seem to say that, in order for it to count as faith, it has to be unseen to the extent that I don’t even see it in a vision.

I have said that if a person can SEE something, or someone, then they don't need faith to believe they exist; the evidence is right there in front of them. I have never seen God and I did not see Jesus when he was on earth - I'm not that old. Therefore my faith in God is not based on the fact that I've seen him, either in a vision or in person. So why do I have faith when I can't see the one I believe in; is that blind faith? No, my faith is in what the Bible says about God, what other people say, what I can see in creation and what I have experienced myself, through answered prayer, through receiving love, forgiveness, peace, joy and so on.
As I have said before, when Thomas said "my Lord and my God" to Jesus, Jesus replied by saying, "you believe because you can see; blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe" (John 20:28-29).
If challenged nowadays about my faith I can say that it is NOT blind faith, it is rooted in Scripture, experience and tradition.

Having said that, I wonder what you mean by "blind faith"? The disciples followed Jesus without knowing why, who he was or where it would lead them. Was that great faith or blind faith?

You say that you believe in God as an unseen object by faith. I say, baloney.

Charming!

You believe in God as a conceptual object – an object visible to your mind’s eye.

No. I have never really tried to imagine God. And if I did then I would be making him in my own image and worshipping what I believe he is or what I had made him to be. God is bigger than any image I could come up with; even the Bible writers did not know how to describe him. He is described as light, as a radiant being. They gave him physical characteristics so as to better understand him and his works - so they talk about the hand of God, the finger of God, the heart of God, the mouth of God. But they also say that God is Spirit and not a man. He took on human form in Jesus, but still existed as God and is greater than a physical being.

For your salvation is questionable if your mental image/vision of God was derived exclusively from biblical exegesis.

I have said that I have not SEEN God and yet believe. I have also said that if I could SEE God, there would be no need for faith because he would be there in front of me. It seems you can't accept that and are insisting that I must have some mental image of God; that if I don't "see" something, or someone, I can't believe.

That doesn't follow and it is not true.
To go back to a former analogy, I can't see electricity, but I believe it exists because I can see the results when I turn the light on.

The ancient Pharisees, the modern Jews, and the modern Jehovah’s witnesses are three groups of people who study the Scriptures making every effort to give praise to the God of the Bible. Are they genuine servants of God? No they are not. Because when THEY read the word ‘God’ in the Scriptures, the mental image self-formed in their minds – regardless of how knowledgeable they are of Scripture – pales into comparison to the beauty and glory of Yahweh. They are merely worshipping an idol, hence they are not saved. Genuine biblical faith requires a God-given vision.

No, they are genuine followers of God, utterly sincere and serve him. They are not Christians because they don't believe in Jesus, or accept his atoning death on the cross or believe that Jesus himself was God.

Ok let’s not play childish games. Don’t misrepresent me. I didn’t say Paul wrote the wrong thing, I said the translation was fine but YOUR understanding of his reference to “faith” was flawed.

No, you said;
And where Paul seems to have said, “We walk by faith, not by sight,” what he really meant was, “We walk by sight, and NOT by faith.”

(I have bolded your own words, for emphasis.)
Paul writes that we walk by faith and not by sight, (he doesn't SEEM to, by the way, he does) yet you claim that he really meant something else. That is YOUR interpretation of what is clearly written.

Where have I contradicted Scripture? Please don’t misrepresent my views and then claim I contradict Scripture.

Jesus said that God is Spirit (John 4:24), yet you are saying that he is a physical being. Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, yet you are saying that this is wrong and he should be called holy breath, or wind.

The Bible says that God was, from the very beginning, and will continue forever:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1)
"Praise to the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 41:13)
"Stand up and praise the Lord your God, who is from everlasting to everlasting" (Nehemiah 9:5).
"Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, who is and who is to come" (Rev 1:8)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" (Rev 21:6)
Yet you say that God is not infinite.

You have also said:
– very frustrating because I always build my case on Scripture.

(Emphasis mine).
So if you always build your case on Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suppose you have Scriptural evidence that;
a) God is physical.
God is a lump of physical substance separate from all other lumps of physical substances.
b) God is finite.
c) Paul really MEANT to write that we walk by sight and not by faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally Posted by JAL
And where Paul seems to have said, “We walk by faith, not by sight,” what he really meant was, “We walk by sight, and NOT by faith.”

I stand by the statement. I'm not correcting Paul, I'm just paraphrasing him in language that (I hoped) you'd understand. You're not following me, so nevermind.

Jesus said that God is Spirit (John 4:24), yet you are saying that he is a physical being. Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, yet you are saying that this is wrong and he should be called holy breath, or wind.
(sigh). You still don't get. He NEVER said that God is Spirit. "Spirit" is an English word. Jesus did not speak in English. OK? The PROPER translation of the Greek word Pneuma - based on the contextual evidence as I've been demonstrated - is not "Spirit" but breath/wind - and this is true in BOTH testaments. To show us this, the Bible REGULARLY mentions breath/wind in the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. Example: "Jesus BREATHED on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy BREATH" (John 20:22).

You have been BRAINWASHED to read it as (non-physical) "Holy Spirit". Do you NOT understand that when Jesus BREATHED on them, He was thereby exhaling PHYSICAL BREATH FROM HIS MOUTH. Did you NOT know that breath is a PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE released from the mouth and nostrils? Is it YOUR view that our nostrils exhale immaterial ghosts? When you picture Jesus breathing in those days, what do YOU think came out on a daily basis?


Did you NOT know that the Greek word Pneuma is used in the Greek OT for breath/wind over 100 times? (For example Job's bad breath). NO ONE DISPUTES THAT FACT. The Hebrew version is Ruach. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT IT MEANS BREATH/WIND at least 100 times in the OT.

Look, I don't CARE what your English Bible says - Holy "Spirit" (worse yet "Holy Ghost") is a bad translation.

c) Paul really MEANT to write that we walk by sight and not by faith.c) Paul realy MEANT to write that we walk by sight and not by faith.
(I have bolded your own words, for emphasis.)
Paul writes that we walk by faith and not by sight, (he doesn't SEEM to, by the way, he does) yet you claim that he really meant something else. That is YOUR interpretation of what is clearly written.
As I said, I give up. You're not getting it.


So if you always build your case on Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suppose you have Scriptural evidence that;
a) God is physical.
On this thread I've furnished at least a dozen passages and probably a half dozen bible-based logical proofs. John 20:22 above was just ONE of them. Yet you've ignored them all. And all that evidence is IN ADDITION to the fact that the OT uses the word in question as breath/wind at least 100 times.

b) God is finite.
I posted on this. You kept begging me to address it, and now you keep ignoring the post? Evidently you don't read anything I write (that's why you keep asking me for Scriptural evidence that I already provided).

To go back to a former analogy, I can't see electricity, but I believe it exists because I can see the results when I turn the light on.
Consciousness is loudness. You do have some concept (mental image) of electricity no matter how vague or distorted it might be due to your lack of understanding physics. I don't know much physics either.



Having said that, I wonder what you mean by "blind faith"? The disciples followed Jesus without knowing why, who he was or where it would lead them. Was that great faith or blind faith?
Conscience.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by JAL ]
And where Paul seems to have said, “We walk by faith, not by sight,” what he really meant was, “We walk by sight, and NOT by faith.”

I stand by the statement. I'm not correcting Paul, I'm just paraphrasing him in language that (I hoped) you'd understand. You're not following me, so nevermind.

You're not paraphrasing him; you're saying that he MEANT the opposite of what he wrote. I've asked you how you know what he meant, (and why didn't he write it)?

It's a shame that you claim to know what Paul was REALLY getting at but you can't tell, or explain it to, us. But as you say, never mind, (it's clearly not that important to you.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

James Is Back

CF's Official Locksmith
Aug 21, 2014
17,883
1,344
51
Oklahoma
✟32,480.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's got that bad, huh? ;)

I'd say so. It's like watching a very boring ping pong match. If it was a worthy debate that would be one thing but Jal is just going on and on and on despite just about everyone giving him the proof he needs.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.