By church consensus for a MININUM of 1,000 years (as I demonstrated a few posts back), the literal rendering of John 20:22 is, "He breathed on them, and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Breath'."
Do you think that you are talking to someone who can't look up the pertinent information on the internet?
The literal rendering of Jn.20:22 is now as it was from the first English Bible printed in 1539-1540.. translated from the preserved manuscripts. As well as all reprintings that followed it.
They all say .. "Receive the Holy Spirit." Not Breath.
4151 pneúma – properly,
spirit (
Spirit),
wind, or
breath.
The most frequent meaning (translation) of 4151 (pneúma) in the NT is "spirit" ("Spirit"). Only the context however determines which sense(s) is meant.
Perhaps you should have your version of the Bible printed. Better get busy, the word "spirit" occurs 505 times in 456 verses in the KJV.
JAL said:
That translation was UNANIMOUS IN THE CHURCH. The church unanimously understood John 20:22 to be a DESIGNATION (read this as Title) for the Third Person.
The word "Breath" cannot linguistically be a title for the third person of the Trinity. That would be a violation of context.
If the translation was unanimous in the church, then provide a legitimate link to the article that states that.
JAL said:
And I provided many similar passages.
No you haven't. I've only seen that you changed John 4:24 in a post to someone else.. doing it without any authorization from God or any Bible.. or from any quote from any Bible teacher.
So far, there's Jn.4:24 and Jn.20:22 that I've seen you mess with.
JAL said:
You must think God is the most stupid teacher on the face of the planet..
The Bible states that no one knows what's in the heart of a man. Therefore you are giving a hugely erroneous opinion.
JAL said:
..because ANYONE - any normal reader unbiased by Platonic indoctrination - would see at John 20:22 that Christ was IDENTIFYING His expelled physical breath with the Holy Breath.
You've contradicted yourself. According to you.. every theologian, every Bible scholar, every Bible teacher.. every Christian that reads every Bible that uses the word "spirit" instead of "breath" or "wind" is biased with the Platonic indoctrination!
So it's erroneous to single me out for that accusation.
But, on the subject of Plato and church history.. the intellectuals from the region of Greece and Rome.. such as Augustine used neoplatoism to bridge the gap between pagan beliefs rooted in materialism, and the spiritual teachings of Christianity.
When I looked at Plato's actual teachings, instead of the usual summaries that most places give.. since I've read some Hebrew/Jewish articles.. I noticed some unmistakable strong similarities between them and Plato.
It's strongly evident that he was influenced by Hebrew/Jewish writings. Since he was taught by Socrates who was a contemporary of Malachi.
I have not been the only one who's seen the similarities.
Did the early greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle make use of the Jewish scriptures ?
Did the early greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle make use of the Jewish scriptures just as much as writings from India and Egypt?
A scholar no less than the William Smith, L.L.D. (Smith's Bible Dictionary, London: J. Murray, 1863; Revised Edition: ...Compiled from Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, n.d., ISBN 0-87981-033-5, s.v.: "Epicureans," p. 95) stated:
"The teaching of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets was independent of any system of philosophy, and it is curious that Greek philosophy arose just after the Hebrew prophets closed their oracles, Malachi being contemporary with Socrates."
After Malachi, there was a 500-year hiatus to the New Testament. This was known as the period of the Talmudists (to 70 A.D.). So, there was plenty of time for influence of Classical Greek philosophy. I strongly suspect this is exactly the case. Unfortunately no modern thesis materials or dissertations exist on this significant subject. No university will allow investigation. Perhaps something written during the Victorian period might exist.
But, so far, my research has produced very little other than the Smith quote which may go back to an edited version of his original text (1863). The lack of information regarding the obvious Hebrew literary influence of Classical Greek philosophy and perhaps also early Greek poetry (theogonies) and the vernacular narratives (popular Greek myth) preceding Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is by-itself much more than curious.
It is my estimation that the flow of history goes something like this: (minimally) Indian, Chaldean, Canaanite, Egyptian Hebrew (revelationally), Greek, Roman, European (maximally). And, we are told in public school we can't be Juedeo-Christian or "Eurocentric" because such is "offensive"?
JAL said:
In fact, I CHALLENGE you to find a way for Him to drive that point home with any more clarity. Essentially He exhausted the limits of both language and mime in driving that point home.
I am a faulty vessel, therefore I rely heavily on God to get across to anyone from others better than I if not from myself.
I understand well what Moses complained about that he was not of eloquent speech like his brother Aaron.
JAL said:
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm NOT saying that every breath expelled by Christ during the Incarnation was The Holy Breath. Normally His lungs were filled with ordinary breath/wind, but this OCCASION, according to the text, was an expulsion of The Holy Breath,
That is an assumed personal commentary. There is no indication in the text that there was a particular difference in the quality of his breath had occurred.
If anything, it was his words that indicated why he breathed on them.
My personal commentary on that event is that Jesus was preparing them for the Pentecostal fulfillment to receive the Holy Spirit just 50 days later.
JAL said:
..similar to how He does it from the throne:
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens formed, the starry host by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6).
The breath of His mouth implies there as it does in Job and Timothy that His breath is the power of His essence. All scripture is God-breathed. The breath of the Almighty gives understanding.
Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the ages/cosmos were framed/prepared by the word of God.
JAL said:
Spiritual? Where have you exegetically established this magical substance that you refer to as 'spiritual substance' and this magical location that you refer to as 'spiritual location'?
Exegetically arriving at an understanding of God's intent in what is conveyed has nothing to do with magic.
However, as the Bible says.. "By your words you will be condemned, or by your words you will be justified."
BTW, I was using the writings of Tertullian from which was derived the Creed.
JAL said:
You don't recognize these artifacts as Platonic fabrications?
It is your opinion that Plato influences are fabrications. Therefore how can it be asked of me as if I recognized them as such?
JAL said:
Louis Berkhoff - one of the most esteemed theologians in the Reformed tradition - stated in his Systematic Theology that Scripture - again and again and again - decisively points our eyes physically upward to heaven. Case in point:
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight" (Acts 1:8).
That describes physical sight. All could see. It was not observed by only one.
JAL said:
Way over in chapter 7
JAL said:
"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit,
looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
56“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
That describes seeing into the spirit realm what the others in attendance could not see. The word used from your translation "Look" does not imply that they could see it too. It's more like "Do you see what I see?" The context does not indicate that they did.
JAL said:
Here Jesus was standing, elsewhere He is said to be seated on a throne. A throne is a material seat.
Not of the material that my chair is. Tertullian accompanied the word "material" with "substance". In that it being a chair in heaven, a supernatural realm, was as 'solid' for God, a spirit being, as a chair is to us in this natural material world, to our material bodies.
You however haven't said that. You only use the word 'material' which would imply to anyone familiar with this world.. that all things in heaven are made of exactly the same stuff as we have on the earth.
That. Is what I object to.
JAL said:
And we stand on solid material floors. If God were trying to convey some kind of immaterial reality, why all this reference to sitting and standing?
To show that He made us in His image and likeness. We are like Him in so far as our inner core is spirit.. that we may contact God who is Spirit. We have a soul- mind, will, emotion.. that we may relate to others socially. And we have a physical body to interact with the physical, material world.
Do to my recent research I can say.. Plato was focused on the soul or it would be more properly identified as the spirit being of man. And how to use that to contact God in the supernatural realm, the world of forms. He taught that the physical body often distracted the soul and as Augustine, got tangled up with lusts.
JAL said:
Again, do you think God is the most stupid teacher of all?
You assume that God is the author of your personal teachings. You are mistaken in equating what you're saying as coming from God.
JAL said:
And angels, they too are magical substances in your view?
You are projecting your own ideas. That is apparently how you dismiss what the Bible says about angels. So, again. What you say does not come from God, for no Bible ever equated angels of having a magical substance.
JAL said:
One moment, are you saying that you see material angels?
The Bible states that when they are involved with people.. they appear. Which means "now you don't see them, now you do."
According to 2 Kings 6:17.. the servant could not see the angels until the prophet prayed that God open his eyes to see them.
JAL said:
"An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it" (Mat 28).
There is proof to you that spirit beings can make contact with material things. Angels of spirit essence are not like vapor or like clouds.
There are also the scriptures of the angel appearing to and talking to the virgin Mary. Or of the angel wrestling, making physical contact with Jacob.
JAL said:
How does an intangible, immaterial angel push a material stone?
Your angels-are-made-of-clouds ideas are a hindrance to you. Do you not remember that the scripture in Psalm 91 says that God has given them charge over the heirs of salvation, to protect them from harm, injury, accident or calamity. How would angels be able to do that if they didn't have power, if they couldn't make contact with material things or with physical people?
Yes.. spiritual, most times invisible, and intangible angels do not have to be of fleshly material in order to move a material object.
JAL said:
And then sit on it? That makes zero sense.
Because you are materially minded, not comprehending the supernatural world where exists God, angels, and demons.
JAL said:
Therefore, could you lay aside the Platonic blinders for even ONE MOMENT and actually take a look at what Scripture says?
The scripture does not convey what you conclude.
It's not for me to lay aside that God, angels and demons, and people are spirit beings.. it's for you to lay aside that God, angels, demons, and people are all no more than material beings.
JAL said:
Everything in Scripture militates AGAINST a Platonic metaphysics.
I've already indicated that Plato got all of his metaphysics from the Hebrews. Which is to say the Old Testament.. although I do see some minor elements found in the New Testament as well, the writings of Paul in particular.
I in my Biblical mindset am not the one that needs to change my thinking.
JAL said:
The ONLY way to reach your conclusions is to regard Greek philosophy as an authority equal to Scripture.
In a certain sense, concerning the portions that I've of most recently read.. the metaphysical aspects of Plato's teaching of the soul and the supernatural world is most certainly akin to the Biblical scriptures.
Since it's in the framework of a Greek philosopher.. not even most worldly philosopher thinkers recognize the spiritual origins of Plato's teachings. But some like William Smith, others and myself.. have.
JAL said:
And you know what? That's a historical fact! An article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, attested that most of the church fathers believed that God had supplied the Greek philosophical writing as a SUPPLEMENT to Scripture and therefore placed it on a par with Scripture.
I would insist on a link/url to verify that. But, I'm certainly not denying what I've recently discovered.
JAL said:
I too was indoctrinated to make the same faulty assumptions. I too was on the blue pill. Then I took the red pill.
It was no indoctrination on my part. Until this discussion with you.. I was oblivious of church history and what most people call the Greek influences. I knew nothing of Plato's teachings. I was ignorant of Augustine and so many of those others.
I've not been indoctrinated.
My independent discovery was purely due to reading one article on Plato's teachings that I recognized the terms that were similar to the Hebrew articles I'd previously read.. not that article, nor any other of the plenty other articles I've scanned through are familiar with the Hebraic teachings to have made any connection.
But if you have been delivered from the indoctrination that you say I am suffering with.. plus all other Bible theologians, Bible scholars, Bible teachers and preachers.. yes, everyone who has a Bible.
Then what book do you rely on? The Bible?.. with your inserted corrections? And your mixture of philosophy that is not ever heard by any Bible-based preacher in the pulpit.
Or, do you think that God is stupid that he let Greek philosophy permeate it? Not through all of the 2,000 years of this church age?
JAL said:
Yes, you've already made clear your ASSUMPTION that God is not physical. At some point are you going to provide any EVIDENCE for it? Because everything in Scripture militates against your position.
That underlined portion is nothing more than your opinion.
Not by any scripture that you've so far given have you proved any point that you are trying to make.
However, what you said could only be true if you had printed your bible version.. with all of the word changes.. taking out "spirit" and putting in "wind" or "breath" where you deem appropriate.
Until you do that, you're not getting anywhere with your case.
JAL said:
You're making presumptions about HOW God created the world.
I have spoken according to.. quoted what the Bible says. I will not take your word for it, because what you've said has proved not to be accurate.
JAL said:
I linked you to a thread where I present an alternative theory. And it's not just a theory - my cosmogony is part and parcel of a (successful) effort to resolve a number of contradictions in traditional theology.
You are not aware of such problems because for you, like so many Christians, ignorance is bliss. I do not mean you are an ignorant person. What I mean is that all of us are somewhat ignorant, and in some cases it's selective ignorance because ignorance is bliss. I'm sure I've been guilty of it many times myself.
From what I've seen you've got a heavy dose of selective ignorance.
JAL said:
The CONTEXT favors breath/wind!
There is your selective ignorance.
JAL said:
Suddenly a sound like the
blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.
4All of them were filled with the Holy [
Wind].
Ah.. there it is. An example of your corrective handywork.
JAL said:
You see the difference? My translation is exegetically derived FROM THE CONTEXT.
Yes, it's certainly 'your translation'. But not of the Authorized Version.
JAL said:
And yet you have the gall to suggest that I'm the one ignoring the context!
I haven't suggested any such thing at all. Your own postings prove it without any help from me.
