Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[Der Alte]

That was one joint reference, first I mentioned him then I cited a quote, all in the same post. So one mention in 225 posts - makes him my guru according to you?

Seemed like it. For someone who insists on "sola scriptura" you seem to quote a lot of anonymous "scholars."

Moot point. The essence of the argument is that immaterialism is an extra-biblical position and, as such, can be chalked up to philosophy, not biblical exegesis. That in itself doesn't invalidate it, but we at least need to be honest about its origins.

Making the same unsupported claims re "immaterialism" does not prove it.

Also your phraseology is kinda silly. I 'm not insisting you got it DIRECTLY from Plato. Even if you learned it from a pastor, or from seminary, the ORIGIN of the doctrine, historically, is Plato (and/or his followers known as Platonists)

Quoting you, this appears that you are accusing me of getting my nonexistent "platonism" directly from Plato.

If you got a doctrine from Plato (or from any other extra-biblical source, or even from your own head), don't pretend it to have derived from a careful interpretation of Scripture, or some abundance of biblical evidence. BE HONEST ABOUT WHERE IT CAME FROM.​

A verse that refers to physical blowing wind! Thanks so much for citing that verse (although I myself mentioned it earlier). Again, two competing translations for the title of the Third Person throughout the NT (90 times).
(1) The Holy Spirit/Ghost (immaterial)
(2) The Holy Wind/Breath (physical).
You opt for #1 whereas I opt for #2. So as for the physical blowing wind at John 3:8, is it more on my side? Or your side? Boy - that's a tough one!

You have not demonstrated that the second occurrence of "pneuma" in John 3:8 refers to the blowing wind"
NIrV, NIV, ISV, ASV, ESV, all have spirit

John 3:8
(8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."​

I was not aware that the "blowing wind" could give birth to anyone or anything.

Again, it's for the benefit of those who will ONLY listen to mainstream scholars such as the church fathers.

Quoting one ECF does not prove anything to anyone, except that one ECF said something.

"Considerable scholarship" is good enough when it's generally well known that a good number of scholars concur. But if you insist on specific example, take a look at Frederick Copleston's History of Philosophy, or the (Platonic) Theory of Forms topic on Wikipedia, for starters.

"Generally well known" is another one of those logical fallacy cliches like "everybody knows","it's a known fact" etc. If you think Copleston says something relevant quote a little bit. And I trust Wiki about as far as I could shot put a grown elephant.

Let's sum it up. In this last post you've cited only one verse - that supports my position! In the OTHER post, I think you said that you made 92 scriptural references about divine personality - which was not even in debate!

Does the blowing wind have 72 personal attributes?

By all means please continue posting. You're doing a fantastic job of proving my case

.

This is in the category of "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" When you can conclusively show me where the blowing wind can give birth let me know.

 

[JAL]

Please explain away Hebrews 4:12. Yet another verse improperly translated, I suspect?

Perhaps I'll just copy and paste a refutation of trichotomy that I wrote a long time ago - I hesitate because it makes for a bit of a long post (about 3 pages of text). Or maybe I can find a way to shorten it (no easy task).

 

[JAL]

Seemed like it. For someone who insists on "sola scriptura" you seem to quote a lot of anonymous "scholars."

Because I can't win. Can't tell you how many times people have complained, 'If no reputable theologians agree with you, your position lacks credibility."

So if I don't cite them, I'm criticized. If I do, I'm criticized. Can't win.

Making the same unsupported claims re "immaterialism" does not prove it.

Does not prove what? Doesn't prove whether you got your immaterialism from Plato? I don't really care where you got it - but certainly it didn't come from Scripture.

Quoting you, this appears that you are accusing me of getting my nonexistent "platonism" directly from Plato.
If you got a doctrine from Plato (or from any other extra-biblical source, or even from your own head), don't pretend it to have derived from a careful interpretation of Scripture, or some abundance of biblical evidence. BE HONEST ABOUT WHERE IT CAME FROM.

Here 'you' refers to the church at large. And you conveniently ignored the words in bold. But even if you got immaterialism from your own head, I'm warranted in referring to you as a Platonist, for obvious reasons.

For example if you hold Trinitarian views (as I do), I'm going to call you a Trinitarian, even if you formed the doctrine, all by yourself, in your own head. K?

I was not aware that the "blowing wind" could give birth to anyone or anything.

Haven't we been over this? Is there a real objection here, or more Platonic bias? Fact is, I've watched physicians give birth WITH THEIR OWN PHYSICAL HANDS, pulling a baby from the womb. Immaterial hands could of course accomplish - nothing. They would be useless.

If you're uncertain how a material God would effect the new birth, I'm happy to explain it to you (although I already explained it earlier on this thread).

You have not demonstrated that the second occurrence of "pneuma" in John 3:8 refers to the blowing wind"
NIrV, NIV, ISV, ASV, ESV, all have spirit
John 3:8
(8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

You only cited five versions? I, mean, this is the mainstream position, right? Which you are constantly regurgitating, rather than defending - so why not just regurgitate 30 or 40 mainstream translations while you're at it? Why just five? Either way, it's not really an argument.

Um. Yes I have so demonstrated. Let's try this again. Hate to repeat posts 3 and 5, but we're talking about the TITLE of a member of the Godhead. If you recall I argued as follows. The title doesn't change, meaning, for example:

If two Greek words are recognized in ONE passage to mean 'The Father and the Son', then it would be absolute FOOLISHNESS, in a parallel passage using the same two Greek words for the same two individuals, to translate it as, say, "Mother-in-Law and First Cousin".

We have HARD evidence for the title 'The Holy Wind/Breath' (see posts 3 and 5). Therefore when the same Greek word (Pneuma) is used in ANOTHER verse for that same Third Person, common sense would dictate the same rendering. Always - unless we're irresponsible exgetes bent on hermeneutical chaos. And if there were any DOUBTS that the proper rendering is 'born of the Wind/Breath', the first part of the verse allays them with, 'The Wind/Breath blows where it WANTS TO.'

Note well the words in bold. Let me ask YOU a question. Just as you cited 5 versions, I can easily cite 20 versions indicating that this wind blows where it WANTS to. To the best of your knowledge, does ordinary wind blow wherever it WANTS to? Here too we have hard evidence flatly contradicting your (unproven) Platonic ASSUMPTION. You said:

A "breath" does not have personal characteristics

Scripture begs to differ. When we're taking about the DIVINE breath as Third Person, He most certainly does have personality attributes.

Quoting one ECF does not prove anything to anyone, except that one ECF said something.

I'll continue posting as I see fit. Feel free to ignore my citations of ECFs. Fine with me.

"Generally well known" is another one of those logical fallacy cliches like "everybody knows","it's a known fact" etc. If you think Copleston says something relevant quote a little bit.

Why bother? When I cited ECFs, you blow it off. Which is fine by me - I have plenty of scriptural basis for my views. I cite scholars for the benefit of those who want that material. If you don't, that's ok with me. I'm not going to deprecate you for that.

Well let me qualify that a bit. You shouldn't hold a double-standard. You cited five versions of the NT - produced by mainstream scholars. So it seems like YOU want to appeal to them in this debate, but then you go up in arms when I do. Like I said, I can't win.

Does the blowing wind have 72 personal attributes?

Yes sir. The Holy Breath/Wind is the Third Person. Persons have personal attributes. I thought that was a tautology, but if you really need me to unwrap tautologies for you, I'll try to be patient. As I can find the time.

This is in the category of "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" When you can conclusively show me where the blowing wind can give birth let me know.

It's a fundamental assumption of my materialism that God is a shapeshifter - and it's also a FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION OF SCRIPTURE. Therefore the Holy Breath/Wind can do any normal physical task. Why is that so hard to understand?

Example of shapeshifting. In the OT the pillar of Cloud transformed, every night, into a pillar of Fire, because Fire radiates Light, as to illuminate Israel on her travels. Fact.

I'm really sorry you prefer Platonism over Scripture - but guess what? Certainly nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

Please explain away Hebrews 4:12. Yet another verse improperly translated, I suspect?

I don't know how to shorten the original essay refuting trichotomy - the best I can do right now is omit the footnotes. I'll just do it in two posts. Here's Part 1.

The position taken here is dichotomy, and thus there is only one inner man, termed either heart, soul,mind, spirit,the will, the conscience - it's all the same thing. How do I know there is only one inner man? The heart of the matter is the heart. Since Scripture focuses with tunnel vision on the heart, anything else is moot. At least that’s the argument made here.

The Greek root “kardia” as in “cardiac arrest” occurs about 160 times in the NT and is always rendered "heart" in the KJV. The Hebrew counterpart for “heart” occurs about 845 times in the OT. NT usage of “kardia” to translate the Hebrew term implies an OT-NT continuity of “heart.” Considerable evidence that the OT and NT writers had in mind the physiological organ verifies that body and mind are intermixed into one material unit. As Boyd observed of Scripture, “The ‘heart’ (leb, lebab; kardia) was simultaneously that which beats in our chest…and the location of thought.” There is only one inner man entitled the heart as Charles Hodge recognized, “The heart in Scripture is that which thinks, feels, wills, and acts. It is the soul; the self.” Most evangelical theologians agree. Hebrews 4:12 refers to “the thoughts and intents of the heart” (KJV).Augustine attributed to the heart our volitional ability to choose between good and evil. Similarly a Catholic catechism speaks of “the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.” Hebrews cited Psalm 95:10, "They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways" (Heb 3:10, KJV) and
thrice quoted Psalm 95:7-8, "Today if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts" (Heb 3:7-8, KJV; cf. Heb 3:15; 4:7) combined with the warning, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Heb 3:12, KJV). "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouthconfession is made unto salvation" (Rom 10:10, KJV). The mouth
confesses unto salvation because "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Mat 12:34, KJV). If a man “shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith” (Mk 9:23, KJV). A holy heart will always produce good fruit whereas a wicked heart evil fruit (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Mat 7:17-20; 12:33-35; 15:19-20). Thus God can (and will) forever end the problem of sin by making the heart holy. Documented here are
about forty additional NT verses linking the heart to either doubt, faith, righteousness, or wickedness (Mat 5:8, 28, 6:21; 9:4; 13:15; 18:35; 24:48;Mk 7:6, 21; 12:33; 16:14; Lk 1:17, 51; 6:45; 8:15; 16:15; Jn 12:40; Acts 5:3-4; 7:39; 8:21-22, 37; 13:22; 15:9; Rom 1:24; 2:5, 15, 29; 6:17; Eph 6:6;
1Ti 1:5; 2Ti 2:22; Heb 4:12; 10:22; Jam 3:14; 4:8; 1Pe 1:22; 3:15). There
are too many OT examples to bother documenting.

Since all human troubles lie in the evil heart, naturally the only solution is to target it
with the Holy Breath. "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal 4:6, KJV). Paul prayed "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" (Eph 3:17, KJV). "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2Cor 4:6, KJV). Regeneration and sanctification occur where "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Rom 5:5, KJV). It is a ministry "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2Cor 3:3, KJV). In sum, any preoccupation with multiple kinds of inner men is a flight of fancy at variance with the evidence. All of redemptive economy
clearly hinges on a single inner man typically termed the heart but understood to be synonymous with mind, soul, spirit, will, and conscience.

 

[JAL]

Please explain away Hebrews 4:12. Yet another verse improperly translated, I suspect?

Part 2 of refuting trichotomy.

In order to play a critical role in God’s kingdom, after all, an inner man needs all the available faculties. He is basically irrelevant unless he has all the following capabilities:
- He must be a mind comprehending right and wrong.
- He comprehends the temptations currently facing him.
- He must be emotive to fully experience the allure of temptations.
- He has volition/will to choose. This volition cannot be separate from
him, because the volition that chooses must be the same mind who
comprehends the choices.

At this point there is nothing of importance left. To postulate a second kind of inner man distinct from the mind, such as a “spirit”, is to postulate a mindless entity. Comprehending nothing, a mindless entity is irrelevant to the critical elements of redemptive economy. A mindless entity is not even conscious, because consciousness is a mind that has (loud and clear) experiences which it attempts to grasp/ comprehend.

Trichotomy is a composition of spirit, soul, and body. According to trichotomy the new birth transforms the spirit alone, leaving the sinful soul unchanged (intact) in its role as sinful nature, contradicting the biblical view that the new birth does not leave the sinful nature intact but rather crucifies it, buries it, and resurrects it anew in holiness (Rom 6:1-11; 7:6; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 2:19-20; 5:24; Eph 2:1, 5; 4:24; Col 2:11-13, 20; 3:1-5). The sinful soul is what needs the new birth, not the (sinless) spirit of trichotomy but, oddly enough, trichotomy ascribes the new birth to the spirit, which makes no sense. The spirit of trichotomy, subsequent to the new birth and by an act of its own will (volition), is supposed to seize control of the sinful soul, taming it by forcing it to behave righteously. This is supposedly the process of sanctification. There are two problems here. First, the spirit has no will (volition) of its own to so act, because trichotomy ascribes the will to the soul. (Trichotomy defines the soul as mind, will, and emotions). Second, true righteousness is not forced behavior but freely volunteered behavior. Let’s clarify this point. Sin is truly sinful only if it is voluntary rather than forced, or at least if it originates in Adam’s voluntary choice. God would have no basis for displeasure if our so-called “sins” were
always forced upon us. Since the sinful nature is displeasing to God only because it voluntarily chooses to sin, the best way to curb His displeasure is for it to begin voluntarily choosing righteousness. Therefore a spirit forcing a sinful soul to behave would not exonerate this soul before God. He would still be displeased due to the lack of sincere repentance. This is a
problem.

In trichotomy a spirit negligent in taming the sinful soul is obviously sinning, so which one of the two beings is really the sinful nature? Is it the spirit, or is it the sinful soul? Trichotomists say I "am" a spirit but I "have" a soul (a sinful nature) which sins. But the whole economy of redemption is concerned with what happens to “I” rather than what I
have (my possessions). It is a fundamental assumption of the NT that my possessions are ultimately irrelevant to redemptive ontology. In reality I am the sinful nature; it is not a “possession,” a pet separate from me in need of taming. I know my ordinary pets to be mere possessions separate from my being because I neither feel their cravings nor apprehend their sensations. In marked contrast I know that I myself am my sinful nature,
that it is not a pet but my very being because I am the craver of its cravings and the sensor of its sensations. Even if the sinful nature were indeed a pet separate from me in need of taming, the real sinner is not the pet but I as the owner who fails to control it. I am therefore the sinful nature because I am he who sins; I do not “have” a sinful nature as a
possession separate from me serving as the explanation of sin’s persistence.

Trichotomy’s regard for the soul as sinful nature deprives the spirit of sinful tendency. Such a morally pure spirit would unfailingly tame the soul even before the new birth, resulting in a sinless unbeliever, which is absurd. To reply that the sinful soul corrupts the spirit (but how precisely would the pet compel the owner to sin?) by dragging it into sin overlooks the argument above that forced behavior is neither sin nor righteousness, because God is only concerned with voluntary behavior.Trichotomists take the soul to be the mind, will, and emotions, and the spirit as subduer of this sinful soul. Yet a spirit without mind, will, and emotions would be mindless and thus dead, as already argued; it could
not fathom, desire, or will the subduing of the soul. Thus by limiting the spirit to a partial subset of human faculties, and potentially likewise limiting the soul, trichotomy divests either spirit or soul or both of traits vital to consciousness.

A soul and spirit disparate in kind would be unable to share the same kinds of perceptions and would therefore be complete strangers to one another and, as such, not responsible for each other's behavior. I am a unity (uniformity), I am a man, I am the man inside my body, the inner man. It is empirically false that within my body are two radically different types of beings speaking totally different languages, doomed to failure in their effort to intercommunicate. Charles Hodge raised this very objection that trichotomy contradicts the empirical harmony of inner experience.

Although trichotomists seize upon the phrase "spirit, soul, and body" (1Th 5:23), why arbitrarily stop at three parts? "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." So why not add heart, mind, and strength (willpower) plus sensibility (the five senses), the conscience, the flesh (sinful nature), and subconsciousness for a total of ten? Trichotomy's principal rationale for settling on three parts is that humanity as God's image supposedly must be threefold like the Trinity. Unfortunately trichotomy fails to image the Trinity in any meaningful or logically consistent way. The Trinity is the Father and Son localized to a throne plus the omnipresent Holy Breath. Each of the Three is an individual Person, three autonomous conglomerations of self-propelling thought-currents, three individual minds who jointly form one larger Mind. In disturbingly stark contrast trichotomy does not postulate three persons but three components of one human being, or rather two components since the body is disposable. Trichotomy’s stretching of man-as-Gods-image to supposedly imply triunity is like stretching Christ-as-image of the Father (2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3) to mean that Christ Himself is a triunity in Himself, resulting in a fivefold “Trinity” consisting of the triune Christ plus Father and Holy Spirit. In reality people image the Father physically rather than trinitarily.

Trichotomy has no satisfactory response to several troubling questions. Where in the body are spirit and soul located? How do they interact and intercommunicate apart from matter-energy dynamics? Lewis Sperry Chafer advocated trichotomy but admitted it humanly incomprehensible and acknowledged that in most cases Scripture uses spirit and soul interchangeably. Evidence suggests that trichotomists do not really believe that soul and spirit are two different kinds of substance. For how can there be three different kinds of substance – material, immaterial, and what else? As Norman Geisler pointed out, a substance not material is immaterial.

Against trichotomy Charles Hodge remarked that both in Greek and
Hebrew the terms spirit and soul are used interchangeably of both men
and animals, and since animals are not trichotomous, neither are people. He argued that even as joints and marrow are one substance(matter), likewise spirit and soul are one substance. He believed that trichotomy originated in Plato. Catholics and Protestants almost unanimously rejected it until its recent surge among pastors. Jeffrey H.Boyd reported that dichotomy was dominant from the second century until the end of the nineteenth. In 870 A.D. the Fourth Council of Constantinople officially upheld dichotomy by asserting that the term spirit “does not introduce a duality into the soul.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Well if you're asking if I would vote for the translation 'spirit', it should be pretty evident by now that I wouldn't.

But regardless of how one translates it, it seems beset with ambiguities. It's not the best possible ground to build a major doctrine on, in my opinion.

I just accept it as written. I don’t see a need to twist it and fully understand that both sides have valid arguments. I hardly see the trichotemy vs dichotomy view as a major doctrine. I see where it is critical to your view, however.

As stated earlier, I tend to cite verses differently than some Christians do. With me, there's often a logical rigor, for example when I argue that the divine Light had to be material particles for Moses' facial veil to successfully restrain it. In other words I usually argue that an alternative interpretation would be a logical impossibility.

But often I see Christians adducing verses without any logical rigor (and calling it 'proof'). And then I get a big show of indignation from them if I don't accept THEIR interpretation. I suppose that's what's going to happen here too?

Pretty condescending here. Implying a lack of logical thought to those who disagree with you or believe that scripture may at times actually mean exactly what it says is actually quite arrogant.

 

[JAL]

I just accept it as written. I don’t see a need to twist it and fully understand that both sides have valid arguments.

I hardly see the trichotemy vs dichotomy view as a major doctrine. I see where it is critical to your view, however.

Pretty condescending here. Implying a lack of logical thought to those who disagree with you or believe that scripture may at times actually mean exactly what it says is actually quite arrogant.

These kinds of criticisms cut both ways. In numerous cases on this thread, I've seen people respond to me with condescension and arrogance - and without anything solid to defend their own position.

 

[Der Alte]

Because I can't win. Can't tell you how many times people have complained, 'If no reputable theologians agree with you, your position lacks credibility."
So if I don't cite them, I'm criticized. If I do, I'm criticized. Can't win.

When have I ever said that to you? I rarely quote random "scholar" Although I do quote such sources as lexicons, concordances, ECF, Bible encyclopedias etc.

Does not prove what? Doesn't prove whether you got your immaterialism from Plato? I don't really care where you got it - but certainly it didn't come from Scripture.

You opinion is as irrelevant now as it was before.

Here 'you' refers to the church at large. And you conveniently ignored the words in bold. But even if you got immaterialism from your own head, I'm warranted in referring to you as a Platonist, for obvious reasons.
For example if you hold Trinitarian views (as I do), I'm going to call you a Trinitarian, even if you formed the doctrine, all by yourself, in your own head. K?

There was no person named "Trinity" who taught the doctrine as there was Plato and Platonism

Haven't we been over this? Is there a real objection here, or more Platonic bias? Fact is, I've watched physicians give birth WITH THEIR OWN PHYSICAL HANDS, pulling a baby from the womb. Immaterial hands could of course accomplish - nothing. They would be useless.

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.

If you're uncertain how a material God would effect the new birth, I'm happy to explain it to you (although I already explained it earlier on this thread).

I'm not interested in the unsupported speculations of an anonymous poster on this forum.

Y

ou only cited five versions? I, mean, this is the mainstream position, right? Which you are constantly regurgitating, rather than defending - so why not just regurgitate 30 or 40 mainstream translations while you're at it? Why just five? Either way, it's not really an argument.

I only have five on my PC. I could have added one more NET. And you keep regurgitating your nonsense about material/immaterial

Um. Yes I have so demonstrated. Let's try this again. Hate to repeat posts 3 and 5, but we're talking about the TITLE of a member of the Godhead. If you recall I argued as follows. The title doesn't change, meaning, for example:
If two Greek words are recognized in ONE passage to mean 'The Father and the Son', then it would be absolute FOOLISHNESS, in a parallel passage using the same two Greek words for the same two individuals, to translate it as, say, "Mother-in-Law and First Cousin".

Foxes actually existed at the time of Jesus, was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him one? Satan actually existed at the time of Jesus, was Peter literally Satan when Jesus called him that? Thunder actually existed at the time of Jesus, were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that?

We have HARD evidence for the title 'The Holy Wind/Breath' (see posts 3 and 5). Therefore when the same Greek word (Pneuma) is used in ANOTHER verse for that same Third Person, common sense would dictate the same rendering. Always - unless we're irresponsible exgetes bent on hermeneutical chaos. And if there were any DOUBTS that the proper rendering is 'born of the Wind/Breath', the first part of the verse allays them with, 'The Wind/Breath blows where it wants to.

You have no "hard" anything, nothing but your unsupported opinion. Show me that Jesus' audience understood it this way?

Note well the words in bold. Let me ask YOU a question. Just as you cited 5 versions, I can easily cite 20 versions indicating that this wind blows where it WANTS to. To the best of your knowledge, does ordinary wind blow wherever it WANTS to? Here too we have hard evidence flatly contradicting your (unproven) Platonic ASSUMPTION. You said:

Even in English we say the wind blows but we don't attribute personality to it.

θέλω, ἐθέλω thelō ethelō
Either the first or the second form may be used. In certain tenses θελέω theleō thel-eh'-o (and ἐθέλέω etheleō eth-el-eh'-o) are used, which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of G138; to determine (as an active voice option from subjective impulse; whereas G1014 properly denotes rather a passive voice acquiescence in objective considerations), that is, choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication to wish, that is, be inclined to (sometimes adverbially gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism to delight in: - desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, -ling [ly]).​

Scripture begs to differ. When we're taking about the DIVINE breath as Third Person, He most certainly does have personality attributes.
Yes sir. The Holy Breath/Wind is the Third Person. Persons have personal attributes. I thought that was a tautology, but if you really need me to unwrap tautologies for you, I'll try to be patient. As I can find the time.

Nonsense! Assumes that Jesus' audience thought as you do. And there is no evidence that they thought the wind had personality.

It's a fundamental assumption of my materialism that God is a shapeshifter - and it's also a FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION OF SCRIPTURE. Therefore the Holy Breath/Wind can do any normal physical task. Why is that so hard to understand?

Unsupported assumptions both yourself and about scripture.

Example of shapeshifting. In the OT the pillar of Cloud transformed, every night, into a pillar of Fire, because Fire radiates Light, as to illuminate Israel on her travels. Fact.
I'm really sorry you prefer Platonism over Scripture - but guess what? Certainly nothing I can do about it.

"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.

 

[JAL]

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.

 

[JAL]

My question remains. Did Jesus' 1st century Jewish audience understand Jesus to be saying "born of the blowing wind?" Back that up with scripture.

Let's discuss this even though, as noted in my last post, it doesn't help your case.

In all of this, the icing on the cake is WANTS TO.
"The Wind/Breath blows wherever it WANTS TO".
This flatly refutes any attempt to deny a living, personal Wind.

That's enough said, but let's continue for the fun of it anyway.

Your first mistake is to assume that any Jewish reader would automatically understand the new birth - or even that Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law, would understand it. (The church STILL hasn't understood John 3:5 after 2,000 years).

Jesus understood the OT by revelation. Nicodemus SHOULD have been well-grounded in revelation but evidently was not. His reaction is therefore understandable. Essentially he asked, 'What is the nature of this new birth?' I'm not convinced that Jesus, in this speech, ever fully clarified WHAT the new birth actually is. Rather the passage focuses on HOW it transpires - by blowing Wind, which IS an idiom that any Jewish reader WOULD understand. What the Jewish reader would certainly NOT have understood is an immaterial birth. THAT would only have added confusion. Even mainstream theologians use the term 'inscrutable' (incomprehensible) for an immaterial new birth. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS AN IMMATERIAL NEW BIRTH. Period.

I pointed out that the traditional reading of John 3:5 is NOT seamless.
"Unless a man is born of (material) water and (immaterial) Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".

Talk about an idiom hard to comprehend! And it also conflicts with verse 16's offering of faith-alone salvation. So I proposed a faith-alone reading:

"Unless a man is born of [divine] Water and Wind, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

God provides the material Water. This is salvation by faith alone. Is it backed up in the OT, where Nicodemus could potentially have found it? Yes, for several reasons.
(1) The concept of divine Wind blowing was familiar to OT saints. At Ex 15, Moses reported that a blast of breath from God' nostrils is what slowly parted the waters gradually, over the course of an evening.
(2) Psalm 18 has a couple of striking allusions to the divine Breath.
(3) A psalmist stated, 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, the starry hosts by the Breath of His mouth." Nicodemus already understood, therefore, the following:
....(A) God speaks much like ordinary material beings do. He releases Breath/Wind from His mouth. And when He speaks, it is possible to HEAR THE SOUND (see John 3:8).
....(B) This blowing Breath/Wind goes forth to do His bidding (cf. Isa 55:11).
(4) Ezekiel's Valley of Dry Bones is full of allusions to divine Breath/Wind providing a resurrection from death. This is probably a picture of the new birth.
(5) Ezekiel 37 is particularly illuminating here. Let's see why.

Jesus used the expression, 'born from above'. Nicodemus would already know from the OT:
(1) Divine Breath/Wind comes down upon us from above when God speaks.
(2) God has been known to sends waters from above.

IN Ezekiel 37, the Greek OT uses the same two words for Water and Wind as John 3:5.
"Unless a man is born of Water (Hudor) and Wind (Pneuma), he cannot enter the kindgom of God".
In Ezekiel 37, God likewise says:
"I will sprinkle clean Water (Hudor) on you, and ye shall be clean. And I will put my Wind/Breath [Pneuma] in you and move you to follow my laws".

Instead of trying to fully explain to Nicodemus WHAT the new birth is, Jesus contented Himself to explaining HOW it transpires. Like so:
"The Wind/Breath blows wherever it WANTS TO. You hear its sound, but you know not whence it came or where it goes. So it is of everyone born of the Wind."

For example, on Pentecost, 120 saints heard the sound of the blowing Wind. "And they were all filled with the Holy [Wind]." Did the Wind blow? Yes. Did they hear its sound? Yes. This is consisent with John 3:8.

Again, in order to accept an immaterialistic reading, I would HAVE to assume that God is an imbecile of an instructor. Because at every turn, he confirms physical wind/breath.

 

[JAL]

Nonsense! Assumes that Jesus' audience thought as you do. And there is no evidence that they thought the wind had personality.

You denied the evidence at John 3:8. (Oh that's right. I forgot. Since God's an imbecile of an instructor, He added the words "WANTS TO", not realizing that such signifies personality. Never occurred to Him).

So in your view, if the Jewish audience MIGHT have thought differently, it can't be true? This would mean, for example, that if Jesus made a statement about the atonement which the Jews surrounding Him didn't understand, the atonement cannot be true?

I guess we have to reject the Trinity too, then, right? I mean, if any of the Jewish audience didn't understand the Father-Son concept, then we cannot rightly consider it to be an exegetical datum?

What you're overlooking is that new Scripture often introduces new revelations. These revelations are true even if many of the Jews didn't understand them. With new revelations, we have to be open to the possibility that some readers wouldn't understand them.

I think you're confusing the issue of new revelation with the issue of unprecedented idioms. Example. Some people claim that 'born of water' at John 3:5 means 'born of womb' (natural birth). This is a problem because it's an unprecedented idiom (we have no record of anyone referring to natural birth as 'born of water'). But it's not the same scenario as what you are referring to. Here's the difference. Natural birth is an ancient concept that IS known to a Jewish audience. Therefore if Jesus was referring to natural birth, it wouldn't make sense for Him to use an unprecedented idiom to refer to it, causing needless confusion.

Whereas the NEW birth is somewhat fresh revelation. It isn't the sort of concept that every Jew would necessarily know about. Therefore we must allow for the possibility that the audience might misunderstand some aspects of it. We must allow for some degree of unfamiliarity with the content of fresh revelation.

Otherwise, how could God reveal to us any new information? You want to limit Jesus to repeating things that everyone around Him already fully knew about and fully understood? Really?

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you should read Exodus the pillar of fire and cloud did not change on their own.

Not sure why you assume that. Again, you seem to be taking the unusual position that the shekinah glory was not God. It would be pretty ridiculous for the OT to consistently refer to it as 'The glory of the Lord' if it were created substance. Again, why would He needlessly cultivate BOTH behavior AND language that fosters the worship of created substance? Ex 33:9 states.

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses.

That's from the KJV. Notice the words in bold italics - that's because they are absent from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew says:

The cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses.

An example of a scholar who confirms this fact is Ron B. Allen. Allen insisted on Ex 33:9 that the pillar spoke with Moses because "the cloud is Yahweh" (see Ronald B. Allen, “The Pillar of Cloud,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 153:612 (1996), p. 392, Galaxie Software).

This flies in the face of the Platonic assumption that a Person must be an immaterial mind, as well as your insinuations that the pillar of Cloud was UNABLE to transform itself into Fire.

 

[JAL]

You have no "hard" anything, nothing but your unsupported opinion. Show me that Jesus' audience understood it this way?

See post 251 as to what Jesus' audience should be expected to understand. You're confused on this.

No hard evidence? Unsupported? "Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" (John 20:22). The Wind/Breath of God's mouth was a clearly articulated theological category of the OT (Ex 15, Psalm 18).

There was a classical consensus (all of Christendom) that 'Receive the Holy Breath' was the literal rendering of John 20:22.

For anyone reading this thread.

I call it a consensus based on Thomas Oden's work. Oden dedicated his life to studying ancient scholarship, especially the ECFs (read about him on Wikipedia) and wrote a Systematic Theology documenting every major consensus in mainstream theology (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). His documentation on this passage is that the classical scholarship recognized the literal reading of the Greek to be 'Receive the Holy Breath' (as if we really need Thomas Oden to confim what is obvious from the text).

So where's your hard evidence for immaterialism? Even though you have NOTHING (except Plato), you'll deny that John 20:22 counts as hard evidence.


You ask if this blowing Wind can have 72 personality traits. (Again, only a Platonist would have doubts about it). But the FACT is that Jesus ascribed those 72 personality traits to a Third Person identified by Him as the Holy Breath.

So there's your answer as given to us in Scripture - you just don't much like what Scripture says.

No hard evidence? Unsupported? Meanwhile you have - nothing? What a joke.

 

[Der Alte]

You denied the evidence at John 3:8. (Oh that's right. I forgot. Since God's an imbecile of an instructor, He added the words "WANTS TO", not realizing that such signifies personality. Never occurred to Him).

And of course "the wind blows wherever it pleases," NIV, could not possibly be a figure of speech. Such as trees rejoicing Isa 14:8, trees and mountains skipping Psa 29:6 and Psa 114:4

So in your view, if the Jewish audience MIGHT have thought differently, it can't be true? This would mean, for example, that if Jesus made a statement about the atonement which the Jews surrounding Him didn't understand, the atonement cannot be true?

Nonsense, ignored.

I guess we have to reject the Trinity too, then, right? I mean, if any of the Jewish audience didn't understand the Father-Son concept, then we cannot rightly consider it to be an exegetical datum?

More nonsense, ignored.

What you're overlooking is that new Scripture often introduces new revelations. These revelations are true even if many of the Jews didn't understand them. With new revelations, we have to be open to the possibility that some readers wouldn't understand them.

Yes we have to be open to the possibility that some of the immediate audience would not understand "new revelation." But does that mean we have to wait 2000 years for "Andy Anonymous"on the internet to tell us what it really means?

I think you're confusing the issue of new revelation with the issue of unprecedented idioms. Example. Some people claim that 'born of water' at John 3:5 means 'born of womb' (natural birth). This is a problem because it's an unprecedented idiom (we have no record of anyone referring to natural birth as 'born of water').

If one ignores the fact that Jesus immediately, in the next vs., explained what He meant by born of water, born of spirit.

John 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.​

But it's not the same scenario as what you are referring to. Here's the difference. Natural birth is an ancient concept that IS known to a Jewish audience. Therefore if Jesus was referring to natural birth, it wouldn't make sense for Him to use an unprecedented idiom to refer to it, causing needless confusion.

After Jesus' explanation vs. 6 I don't think Jesus' audience was confused neither am I.

Whereas the NEW birth is somewhat fresh revelation. It isn't the sort of concept that every Jew would necessarily know about. Therefore we must allow for the possibility that the audience might misunderstand some aspects of it. We must allow for some degree of unfamiliarity with the content of fresh revelation.

See my explanation above.

Otherwise, how could God reveal to us any new information? You want to limit Jesus to repeating things that everyone around Him already fully knew about and fully understood? Really?

None of this really answers my questions. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Jews or the early Christians thought that "ruach" and "pneuma" always meant a blowing wind?
What does pneuma mean in this verse? Did Jesus' disciples think He was a "blowing wind" or a "spirit?" Would Jesus have to tell His disciples that a "blowing wind" does not have flesh and bones?

Luke 24:39
(39) Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost [πνεῦμα/pneuma] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."​

 

[JAL]

editing

 

[Der Alte]

begin

... Ex 33:9 states.
And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses.
That's from the KJV. Notice the words in bold italics - that's because they are absent from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew says:
The cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses.
An example of a scholar who confirms this fact is Ron B. Allen. Allen insisted on Ex 33:9 that the pillar spoke with Moses because "the cloud is Yahweh" (see Ronald B. Allen, “The Pillar of Cloud,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 153:612 (1996), p. 392, Galaxie Software).

end

God was not the pillars of fire or smoke.

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
Exodus 33:9-11
(9) As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses.
(10) Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent.
(11) The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.​

 

[rjs330]

Manifest? Yes I'm well aware that many immaterialists make that claim (I was the one who mentioned the Orthodox church a couple of times, if you recall) but it's gibberish. The mainstream definition of spirit is:
(1) No size and shape
(2) Indivisibility into parts (which is at odds with the Trinity).
(3) Intangible.
And then, when faced with the overwhelming biblical materialism contradicting the above points, they 'solve' it by claiming that God MANIFESTS materially.

They're trying to have it both ways - I already mentioned Millard J. Erickson who claims that, when God places an immaterial soul inside a human body, it suddenly becomes material!

They're trying to have it both ways and, in so doing, adding a scripturally unsupported fairy-tale (a figment of Plato's imagination) to biblical metaphysics.

The two are opposites. You might as well claim, 'God is 100% holy but He MANIFESTS as a sinner from time to time.'

Or again, "I ate half of my peanut-butter sandwich but unfortunately the other half MANIFESTED immaterial for a while. Later, when it manifested as matter again, I finished it off."

This is total nonsense. Look, I can't give you apodictic proofs of anything. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do is show you a more COGENT theological system than traditionalism. But if you prefer to believe total nonsense, that's your choice.

Total nonsense to you, but Biblical teaching contradicts your thoughts. You have limited God. That's why the Bible teaches us to lean not in your own understanding. That's why the Bible teaches that his ways are not our ways. You seem to be stuck in a thought process where God has to be in a box that you have full understanding and grasp of. Yet the Bible teaches us differently. God does not neatly fit into something you can fully grasp or understand. In fact Paul said right now we see through a glass darkly. We don't and can't fully understand. His ways and thoughts are not yours. You are demonstrating that intellectualism is extremly limited. It's not gibberish to me or to the millions of believers who grasp the fact that God is greater and there is none like Him. We have full understanding that His ways and ours are not the same. That's good to know that the God we worship is not like us. That's what the Greeks and most of those that worship other gods believe in.

Your "total nonsense" comment is proof positive of your limited understanding.

Honestly this idea is not NEARLY as false a doctrine as God becoming holy. THAT is the more serious of the two false doctrines you espouse.

 

[JAL]

And of course "the wind blows wherever it pleases," NIV, could not possibly be a figure of speech. Such as trees rejoicing Isa 14:8, trees and mountains skipping Psa 29:6 and Psa 114:4

Um...if you've read my metaphysics, those things quite likely will literally happen. I for one believe they will. All you're doing is confirming your Platonic bias! (Gee what a surprise).

Do you have any SCRIPTURE to support immaterialism? Anything but Platonic bias? Oh that's right. Your whole 'argument' consists of shifting an unreliazable gargantuan burden of proof onto MY shoulders, because YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

Nonsense, ignored....More nonsense, ignored.

Exactly. Your request was nonsense.

If one ignores the fact that Jesus immediately, in the next vs., explained what He meant by born of water, born of spirit.
John 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

This is your exegetically seamless way of reconciling faith-alone (vs 16) with born of water t verse 5? You're joking, right? Was Jesus trying to confuse us - on His primary discourse about salvation? Why mention water, if there is none? Just to confuse us? Again, is He an imbecile of a teacher?

Oh I get it. It's back to the Scripture-is-not-literal position. Only it's getting worse. NOW we have a hermenutic that takes the first half of a PHRASE to be metaphor, and the SECOND half to be literal. And this is supposedly a more cogent exegesis than mine? You're joking, right?

Even if I were to concede a considerable number of non-literal passages in Isaiah and Psalms, that's NOT going to happen for the gospels and epistles.

The only justification for taking gospels and epistles non-literally (aside from clear disclaimers in the text) is when your back is against the wall - when one can find no other alternative.

After Jesus' explanation vs. 6 I don't think Jesus' audience was confused neither am I.

Sure, if you're kidding yourself. When I became a Christian, I found this verse quite perplexing. I just couldn't figure out why Jesus, by mentioning water, would throw a wrench into a faith-alone formula. Until I became a materialist, I had no seamless reading of the verse.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Jews or the early Christians thought that "ruach" and "pneuma" always meant a blowing wind?

Is there any hard evidence that these terms EVER signified immateriality? But we've established that, right? Because if you had any hard evidence, you'd presented it by now. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. All you have is Platonic bias.

Again, you're asking for an apodictic. All I can do is tell you in which side of the fence that the OVERWHELMING majority of biblical evidence points to.

Fact: the term 'ruach' (same Hebrew word mistranslated Spirit of God by mainstream scholars) is recognized by ALL scholars to mean physical wind or breath at least 100 time in the OT. The only place where these scholars make an exception is for persons! How is that NOT Platonic bias?

Fact: That same Hebrew word is, according to Moses, the blast of Wind/Breath from God's nostrils that slowly parted the waters of the Red Sea over the course of an evening (Ex 15).

(39) Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost [πνεῦμα/pneuma] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

Who ever said angels have flesh - human cellular protoplasm and bones? Certainly not I? The pillar of Fire didn't have such either, so that's really not what's in debate here, right? Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, held that angels MUST be physical because the ruach/pneuma mean physical wind or breath. IN his article, he named about five ECFs who agree with him on this point (I can get you the list). He said this passage isn't an issue because everyone agrees that angels lack cellular protoplasm.

But forget the ECFs for a moment - let's just take Scripture on its own terms. First of all, Jesus appeared out of NOWHERE in that passage. No ordinary human being has that power - so OF COURSE the disciples were oriented toward a supernatural explanation. The imagination goes wild, in such a startled reaction.

Secondly, look at the dynmaics. Someone was standing in front of them with a clear physical shape, speaking to them. You don't see any problem here with immaterialism? (Sigh) Immaterialism claims that a spirit has no size and shape, invisible, intangible, etc. Is that what's going on here? Nope.

Thirdly, what does Scripture DOCUMENT about angels? No size and shape? Intangible? Immaterial? Take a look at Mat 28:2:

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."

How do you rollback a stone with immaterial hands? Nonsense. How do you then SIT upon that stone with an intangible body? Nonsense.


Immaterialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the biblical data. It's ALL about Plato.

None of this really answers my questions. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Jews or the early Christians thought that "ruach" and "pneuma" always meant a blowing wind?

Well it also meant breath, if that's what you're asking. The point is that there is zero BIBLICAL evidence that it connoted immateriality.

So again, what kind of instructor is God? An imbecile? He used a term that CONSISTENTLY DESIGNATES BREATH. Why not a different term, such as 'ghost'? Plato lived about 400 years before Christ so, by that time, there was plenty of immaterialistic vocabulary. Why point us to breath/wind if not literally true?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[JAL]

... Ex 33:9 states.
And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses.
That's from the KJV. Notice the words in bold italics - that's because they are absent from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew says:
The cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses.
An example of a scholar who confirms this fact is Ron B. Allen. Allen insisted on Ex 33:9 that the pillar spoke with Moses because "the cloud is Yahweh" (see Ronald B. Allen, “The Pillar of Cloud,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 153:612 (1996), p. 392, Galaxie Software).
God was not the pillars of fire or smoke.

Um yes he was:
"The cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses."

Your refutation is:
Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

But the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. An example will suffice. Jesus sits on a throne, according to Scripture, even flaming with fire (Dan 7:9-11). What is the throne? Created substance? I doubt it. In my personal opinion, it's the material divine Word. In the same way, when Jesus returns on the 'clouds of heaven' (or any other passage that refers to Him adorning Himself with clouds or garments such as Isaih 6), He's dressed in His own Shekina glory.

The human-shaped FIGURE that came down in the cloud was the Lord - but so was the cloud! Look at what the text says:


Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped.

Again, if the cloud was created substance, why have it there? Is God an imbecile of an instructor?. Was He TRYING to move His people to worship created matter?

 

[Der Alte]

Um...if you've read my metaphysics, those things quite likely will literally happen. I for one believe they will. All you're doing is confirming your Platonic bias! (Gee what a surprise).

This seems to be your patellar reflex response to almost anything I say. Endlessly repeating "Platonic bias""platonic bias" over and over does not make it so.

Do you have any SCRIPTURE to support immaterialism? Anything but Platonic bias? Oh that's right. Your whole 'argument' consists of shifting an unreliazable gargantuan burden of proof onto MY shoulders, because YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

What is all this nonsense, I have said nothing about immaterialism. In fact I said just the opposite.

Exactly. Your request was nonsense.
This is your exegetically seamless way of reconciling faith-alone (vs 16) with born of water t verse 5? You're joking, right? Was Jesus trying to confuse us - on His primary discourse about salvation? Why mention water, if there is none? Just to confuse us? Again, is He an imbecile of a teacher?

There is in fact water in born of flesh.

NIV John 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly [literally Amen, amen] I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.​

Vs. 5 speaks of two births, vs. 6 speaks of two births. Vs. 5 the first birth mentioned is "of water" the second birth is "of the spirit." Vs. 6 the first birth mentioned is "born of flesh. The second is identical to vs. 5 "born of the spirit." Why is born of the spirit mentioned twice but the first birth mentioned is different in the 2 verses? Or are they different. Where is the water? The unmistakeable indication that a human birth is imminent, is not the frequency of pains but when the "water breaks."

Oh I get it. It's back to the Scripture-is-not-literal position. Only it's getting worse. NOW we have a hermenutic that takes the first half of a PHRASE to be metaphor, and the SECOND half to be literal. And this is supposedly a more cogent exegesis than mine? You're joking, right?

There is an old adage about interpreting the Bible, "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." There are other occurrences in the Bible where a word is used in more than one sense.

Matthew 8:22
(22) But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."​

Can literally, physically dead people bury other literally, physically people? Or is one of these "dead" figurative?

Even if I were to concede a considerable number of non-literal passages in Isaiah and Psalms, that's NOT going to happen for the gospels and epistles.

I thank you for this wrong opinion see e.g. Matt 8:22, above, Mar 3:17, Luk 12;32, Mat 4;10 to name a few.

The only justification for taking gospels and epistles non-literally (aside from clear disclaimers in the text) is when your back is against the wall - when one can find no other alternative.

Addressed above.

Sure, if you're kidding yourself. When I became a Christian, I found this verse quite perplexing. I just couldn't figure out why Jesus, by mentioning water, would throw a wrench into a faith-alone formula. Until I became a materialist, I had no seamless reading of the verse.

See above.

Is there any hard evidence that these terms EVER signified immateriality? But we've established that, right? Because if you had any hard evidence, you'd presented it by now. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. All you have is Platonic bias.

More phony accusations of Platonic bias. What in the world are you rambling about? I haven't said anything which could be remotely interpreted as "immaterialism."

Again, you're asking for an apodictic. All I can do is tell you in which side of the fence that the OVERWHELMING majority of biblical evidence points to.

More logical fallacy, a vague reference to "the overwhelming majority." "everybody knows."it's a known fact" etc.

Fact: the term 'ruach' (same Hebrew word mistranslated Spirit of God by mainstream scholars) is recognized by ALL scholars to mean physical wind or breath at least 100 time in the OT. The only place where these scholars make an exception is for persons! How is that NOT Platonic bias?

Have you actually studied this? In the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation "ruach" is translated spirit 218 times. Do you suppose the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who translated the JPS had "Platonic bias" also?

Fact: That same Hebrew word is, according to Moses, the blast of Wind/Breath from God's nostrils that slowly parted the waters of the Red Sea over the course of an evening (Ex 15).

See above.

Who ever said angels have flesh - human cellular protoplasm and bones? Certainly not I? The pillar of Fire didn't have such either, so that's really not what's in debate here, right? Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, held that angels MUST be physical because the ruach/pneuma mean physical wind or breath. IN his article, he named about five ECFs who agree with him on this point (I can get you the list). He said this passage isn't an issue because everyone agrees that angels lack cellular protoplasm.

What is all this gibberish about? I have not said anything about angels.

But forget the ECFs for a moment - let's just take Scripture on its own terms. First of all, Jesus appeared out of NOWHERE in that passage. No ordinary human being has that power - so OF COURSE the disciples were oriented toward a supernatural explanation. The imagination goes wild, in such a startled reaction.

And you point is? I said nothing different.

Secondly, look at the dynmaics. Someone was standing in front of them with a clear physical shape, speaking to them. You don't see any problem here with immaterialism? (Sigh) Immaterialism claims that a spirit has no size and shape, invisible, intangible, etc. Is that what's going on here? Nope.

More gibberish I have said nothing about immaterialism. Are you even reading my posts?

Thirdly, what does Scripture DOCUMENT about angels? No size and shape? Intangible? Immaterial? Take a look at Mat 28:2:
"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."
How do you rollback a stone with immaterial hands? Nonsense. How do you then SIT upon that stone with an intangible body? Nonsense.

Irrelevant I have never mentioned angels.

Immaterialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the biblical data. It's ALL about Plato.
Well it also meant breath, if that's what you're asking. The point is that there is zero BIBLICAL evidence that it connoted immateriality.
So again, what kind of instructor is God? An imbecile? He used a term that CONSISTENTLY DESIGNATES BREATH. Why not a different term, such as 'ghost'? Plato lived about 400 years before Christ so, by that time, there was plenty of immaterialistic vocabulary. Why point us to breath/wind if not literally true?

Irrelevant. Logical fallacy, begging the question.