Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[Der Alte]

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:

I have always found it to be helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond.
Read everything I quoted.
God was not the pillars of fire or smoke, God was in the pillar of smoke and fire..

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.​

This doesn't say the pillars would speak to Moses. Vs. 10 does not say the people worshiped the pillar of cloud.

begin

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.

end

Here I have highlighted the problem, your "personal opinion."

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.

Read the next verse also. "The LORD" not the pillar of smoke and fire "would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend."

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?

Once again your unsupported "personal opinion."

 

[JAL]

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.

Ok would you prefer immaterialistic bias?

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."

I didn't realize that "born of womb" is where you were headed but oddly I addressed it by pure coincidence. Unprecedented idiom. There is no historical precedent for 'born of water' as an idiom for natural birth. Unacceptable. Even if we were to plummet into the absolute hermeneutical chaos of unprecedented idoms, it isn't seamless - how could Jesus expect Nicodemus, much less a larger Jewish audience, to fathom an unprecedented idiom? Little wonder that Linda Belleville considered this reading purse nonsense. She is quite correct.

Of course, if you didn't carefully read my earlier comments on unprecedented idioms, you'll now accuse me of contradicting myself on taking a Jewish audience into consideration.

Curious to what is your stance on the single-versus-double preposition issue on John 3:5? I mean, at least in the opinion of Linda Belleville and Herman Hoyt, this Greek construct explains why the early church fathers unanimously held to salvific water baptism on this verse - and why they would not have entertained your reading even for half a second. Any comments on that? Or do you just manipulate the Greek whenever it's convenient for you?

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?

Still trying to discredit the literacy of the epistles. Lovely. Again, if your BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL - when there's no other possible interpretation that we can find - then sure, I'm willing to consider the figurativee. But I don't see this verse as necessarily figurative. Take me for example. I don't CARE if they bury me when I'm dead. It's not top priority. If, in Jesus' mind, it was not top priority, He may have DELIBERATELY articulated an impossible hypothetical. Picture the response, "But Jesus, the dead CANNOT bury the dead!" "Exactly my point. It's my way of saying it's not important."

Look, I'm not going to sit here and debate the literacy of every verse of the NT with you. The gospels and epistle are about 99% literal as far as I can see. If there's a verse in contention (Mat 8:22 is NOT) between us - and your back is against the wall becuase you can see no other possible interpretation - then we can discuss it.

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.

More examples of metaphors? I disagree with the first two for sure, and the last one, for reasons stated (you seem bent on sidetracking this conversation). Haven't given much thought to the third one, maybe there's some non-literacy there.

But here's what you don't seem to understand. There are probably zero - or precious few - valid metaphors for a material God. Clear? No? Here's why. He assumes all known material forms - that's part of His job by permeating all the universe - every material object - to monitor everything that transpires.

Is He therefore Wind? Yes. Is He a Vine? Yes - see John 15. Flowers, trees, animals, insects - He assumes ALL these shapes. Hence to claim that Breath/Wind is a metaphor for a material God isn't terribly convincing. It's almost as bad as using 'human' as a metaphor for you. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no Life in you." Metaphor? Hardly. In a material metaphysics where the divine Word is metamorphic/shapeshifting, these kinds of dynamics are unavoidable.

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

You were discussing Luke 24:39. The same Greek and Hebrew words used for divine Breath/Wind, and the human soul, are used for angels. When the context seems to rule out God, humans, and inanimate breath/wind, it usually seems to default to angels. In other words (and I thought this was clear), Jesus was saying, "Angels don't have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

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

Ok what have I missed here. Is God's substance tangible, or intangible? (My understanding of the term 'material' is, first and foremost, tangible substance of any kind). I mean, if He's tangible, why are you so opposed to the third Person as physical Breath/Wind? Why do you keep insisting that a Breath/Wind cannot have personality traits? Can anyone make sense of this?

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?

You darned well better believe I would accuse them in a heartbeat. Platonic influence is insidious. I remember talking to a Jewish guy about the face of God and the Light of His countenance and he looked at me like I was insane. He had no inkling of anything real or relevant regarding the Light shining in Moses' face after coming down the mountain.

Irrelevant. Logical fallacy, begging the question.

Labeling something doesn't make it so. I don't see any rationale here for this response.

 

[JAL]

I have always found it to be helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond.
Read everything I quoted.
God was not the pillars of fire or smoke, God was in the pillar of smoke and fire..

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.​

This doesn't say the pillars would speak to Moses. Vs. 10 does not say the people worshiped the pillar of cloud.
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.
Here I have highlighted the problem, your "personal opinion."

It's funny that you accuse me of failing to read your post, and then exihibit total misunderstanding of mine. Did you not read the words 'An example will suffice'? It was a hypothetical designed to expose your false dichotomy. I even took the time to belabor the point, subsequently, and you missed that part too! (If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...).
Let's try this again. YOU'RE saying that these two concepts are mutually exclusive:
(1) The Lord was in the Cloud.
(2) The Lord IS the Cloud.
Interesting. Would you likewise regard THESE two concepts as mutually exclusive?
(1) The Word was God (Jn 1:1);
(2) The Word was WITH God (Jn 1:1).
From the standpoint of a material metaphysics, your conclusion is absurd. I tried to illustrate that by pointing out that it's no contradiction, in such a metaphysics, to say:
(1) The Son of a God sits on a throne, at the right hand of God.
(2) The Son of God IS that throne.
and by that same token:
(1) The Lord came down in the Cloud.
(2) The Lord IS the Cloud.

It's a question of emphasis. When Scripture wants to emphasize the human-shaped FIGURE that spoke face to face with Moses, it says that the Lord was IN the Cloud. Whereas, when it's simply alluding to the divine Presence in a GENERAL sense, the writers felt freedom to limit the rubric to 'The Cloud' or the 'The Pillar' or 'The glory of the Lord.' Clear?

Read the next verse also. "The LORD" not the pillar of smoke and fire "would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend."

(Sigh). Again, not mutually exclusive.

Once again your unsupported "personal opinion."

Unsupported? I'm still waiting for you to provide a single verse manifesting hard evidence for immaterialism - or whatever you call your depersonalization-of-matter view.

 

[rjs330]

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?

You continue to astound me in your stubborn refusal to adhere to scripture on this matter. Jesus said God was Spirit. Jesus also told us that sprits do not have material. Take a look at what he told his disciples. Paul declairs that God is invisible. Jesus says no one has seen God.

So once again you struggle with grasping the truth of God. He is an invisible immaterial eternal God with POWER beyond your comprehension which allows him to manifest himself in any way he chooses. This is clear in scripture as you have noted in Exodus as well as other places. God appears in dreams in Genesis. He can do wonders beyond imagining. Yet Yeu want to put him in your box. A box your limited mind can fully grasp. Yet his ways are not your ways.

You still haven't shown by scriptures by the way your ungodly teaching that God became holy.

 

[Der Alte]

Ok would you prefer immaterialistic bias?

Neither one because you have provided no, zero, none evidence that I have demonstrated either.

I didn't realize that "born of womb" is where you were headed but oddly I addressed it by pure coincidence. Unprecedented idiom. There is no historical precedent for 'born of water' as an idiom for natural birth. Unacceptable. Even if we were to plummet into the absolute hermeneutical chaos of unprecedented idoms, it isn't seamless - how could Jesus expect Nicodemus, much less a larger Jewish audience, to fathom an unprecedented idiom? Little wonder that Linda Belleville considered this reading purse nonsense. She is quite correct.

I don't know who Linda Belleville is or what her qualifications are. When Jesus said "born of water," He had not yet instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. There is no hint of birth in John's baptism of repentance. So there is no precedent for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to baptism.
.....Second Christian baptism compares to death and resurrection not birth

Romans 6:3
(3) Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4
(4) We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.​

Of course, if you didn't carefully read my earlier comments on unprecedented idioms, you'll now accuse me of contradicting myself on taking a Jewish audience into consideration.

Let me know when your "study" has been peer reviewed by competent scholars.

Curious to what is your stance on the single-versus-double preposition issue on John 3:5? I mean, at least in the opinion of Linda Belleville and Herman Hoyt, this Greek construct explains why the early church fathers unanimously held to salvific water baptism on this verse - and why they would not have entertained your reading even for half a second. Any comments on that? Or do you just manipulate the Greek whenever it's convenient for you?

I don't know who Linda Belleville and Herman Hoyt are, what their qualifications are or what they said. Thinking that "born of water" refers to baptism is anachronistic because Jesus had not yet instituted Christian baptism.

Still trying to discredit the literacy of the epistles. Lovely. Again, if your BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL - when there's no other possible interpretation that we can find - then sure, I'm willing to consider the figurativee. But I don't see this verse as necessarily figurative. Take me for example. I don't CARE if they bury me when I'm dead. It's not top priority. If, in Jesus' mind, it was not top priority, He may have DELIBERATELY articulated an impossible hypothetical. Picture the response, "But Jesus, the dead CANNOT bury the dead!" "Exactly my point. It's my way of saying it's not important."

This is the "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" response. The young man wanted to bury his dead father, as required by Jewish law, and you have Jesus blowing him off.

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book III
ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
They who sing thus, and sing in response, are those who before hymned immortality,-found at last wicked and wickedly singing this most pernicious palinode, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." But not to-morrow in truth, but already, are these dead to God; burying their dead,[153]​

Look, I'm not going to sit here and debate the literacy of every verse of the NT with you. The gospels and epistle are about 99% literal as far as I can see. If there's a verse in contention (Mat 8:22 is NOT) between us - and your back is against the wall becuase you can see no other possible interpretation - then we can discuss it.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion.

More examples of metaphors? I disagree with the first two for sure, and the last one, for reasons stated (you seem bent on sidetracking this conversation). Haven't given much thought to the third one, maybe there's some non-literacy there.

Not much interested in what you disagree with. Can you refute anything?

But here's what you don't seem to understand. There are probably zero - or precious few - valid metaphors for a material God. Clear? No? Here's why. He assumes all known material forms - that's part of His job by permeating all the universe - every material object - to monitor everything that transpires.
Is He therefore Wind? Yes. Is He a Vine? Yes - see John 15. Flowers, trees, animals, insects - He assumes ALL these shapes. Hence to claim that Breath/Wind is a metaphor for a material God isn't terribly convincing. It's almost as bad as using 'human' as a metaphor for you. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no Life in you." Metaphor? Hardly. In a material metaphysics where the divine Word is metamorphic/shapeshifting, these kinds of dynamics are unavoidable.

Incomprehensible nonsense.

You were discussing Luke 24:39. The same Greek and Hebrew words used for divine Breath/Wind, and the human soul, are used for angels. When the context seems to rule out God, humans, and inanimate breath/wind, it usually seems to default to angels. In other words (and I thought this was clear), Jesus was saying, "Angels don't have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Jesus used the words αγγελος/aggelos/angel and πνευμα/pneuma/spirit many times. I cannot find one instance where aggelos is not translated angel and pneuma is not translated spirit or ghost. When Jesus meant angel He said "aggelos" when He meant spirit He said "pneuma."

Ok what have I missed here. Is God's substance tangible, or intangible? (My understanding of the term 'material' is, first and foremost, tangible substance of any kind). I mean, if He's tangible, why are you so opposed to the third Person as physical Breath/Wind? Why do you keep insisting that a Breath/Wind cannot have personality traits? Can anyone make sense of this?

I don't think I have been discussing God's substance. I have been around a lot of wind in the several decades since FDR was president. I have never known the wind to have personal attributes. I have not had any experience with spirits.

You darned well better believe I would accuse them in a heartbeat. Platonic influence is insidious. I remember talking to a Jewish guy about the face of God and the Light of His countenance and he looked at me like I was insane. He had no inkling of anything real or relevant regarding the Light shining in Moses' face after coming down the mountain.

One Jewish guy does not a consensus make.

Labeling something doesn't make it so. I don't see any rationale here for this response.

Pity. You do know the meaning of "begging the question" don't you?

 

[Der Alte]

begin

It's funny that you accuse me of failing to read your post, and then exihibit total misunderstanding of mine. Did you not read the words 'An example will suffice'? It was a hypothetical designed to expose your false dichotomy. I even took the time to belabor the point, subsequently, and you missed that part too! (If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...).
Let's try this again. YOU'RE saying that these two concepts are mutually exclusive:
(1) The Lord was in the Cloud.
(2) The Lord IS the Cloud.
Interesting. Would you likewise regard THESE two concepts as mutually exclusive?
(1) The Word was God (Jn 1:1);
(2) The Word was WITH God (Jn 1:1).
From the standpoint of a material metaphysics, your conclusion is absurd. I tried to illustrate that by pointing out that it's no contradiction, in such a metaphysics, to say:
(1) The Son of a God sits on a throne, at the right hand of God.
(2) The Son of God IS that throne.
and by that same token:
(1) The Lord came down in the Cloud.
(2) The Lord IS the Cloud.
It's a question of emphasis. When Scripture wants to emphasize the human-shaped FIGURE that spoke face to face with Moses, it says that the Lord was IN the Cloud. Whereas, when it's simply alluding to the divine Presence in a GENERAL sense, the writers felt freedom to limit the rubric to 'The Cloud' or the 'The Pillar' or 'The glory of the Lord.' Clear?

end

A lot of unsupported opinion calculated to make scripture fit one's assumptions/presuppositions.
In John 1:1 the word translated "with" is "pros" not "meta" the Greek word for "with."

• With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT, Robertson taught graduate level for 47 years , wrote more than 40 books on Greek and the NT including a 1200 page grammar.​

• The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jo_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the NT​

(Sigh). Again, not mutually exclusive.
Unsupported? I'm still waiting for you to provide a single verse manifesting hard evidence for immaterialism - or whatever you call your depersonalization-of-matter view.

Sigh! Again unsupported assumption. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single verse manifesting hard evidence for materialism - or whatever you call your personalization-of-matter view?

 

[JAL]

Sigh! Again unsupported assumption. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single verse manifesting hard evidence for materialism - or whatever you call your personalization-of-matter view?

I try not to jump to the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty - but you're making it REALLY hard. ON this thread I've posted probably 10-15 verses with hard evidence of materialism. Unless you mean APODICTIC evidence, which I myself deny is even possible. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do is demonstrate which metaphysics most plausibly conforms to the verses.

Here's a few examples of verses already cited.

"Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath' (John 20:22). Physical expulsion of breath/wind, identified as the Third Person, is about as hard a piece of evidence as it gets. And if you try to maintain that it was NOT the Third Person - that it was some kind of metaphor - you undermine Trinitarianism. Why so? Because if it is acceptable to read 'The Holy Pneuma' as a metaphor for something ELSE (for example as a metaphor for the other two members of the Godehead), then there is no longer any need for a Trinitarian reading of the NT. Lovely.

It would take INCREDIBLE philosphical ingenuity (read here Platonic bias) to deduce anything but physical Wind/Breath at John 20:22.

Mat 28:2, 'The angel rolled the stone away from Christ's tomb and SAT ON IT." This flies in the face of immaterialism. How did He roll it away? With intangible hands? Historic immaterialism views angels as devoid of size, shape, tangibility, but this passage contradicts it. Even if you try to argue that God clothed the angel with a body temporarily, you're still left with the mind-body problem unsolved for 2,000 years - how can an immaterial soul impel a material body this way and that.

IN other words, to accept immaterialism, I not only have to run counter to hard biblical evidence, I have to be willing to embrace LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. And you have the gall to sit here and suggest that I have provided zero hard evidence for materialism? Put yourself in my shoes. How am I NOT supposed to view your assessment as bald intellectual dishonesty?

Third example. Moses put a physical veil over his face to restrain the Light of the shekina glory. (Or are you still insinuating that the 'The glory of the Lord' is not God Himself?). A physical veil could not possibly restrain an intangible Light. That would, again, be a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBIITY.

So after 10-15 examples of that magnitude on this thread - not to mention several (ADDITIONAL) unrefuted arguments that materialism is more plausible even on a common-sense philosophical basis - you really have the gall to tell me I've provided - nothing? How am I NOT supposed to view this as intellectual dishonesty? What am I missing here?

Ok tell me what in your mind what constitute hard evidence of materialism - and make sure that you've met an equal burden of proof for immaterialism. Because I'm still waiting for even one verse from you, something more than regurgitating 2,000 years of bias.

I'm out of time right now.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

I try not to jump to the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty - but you're making it REALLY hard. ON this thread I've posted probably 10-15 verses with hard evidence of materialism. Unless you mean APODICTIC evidence, which I myself deny is even possible. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do is demonstrate which metaphysics most plausibly conforms to the verses.
Here's a few examples of verses already cited.
"Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath' (John 20:22). Physical expulsion of breath/wind, identified as the Third Person, is about as hard a piece of evidence as it gets. And if you try to maintain that it was NOT the Third Person - that it was some kind of metaphor - you undermine Trinitarianism. Why so? Because if it is acceptable to read 'The Holy Pneuma' as a metaphor for something ELSE (for example as a metaphor for the other two members of the Godehead), then there is no longer any need for a Trinitarian reading of the NT. Lovely.
It would take INCREDIBLE philosphical ingenuity (read here Platonic bias) to deduce anything but physical Wind/Breath at John 20:22.

end

Did Jesus say that His breath was the πνευμα αγιον/pneuma agion, i.e. holy spirit or that it conveyed the holy spirit? Or was His breathing on just a visible sign which accompanied the conveying of the holy spirit? See e.g. when Jesus healed the blind man, he spit, made mud and rubbed it on the blind man's eyes. Neither the spit nor the mud had any healing properties. When Jesus turned the water into wine neither the water nor the jugs had any powers, just a visible sign. When Jesus healed many people by laying His hands on them. The laying on of hands was just a visible sign, Jesus could have just spoken and healed. Matt 8:16, Mark 1:32, Luke 4:40

Mat 28:2, 'The angel rolled the stone away from Christ's tomb and SAT ON IT." This flies in the face of immaterialism. How did He roll it away? With intangible hands? Historic immaterialism views angels as devoid of size, shape, tangibility, but this passage contradicts it. Even if you try to argue that God clothed the angel with a body temporarily, you're still left with the mind-body problem unsolved for 2,000 years - how can an immaterial soul impel a material body this way and that.

I'm still not talking about angels. The Greek word for angel is αγγελος/aggelos, and the Greek word for spirit is πνευμα/pneuma. When spirit is meant the writer writes "pneuma". When angels are meant the writer writes "aggelos."

IN other words, to accept immaterialism, I not only have to run counter to hard biblical evidence, I have to be willing to embrace LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. And you have the gall to sit here and suggest that I have provided zero hard evidence for materialism? Put yourself in my shoes. How am I NOT supposed to view your assessment as bald intellectual dishonesty?

You have provided no, zero, none evidence that I am or have been discussing "immaterialism" or "angels."

Third example. Moses put a physical veil over his face to restrain the Light of the shekina glory. (Or are you still insinuating that the 'The glory of the Lord' is not God Himself?). A physical veil could not possibly restrain an intangible Light. That would, again, be a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBIITY

Exo 34 does not mention "shekinah glory." In fact the word "shekinah" does not occur anywhere in the OT. The word "glory" does not occur in Exo 34 where Moses face shone and he placed a veil on it..

So after 10-15 examples of that magnitude on this thread - not to mention several (ADDITIONAL) unrefuted arguments that materialism is more plausible even on a common-sense philosophical basis - you really have the gall to tell me I've provided - nothing? How am I NOT supposed to view this as intellectual dishonesty? What am I missing here?

What you are missing is the fact that I have not been discussing materialism, nor have I been discussing angels.

Ok tell me what in your mind what constitute hard evidence of materialism - and make sure that you've met an equal burden of proof for immaterialism. Because I'm still waiting for even one verse from you, something more than regurgitating 2,000 years of bias.
I'm out of time right now.

That is the second or third time you have referred to my posts as "regurgitating." Since all you can do is spew insults I'll just ignore you from now on.

 

[JAL]

I'm still not talking about angels. The Greek word for angel is αγγελος/aggelos, and the Greek word for spirit is πνευμα/pneuma. When spirit is meant the writer writes "pneuma". When angels are meant the writer writes "aggelos."

(Sigh). Obviously it doesn't MATTER terribly much whether angels were the focus of YOUR posts. MY posts, including the posts about angels, were about hard evidence for materialism - posts which you disputed. When you ignore such hard evidence presented to you, and just keep replying 'Angels weren't my point', it looks evasive.

You have provided no, zero, none evidence that I am or have been discussing "immaterialism" or "angels."

You've been disputing my materialism for a huge number of posts. This now begins to look like a semantic game of hiding behind the different possible nuances of 'immaterialism' such as monistic immaterialism versus dualistic immaterialism. That would be silly, as I never accused you or anyone else on this forum of denying the existence of matter. The topics in debate here were clear enough, at least by the end of post #5.

So perhaps you're playing the game of linguistic camouflage (similar to the moving-target game). Linguistic camouflage (as I call it) IS PROVIDING NO TARGET AT ALL (i.e. being deliberately nebulous as to what position is taken so that no one can charge him with contradiction).

Exo 34 does not mention "shekinah glory." In fact the word "shekinah" does not occur anywhere in the OT. The word "glory" does not occur in Exo 34 where Moses face shone and he placed a veil on it..

More semantics. The manifestations of the glory of the Lord bear consistent patterns throughout the OT. Hasn't changed in the NT either. Note where 2cor 3 and 4 associate the glory in Moses' face with the glory of the Lord.

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was,will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?...And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the [Pneuma]."

The word transformed there is 'metamorphoo' (metamorphic) even though you tried to laugh off my claim that God is metamorphic/shapeshifting. More importantly, it is the same word for Chrst's transfiguration into radiant Light and beckons us to the same. Paul's discussion of God's radiant Glory continues into chapter 4 where he says, "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." (Sidenote. Ever seen an immaterial face radiate Light-particles? I haven't).

The glorious Light of Christ's face - which shone into Moses' face - is thus part of the glory of the Lord, flatly contradicting your silly insinuations to the contrary. In this passage (as all the Bibles note in the margin), Paul is citing Genesis 1 'Let there be light' which, as I already argued, was Christ's face shining out into the darkness of outer space. Here Paul confirms it.

And Paul himself could attest to the Light's physicality. When that Light shined into his eyes on the road to Damascus, it seared his optic nerves, blinding him for three days. Acts documents that physical scales formed in his eyes, and then fell off onto the ground at the time of miraculous healing. And that's not the only example. I provided several OTHER examples of the physicality of this Light as documented in the gospels and Acts.


All I've seen so far (well I haven't read all of today's posts) is hand-waving. I provide hard physical evidence, and then you resort to random hand-waving to deny it without any convincing rationale - and all the while claiming that I don't have a single verse to support my view!

Worse yet, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof on me. I don't get it. Why is the burden of proof on me? Look around you. For 6,000 years human beings including yourself witnessed material objects every day. There are probably THOUSANDS OF VERSES in the Bible confirming the reality and existence of material objects. Now let's weigh this against the theory of immaterial substance.
(1) No empirical verifiability.
(2) Not even one somewhat-unambiguous scriptural reference to it.
(3) We can't even be sure it's logically possible for scripture to provide hard evidence for such a nebulous concept.
(4) We can't even be sure it's a logically coherent concept. A substance without - substance? This isn't madness?
(5) It's beset with logistics problems. How can God even push a pencil if His hands are intangible? And it leaves the mind-body problem insoluble - where it has remained for the last 2,000 years. Charles Hodge admitted he had no solution.

Given how dubious such a claim is, the burden of proof belongs to the immaterialist.

That is the second or third time you have referred to my posts as "regurgitating." Since all you can do is spew insults I'll just ignore you from now on.

Insults? I'm afraid that sword cuts both ways. At this point it should be obvious to any reader that you're backing out because you can't find a single verse to support the concept of non-material souls.

 

[JAL]

You continue to astound me in your stubborn refusal to adhere to scripture on this matter. Jesus said God was Spirit. Jesus also told us that sprits do not have material. Take a look at what he told his disciples. Paul declairs that God is invisible. Jesus says no one has seen God.

So once again you struggle with grasping the truth of God. He is an invisible immaterial eternal God with POWER beyond your comprehension which allows him to manifest himself in any way he chooses. This is clear in scripture as you have noted in Exodus as well as other places. God appears in dreams in Genesis. He can do wonders beyond imagining. Yet Yeu want to put him in your box. A box your limited mind can fully grasp. Yet his ways are not your ways.

You still haven't shown by scriptures by the way your ungodly teaching that God became holy.

(Sigh). Spirit is an English translation - it's not the original Greek or Hebrew word - and it flies in the face of the contextual evidence for Wind/Breath as the superior translation.

 

[JAL]

I asked, "Ok would you prefer immaterialistic bias?"

Neither one because you have provided no, zero, none evidence that I have demonstrated either.

Yep. Sure looks like linguistic camouflage to me. You debate against my materialism but mean while disavow immaterialism and don't bother to clarify where you stand! The irony of it all is that there only seems to be two options, given that the following two concepts seem to have diamaterically opposed, mutually exclusive definition.
(1) Souls are material
(2) Souls are immaterial
So where is the middle ground? And where is the room for linguistic camouflage? I don't see it.

I don't know who Linda Belleville is or what her qualifications are. When Jesus said "born of water," He had not yet instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. There is no hint of birth in John's baptism of repentance. So there is no precedent for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to baptism.
.....Second Christian baptism compares to death and resurrection not birth
Romans 6:3
(3) Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4
(4) We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

First, this response really misses the force of the single-preposition claim. Let's see if you address it down below.

Secondly, we're back to the notion of, Jesus wouldn't dare say anything that his audience didn't already know and understand. I covered this. Jesus understood the OT by revelation from the Father. Nicodemus SHOULD have been mature in revelation (shouldn't we all?) but he wasn't.

When Jesus spoke of men eating His flesh and blood, did the crowds understand Him?

With NEW revelation, unprecedented idioms are permissible (which refutes your whole response). Unprecedented idioms are NOT acceptable for old concepts (such as natural birth - which is a second refutation of your position). "Born of water" is not an acceptable idiom for natural birth, therefore, which refutes your stance here.

Let me know when your "study" has been peer reviewed by competent scholars.

I don't know who Linda Belleville and Herman Hoyt are, what their qualifications are or what they said. Thinking that "born of water" refers to baptism is anachronistic because Jesus had not yet instituted Christian baptism.

Um...I WAS citing competent scholars. Ones who found and run evangelical seminaries, publish commentaries, and contribute articles to peer-reviewed journals.

I try not to make a habit of quoting incompetent scholars.

This is the "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" response. The young man wanted to bury his dead father, as required by Jewish law, and you have Jesus blowing him off.
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book III
ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
They who sing thus, and sing in response, are those who before hymned immortality,-found at last wicked and wickedly singing this most pernicious palinode, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." But not to-morrow in truth, but already, are these dead to God; burying their dead,[153]

No actually it was the I-dont-see-why-this-verse-is-crucial-to-materialism response.

Incomprehensible nonsense.

More hand-waving. I speak of simplistic material concepts, that anyone with a high-school education could be expected to understand and, because you have no refutation, you respond with 'Incomprehensible nonsense'. How convenient.

 

[JAL]

Jesus used the words αγγελος/aggelos/angel and πνευμα/pneuma/spirit many times. I cannot find one instance where aggelos is not translated angel and pneuma is not translated spirit or ghost. When Jesus meant angel He said "aggelos" when He meant spirit He said "pneuma."

Ok just to understand you better, is an angel NOT a spirit/pneuma in your view? (I don't know why we're still debating this point). Look at Hebrews 1:7:

καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα·

"In regard to angels [ἀγγέλους], he says, "God makes his angels winds [pneuma], and his servants flames of fire."

A significant number of MAINSTREAM BIBLES translate this verse with 'winds' and 'fire'. This is a very physical verse. I'm sure you'll just dismiss this verse with more hand-waving. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for even one verse from you.

I don't think I have been discussing God's substance. I have been around a lot of wind in the several decades since FDR was president. I have never known the wind to have personal attributes. I have not had any experience with spirits.

But ordinary wind isn't in dispute, here, is it? Oh I see,this is the 'something can't be true unless I have empirical or scientific proof' position - but you have NONE of that for immaterialism.

Let's consider what you just did. Regardless of what Scripture says, you made an argument BASED ON EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE.

Fine. Do we have empirical evidence for materialism? Absolutely. The mind-body problem.

I can give you any number of examples deminstrating that thought is a material process. Until I reached puberty, for example, I didn't give much thought to girls. Hormones impact the mind/thoughts, changing the CONTENT of its subject matter. Here's some more examples.

If someone wanted you to fail a math test, they could spike your food with drugs, or damage your brain in some way.

Or suppose I just want to inject my thoughts into your mind (I want you to know what I'm thinking). How do I do it? With matter. I open my mouth and blow breath/wind/air toward you.

Suppose your emotions are spinning out of control. How to fix it? Likely a doctor will provide you some medication. Thus the mind can be brought under control by material substance (admittedly not as effective as God's physical hands but I think you get the point).

In a nutshell, we have 6,000 years of every-day empirical verification that thought is a physical process, that a mind/soul is a physical substance - and what's your response to all this proof? "Well a wind blew me on the other day and I'm pretty sure it had no personality therefore material/minds souls cannot be a valid concept." Mere hand-waving.

For 2,000 years, mainstream theologians have been telling us that it is humanly impossible to understand how God effects the new birth - and all the while the obvious answer was staring them in the face. Matter. Material processes. With matter, God can easily influence and control your emotions, your passions, even your theological beliefs - pretty much anything He wants to do. And we have empirical every-day proof to back up this conclusion.

Meanwhile immaterialism contributes - nothing. It explains nothing, clarifies nothing, elucidates nothing. It only serves to increase the number of unresolved contradictions in our theology.

 

[JAL]

A lot of unsupported opinion calculated to make scripture fit one's assumptions/presuppositions.

The argument based on:
(1) The Word was God
(2) The Word was WITH God
was intuitively self-evident. It's basically a tautology in the sense of being an inescapable corollary of material metaphysics. I don't need Scripture to validate a tautology - I merely provided that verse as the icing on the cake.

But nonetheless let's try to hear you out as to why the word 'WITH' here doesn't support my position.

In John 1:1 the word translated "with" is "pros" not "meta" the Greek word for "with."

• With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.
​

How does that not confirm what I wrote? I claimed that the pillar of Cloud can both be the Lord and WITH the Lord due to the dynamics of material metaphysics. You just argued for a fellowship of God. You then continue with more of the same;

In 1Jo_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT, Robertson taught graduate level for 47 years , wrote more than 40 books on Greek and the NT including a 1200 page grammar.​

• The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jo_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the NT
​

So yes. The Word was God, and the Word was With God. This is no different than my claiming that the Cloud was the Lord, and the Cloud was With the Lord. Or as the verses might put it, "The Lord came down in the Cloud."

I must have missed your point here - sorry about that - honestly. Because from what I can see, you defended my conclusion. ​

 

[Jair Crawford]

Question for the OP, why can't it mean both at the same time? Can the Third Person not manifest as a Wind and a Spirit? After all, this is God we are talking about.

 

[JAL]

Funny you accused me of begging the question.

Did Jesus say that His breath was the πνευμα αγιον/pneuma agion, i.e. holy spirit or that it conveyed the holy spirit?

This isn't begging the question? We are to ASSUME that this Engilish word 'Spirit' (meaning immaterial substance) is the proper rendering despite the physical, empirically witnessed (AND documented) breath/wind exuding from his nostrils? Why should we assume that? Because of 2,000 years of Platonic brainwashing?

Or was His breathing on just a visible sign which accompanied the conveying of the holy spirit?

Nice. God is such an imbecile of a teacher that He would behave in a way that might NEEDLESSLY lead us to idolize material substance.

The main issue here is not whether it's possible for wind to be a sign. (Sigh) The main issue is this. We cannot beg the question. We cannot just march in here with some Platonic bias about Spirit. As translators, we have to try to let GOD HIMSELF convey to us, from the context, whether His AUTHORIAL INTENT, when using the title 'The Holy Penuma', was to convey:
(1) That the third Person is an immaterial spirit/ghost.
(2) That the third Person is a material breath/wind.
Again, is God an imbecile? Or is He trying to mislead us? Based on the context, the ONLY viable translation is 'Receive the Holy Breath'.

If Jesus wanted to convey to His people #1, then His behavior was about the dumbest I've ever seen.

Here's the point really. The Bible is supposed to serve a didactic purpose for us. But immaterialists dismiss all the physical phenomenology of the Bible as if these texts were NOT intended to teach us about God. Fine - but then they shouldn't pretend to have a position BUILT on the biblical evidence. It's a position sustained IN SPITE OF the biblical evidence.

SECONDLY, in post #3, I demonstrated that 'The Holy Spirit' is a logically incoherent title. It's an inappropriate use of language, and thus a misuse of language. It CANNOT be taken seriously as a valid title, except when we're behaving as irresponsible exegetes.

Or was His breathing on just a visible sign which accompanied the conveying of the holy spirit?

But He didn't say 'Receive this breath/wind as a SIGN of the holy Spirit'. If we examine the gospels, we find that Jesus wasn't an irresponsible teacher. He regularly gives us a heads-up if He's speaking in parables. 'The Kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed..."

Or was His breathing on just a visible sign which accompanied the conveying of the holy spirit?

Exegesis isn't supposed to land on the most unrealistic interpretation suggested by the immediate context. Rather it's supposed to resign itself to what the context seems to be conveying. Look, if we had only one or two physical verses in the Bible (well, let's not count John 20:22 because it's too decisive), then MAYBE we could regard materialism as debateable.

But consider Exodus 15. It's the same Greek word pneuma (if we go with the Greek OT), or the Hebrew word ruach. A blast of breath from God's nostrils parted the waters of the Red Sea, slowly over the course of an evening. In a sense this is even going beyond John 20:22. As the executive branch, the Pneuma of God goes forth to do His will - physically! How much more proof of materialism can one possibly ask for?

See e.g. when Jesus healed the blind man, he spit, made mud and rubbed it on the blind man's eyes. Neither the spit nor the mud had any healing properties.

Don't be too sure of that. The material divine Word can assume any shape and then go forth as physician/surgeon/healer. That's tautologically obvious. What is NOT so obvious is how an intangible Spirit could perform surgery on sick people. You used the term 'Incomprehensible nonsense'. Exactly.

When Jesus turned the water into wine neither the water nor the jugs had any powers, just a visible sign. When Jesus healed many people by laying His hands on them. The laying on of hands was just a visible sign, Jesus could have just spoken and healed. Matt 8:16, Mark 1:32, Luke 4:40

You're making Platonic assumptions here. See above.
Also your form of argumentation here seems confused. You're right that such MIRACULOUS SIGNS attested to His divinity. You thereby insinuate that John 20:22 was a 'sign' - miraculous sign? Since when was mere breathing a miraculous sign in the eyes of a crowd? Clearly you've argued too much - you've just convinced me all the more that the wind/breath at John 20:22 was BY NO MEANS a 'sign'.

 

[JAL]

Question for the OP, why can't it mean both at the same time? Can the Third Person not manifest as a Wind and a Spirit? After all, this is God we are talking about.

I don't think that exegesis is 100% reliable because we're too fallible. I think He wanted us all to mature into prophets (1Cor 14:1) receiving the same kind of infallible inspiration enjoyed by Moses, Paul, Isaiah, and the rest. I hope to address this topic later on this thread.

But in the meantime while we are NOT yet prophets, our conscience will understandably direct us to look to the Bible for answers. But it is precisely because exegesis is so fallible, that we need to follow some strict guidelines when interpreting it. In other words, we're being irresponsible exegetes if we don't honor principles such as the following:
(1) The law of non-contradiction. If a doctrine appears to be self-contradictory, seek out an alternative one.
(2) Doctrines must be relatively comprehensible (I discussed this more at post #41). When faced with two competing doctrines, one of them being so unclear that it very well might be pure gibberish, tend to prefer the one that is more clear.

Ok with that background, let's address your question.

Question for the OP, why can't it mean both at the same time? Can the Third Person not manifest as a Wind and a Spirit? After all, this is God we are talking about.

(1) Material substance is defined as tangible, (often) visible, and has size and shape, has a location in space.
(2) Immaterial substance (per the official mainstream doctrines) is defined as intangible, has no size and shape, invisible, has no location in space. This is said to be the ESSENCE of God, the DEFINITION of God - of an unchanging, IMMUTABLE God.

But tomorrow He shows up at your door as a human figure?

What do you mean by 'manifest'? How does that work? If I claimed, 'I have a car but couldn't drive it to day because it manifested as immaterial substance (or unmanifested?)', what would that mean? It seems to be a logical contradiction to say that matter is MANIFESTING the characteristics of immaterial substance - it's suddenly behaving contrary to its ESSENTIAL DEFINITION???? By that same token, it seems to be a logical contradiction to say that intangible substance is now behaving ('manifesting') tangibly.

This is humanly comprehensible - and therefore it's gibberish. The RESPONSIBLE exegete will therefore look for doctrines that he CAN understand.

Taking this strict approach, is it possible we'll overlook something? Yes. Absolutely. Exegesis is a a very fallible process - which is why God would never be so dumb as to put all His eggs in that basket.

Regardless of the potential pitfalls of a strict approach, it is almost certainly our best chance of avoiding exegetical chaos.

 

[JAL]

Der Alter:

Again the contrast:
Traditinal reading of Jn 3:5:
"Unless a man is born of (material) water and (immaterial) Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"

My reading affords salvation by faith alone (God provides the material Water of cleansing/regeneration - see Ezekiel 36 where He says "I will sprinkle clean water on you."):
"Unless a man is born of [divine] Water and Wind, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"

You yourself take born of water essentially as 'born of womb'. Seamless? Let's take a closer look.


Qualifying for heaven is analogous to your company giving you the biggest promotion of your life. So let's suppose you are aspiring to such a promotion. The president invites you into his office and tells you, 'The position is yours - if you qualify.'

Your eyes light up with excitement. 'Tell me! Tell me now! What are the qualifications!'

"Ok here's the first qualification. Above all, you must make sure you meet THIS qualification. You must be born of water."

Seamless? Hardly. Am I the only one here who sees the absurdity of this reading? It's absurd for three reasons (although I credit Linda Belleville for this analysis).
(1) Unprecedented idiom. No one refers to natural birth that way.
(2) This 'qualification' itself doesn't actually 'qualify' as a legitimate prequalification because it's impossible for a person to fail it. And nowhere in the NT do we find the writers including natural birth on their list of prequalifications for the Kingdom of God, precisely because such wouldn't even make sense.
(3) Given #2, why even add natural birth to the sentence? I mean, on such an issue, we all want a carefully trimmed list of qualifications. No extra fat. No excessive, needless confusion about the prerequisites for heaven. Why throw a wrench into what was supposed to be the Son of God's keynote speech on salvation? How does this make for a seamless reading? Is the Son trying to confuse us?

This pretty much shatters your pretense of having a seamless reading - and I haven't even discussed the single-preposition problem yet.

 

[InterestedApologist]

JAL, you continue to argue materialism vs immaterialism in every post when the problems with your philosophy preceed that point of your argument.

You still have yet to scripturally justify any of the following claims you have made:

1. God arises from pre-existing matter
2. God evolves a character of holiness
3. God is finite
4. God lacks foreknowledge
5. The Holy Spirit acts as God’s immune system
6. God needed to create man

Since materialism is your guiding light and we have already established that science is the discipline utilized for measuring the material world, you have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support any of the following claims you have made:

1. 100% of matter has free will
2. Matter is sentient
3. Matter can group together and spontaneously become self-aware without any outside cause
4. Matter that has suddenly become self aware then has the ability to fully control or manipulate other matter at will.
5. Matter has no origin

Until you can successfully provide evidence of the aforementioned problems with your theory, materialism vs immaterialism, Holy Breath vs Holy Spirit, and the problem of evil are just noise, and frankly a bit of a red herring to distract from these much bigger issues.

 

[JAL]

JAL, you continue to argue materialism vs immaterialism in every post when the problems with your philosophy preceed that point of your argument.

You still have yet to scripturally justify any of the following claims you have made:

1. God arises from pre-existing matter
2. God evolves a character of holiness
3. God is finite
4. God lacks foreknowledge
5. The Holy Spirit acts as God’s immune system
6. God needed to create man

Since materialism is your guiding light and we have already established that science is the discipline utilized for measuring the material world, you have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support any of the following claims you have made:

1. 100% of matter has free will
2. Matter is sentient
3. Matter can group together and spontaneously become self-aware without any outside cause
4. Matter that has suddenly become self aware then has the ability to fully control or manipulate other matter at will.
5. Matter has no origin

Until you can successfully provide evidence of the aforementioned problems with your theory, materialism vs immaterialism, Holy Breath vs Holy Spirit, and the problem of evil are just noise, and frankly a bit of a red herring to distract from these much bigger issues.

This is just rhetoric.
My primary basis is Scripture. I extrapolate from the Scriptures. Earlier I listed about ten mainstream extrapolations that were either self-contradictory or pure gibberish. I've replaced them with logically consistent alternatives.

I don't care how much Scripture supposedly 'backs up' a position, it's still unacceptable if it's gibberish or self-contradictory. For example an immaterial mind logically contradicts a material body. Period.

 

[InterestedApologist]

This is just rhetoric.

Nonsense. I posted 11 legitimate questions raised directly from your views. They are not unreasonable in any way. You have argued that an exegete must be responsible, logical and sensible, but seem afraid to truly test yours with some basic questions.

My primary basis is Scripture. I extrapolate from the Scriptures. Earlier I listed about ten mainstream extrapolations that were either self-contradictory or pure gibberish. I've replaced them with logically consistent alternatives.

I have no doubt that scripture sparked this grand theory in your mind, however, it is not responsible exegeticaly to dismiss or throw out scriptures that disagree with your view, which you admit to here:

I don't care how much Scripture supposedly 'backs up' a position, it's still unacceptable if it's gibberish or self-contradictory. For example an immaterial mind logically contradicts a material body. Period.

Again, I see no proof or valid answers from you of the questions I posted. Your claims are successfully then refuted, not the opposite as you suppose.