This kind of statement isn't very convincing. Don't you realize that if Plato had never lived, and brainwashed us for 2,000 years, you'd never think that way?
Jesus said what we already agree on. We all agree that angels do not need food because they lack flesh, blood, and bones. This has nothing to do with whether they are tangible. Clearly the biblical data points in the tangible direction - 'The angel rolled the stone away from the tomb and sat on it."
It's not a question of throwing out Scriptures. It's a question of realizing that Scripture might be hard to interpret. Therefore we need the law of non-contradiction to avoid silly errors.
Plato has everything to do with it, as Tertuallian pointed out back in 200 A.D.
Except that 'spirit' is an English word. It's not in the original Hebrew and Greek. And I'm not struggling with it. Like Tertullian, I out and out reject it in virtue of the abundance of hard biblical evidence to the contrary.
See Ex 15 where Moses said the waters parted by a blast of breath from God's nostrils, slowly over the course of an evening. An immaterial breath cannot push waters apart. It's a logical impossibility.
Don't put God in a mental box? Anything goes? So we're back to the possibility of God defined as the flying sphaghetti monster?
Angels are material beings. Like the heavenly city, God tends to keep them hidden from us until we grow spiritually into maturity and thus see them face to face like Elijah, Jesus, David, and the rest.
Can't legitimately praise God for something He already was from eternity. That would be like praising you for being born human.
Almost all your posts take the form, "I"m right and you're wrong" - and thus never address my arguments. You provide no hard evidence for your conclusion, nor refute mine.
Last time I checked, breath/and wind were tangible substances. Jesus will overthrow the enemy by "the breath of his mouth" (2Th 2:8). Last time I checked, opening my mouth emitted tangible breath/wind.
oops. Look up for a while, Yahweh Willing, in the original languages, "soul". You might find out several surprises (we hope so).
For I am Adonai your God; therefore, consecrate yourselves and be holy, for I am holy; and do not defile yourselves with any kind of swarming creature that moves along the ground.(Maftir) For I am Adonai, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. Therefore you are to be holy, because I am holy. - Leviticus 11:44-45 Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 11:44-45 - Complete Jewish Bible
Huh? Come again?
Right, because wind is material/tangible, it can move other pieces of matter. (I generally use the terms material and tangible as synonyms).
Addressed in an earlier post. There are very few - perhaps no - valid mataphors for a material divine Word permeating all objects (albeit distinct from them) because He assumes all shapes and sizes. He is a door, He is feathers, and he is flesh and blood. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." He is all these things.
Wind and fire often go together (see Pentecost). Also see the fiery breath/wind of God's nostrils at Psalm 18. Heb 1:7 says, "He makes His angels winds [pneuma], His servants flames of fire". If you put the word spirits there, you create an immaterial-material disparity in the verse - it loses its metaphysical consistency.
You don't like the implications of spirit, but that's exactly what it extrapolates to - which is why it is nonsense. Look up spatial simplicity on web - this will give you some official definitions of immaterialism. As Charles Hodge says, mind and matter are two different “substances; the one extended, tangible, and divisible…the other unextended and indivisible” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. II: Anthropology (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers), 2001, reprint, p. 46).
No evidence? Calvary is not evidence? Calvary demonstrates that, without suffering, there is no merit. If the Father had numbed Christ's nerves and emotions, Calvary would have no merit. In the same way, holiness would have no merit if God didn't suffer/labor to achieve it. Here again, it's not that I don't have evidence - you just keep ignoring it.
The term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.
This has nothing to do with Yahweh, Yahshua, or Ekklesia born again
Seems like it finally quietened down.
The term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.
Heb 1:7 does not say all souls are pneuma/ruach. While God does makes His angels pneuma/ruach not all pneuma/ruach are angels. I agree that pneuma/ruach is material in that it is comprised of atoms.
Thought I'd pop in and see how this one's going
After doing some more (considerable) reading, I think I reached a conclusion that the Christian view of immaterialism is not the same as the Platonic view, although it borrows some ideas here and there.
Likewise, Christian views of materialism borrow some Stoic ideas. I noticed, JAL, that you quoted Tertullian. He believed that God was embodied, but that it is a 'spiritual' embodiment - as per as quote, a Spirit "has a bodily substance of its own kind.” It does seem, however, that his view of God having some corporeality is different to what you have proposed, but I could be wrong.
I find this all very interesting and am grateful that I've learned something - especially about Tertullian. So I want to thank you JAL for creating this thread and producing a challenge to these doctrines. Although I'm not sold on your proposals (or your method of proposing) I am grateful to you for creating this thread.
Right, Heb 1:7 is speaking specifically of angels. And yes, it doesn't claim that all winds/breaths are alive.
Heb 1:7 does not provide evidence that angels are fiery winds/breath.
Does no such thing.
Note the speculation. God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants at any time He wants. God made a donkey speak in the OT. Jesus said that God could raise up sons from stone. That does not mean that all sons are raised up from stones or that all donkeys speak.
He makes His angels immaterial spirits? Winds is a more natural fit because wind and fire go together - try to start a fire without air. Why mention material fire in the first place if the writer is wanting us to read 'immaterial spirits'? This attempt to shove some immaterial Platonic fantasy right into the middle of the verse - without any immaterial basis in the context - is precisely the same error made at John 3:5. The context speaks of MATTER. Therefore the natural reading is MATERIALISTIC. Anything else is pure fantasy - you're welcome to believe it, but don't pretend it has any basis in Scripture.
I said God could do these things and then you agreed with me that He can do pretty much anything. Not sure why you think this statement is some big rebuttal.
