Ok, i read that, i disagree a bit, the breath of God could be spiritual too, and Jesus blowing on them is just to accompany what was being done spiritually, i think God is spirit, because for example, he created the universe from nothing, and something physical can't create as far i as know other matter, i don't know if there is something in the universe that can create particles or atoms, i don't think so, physical things can only be transformed.
I never noticed this post.
Actually I don't mind so much you disagreeing - it's the REASONS for disagreement that concern me.
Since hermeneutics is an imperfect science, it especially needs rules to avoid absolute chaos. It's not anything goes. Therefore if an interpretation:
(1) is an unprecedented use of Hebrew or Greek language
(2) Or is a violation of proper use of language as we know it
Then those who insist on that interpretation should be FORTHCOMING (openly admit) that they are embracing apparent insanity. That's all I ask. Do you admit this? Because I gave you two arguments that are virtually apodictic, meaning that the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points in one direction.
- In post #3, I pointed out that it is a violation of language, as we know it, to distinguish same-typed beings by type. That argument stands unrefuted - I don't think anyone on that thread (several hundred posts) even ATTEMPTED to refute it.
- In post #5, I pointed out that, from the standpoint of CONTEXTUAL exgesis, the translatoin Breath/Wind trumps Spirit/Ghost hands-down. And not just contextually in the sense of CONNOTATION, but also in the sense of ACTUAL PHYSICAL DYNAMICS. Unlike a physical Wind, an intangible Spirit cannot push waters of the Red Sea apart.
i think God is spirit, because for example, he created the universe from nothing, and something physical can't create as far i as know other matter, i don't know if there is something in the universe that can create particles or atoms, i don't think so, physical things can only be transformed.
Whoa....Hold up one moment. You can't use one illogical concept as a basis for 'proving' another. Creation ex nihilo appears to be an illogical concept. It appears to be insanity. Imagine for example, if I told you, 'I just pulled a hammer out of the empty toolbox', you'd think I was insane.
That in itself is problemmatical enough, but it's even worse when you tell me that a 'Spirit' did it - when you base the claim on a 'Spirit'. On a what? Some seemingly insane notion invented by philosphers? A little common sense here, please. If God were an intangible spirit, what could He do? NOTHING! He couldn't even push a pencil, as it would slip through His hands. Nevermind trying to perform surgery on the sick. That too would be impossible.
I'm sorry you've bought into apparent insanity created by philosophers and perpetuated by them for 2,000 years.
The REALITY IS WE KNOW LITTLE about these things, but i agree with the general teaching that God is spirit.
Something made of matter deteriorates, the spirit is eternal.
I don't say im right you are wrong type of conversation here, its just that thinking about God as something physical gives me a bad feel i don't know.
It's SUPPOSED to give you a bad feeling. When all of society has been brainwashed IN ONE DIRECTION for 2,000 years, any deviation from it will naturally upset your stomach. I get that.
I like to think that something spiritual has power over the physical, how? nobody seems to know.
Exactly. Because it makes zero sense. It's total insanity. You want to keep believing that stuff? Fine. Just be be forthcoming/open/honest with others about the fact that you've elected to embrace apparent insanity contrary to all reason.
You have the idea that an spiritual body is some sort of 'advanced' 'matter'? i don't think so, i think is an eternal spiritual body.
Matter is by its very nature eternal. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.