Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
(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.
This kind of statement isn't very convincing. Don't you realize that if Plato had never lived, and brainwashed us for 2,000 years, you'd never think that way?Yes wind/breath is the literal translation. But it cannot be translated as a material.
Jesus said what we already agree on. We all agree that angels do not need food because they lack flesh, blood, and bones. This has nothing to do with whether they are tangible. Clearly the biblical data points in the tangible direction - 'The angel rolled the stone away from the tomb and sat on it."You need assistance to understand that. Wind in and of itself is not material. Breath is not material. If you follow the biblical concepts such as Jesus and the apostles taught you see this. Jesus said God IS spirit . He said spirit or pneuma has no body. James talks about this. You might take a look at this as it has a pretty good breakdown of this.
http://ntwords.com/spirit.htm
It's not a question of throwing out Scriptures. It's a question of realizing that Scripture might be hard to interpret. Therefore we need the law of non-contradiction to avoid silly errors.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.
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:
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.
This kind of statement isn't very convincing. Don't you realize that if Plato had never lived, and brainwashed us for 2,000 years, you'd never think that way?
Immaterialism flies in the face of everything we see and experience on a daily basis. This puts a huge burden of proof on them. Have they met that burden? No. Every page of the Bible speaks of material objects. There are no clear verses on immaterialism. So if God is good, He won't be terribly disappointed in you if you go with the bulk of biblical data (and turn out to be wrong).
However, He WILL be disappointed in you if He asks you, 'Why did you believe in immaterialism' - and you haven't got a single persuasive verse to stand on !!!!
Jesus said what we already agree on. We all agree that angels do not need food because they lack flesh, blood, and bones. This has nothing to do with whether they are tangible. Clearly the biblical data points in the tangible direction - 'The angel rolled the stone away from the tomb and sat on it."
An immaterial being can't do these things.
Again, it's a question as to whether God will be disappointed in you. Given the verse that I just cited (and dozens much like them), where do you want to place your bets? Because I think you're going to feel awfully ridiculous on judgment day if you let Platonic culture dictate your conclusions.
Plato has everything to do with it, as Tertuallian pointed out back in 200 A.D.Plato has nothing to do with this. Immaterialism is just a word. A word we use to describe the depictions and descriptions of God as told in scripture. Much like the word Trinity.
Except that 'spirit' is an English word. It's not in the original Hebrew and Greek. And I'm not struggling with it. Like Tertullian, I out and out reject it in virtue of the abundance of hard biblical evidence to the contrary.I know you are struggling with the concept that God is spirit (again just a word) which means he is without material
See Ex 15 where Moses said the waters parted by a blast of breath from God's nostrils, slowly over the course of an evening. An immaterial breath cannot push waters apart. It's a logical impossibility.Yet he can manifest himself and has power beyond your limited comprehension to do things, such as part the red Sea or cause the earth to stop rotating or create light without becoming material.
Don't put God in a mental box? Anything goes? So we're back to the possibility of God defined as the flying sphaghetti monster?The world around us shows us the power and glory of God, but does nothing to show us that God MUST be material as you see it.
Don't put God in your mental box. Scriptures tell us all the different ways God manifested himself. Yet it was Jesus himself, who spoke the most clearly about God.
Angels are material beings. Like the heavenly city, God tends to keep them hidden from us until we grow spiritually into maturity and thus see them face to face like Elijah, Jesus, David, and the rest.Are angels immaterial or are they invisible?
Can't legitimately praise God for something He already was from eternity. That would be like praising you for being born human.I don't think God will be disappointed with me at all. This subject is not nearly as important as your denial that God is Holy. If there will be any disappointment from God then it will be with you because of your unscriptural stance on God becoming holy.
Almost all your posts take the form, "I"m right and you're wrong" - and thus never address my arguments. You provide no hard evidence for your conclusion, nor refute mine.That is far more damaging and far more unbiblical than this who material vs immaterial subject. You have strayed so far away from truth on that, that it makes you argument for materialism that much more unbelievable.
Last time I checked, breath/and wind were tangible substances. Jesus will overthrow the enemy by "the breath of his mouth" (2Th 2:8). Last time I checked, opening my mouth emitted tangible breath/wind.Yes wind/breath is the literal translation. But it cannot be translated as a material. You need assistance to understand that. Wind in and of itself is not material. Breath is not material. If you follow the biblical concepts such as Jesus and the apostles taught you see this. Jesus said God IS spirit . He said spirit or pneuma has no body. James talks about this. You might take a look at this as it has a pretty good breakdown of this.
http://ntwords.com/spirit.htm
oops. Look up for a while, Yahweh Willing, in the original languages, "soul". You might find out several surprises (we hope so).One wonders how God and angels, as immaterial souls, could speak, since speech is a physical process.
Plato has everything to do with it, as Tertuallian pointed out back in 200 A.D.
Except that 'spirit' is an English word. It's not in the original Hebrew and Greek. And I'm not struggling with it. Like Tertullian, I out and out reject it in virtue of the abundance of hard biblical evidence to the contrary.
See Ex 15 where Moses said the waters parted by a blast of breath from God's nostrils, slowly over the course of an evening. An immaterial breath cannot push waters apart. It's a logical impossibility.
If God wanted to convey immaterial spirit instead of material wind/breath, why such language and documentation? Doesn't make sense - it doesn't make sense that a wise Teacher would (needlessly) present the truth to the human mind as a logical impossibility that a sane thinker would find unacceptable. I'm not saying I'm the only sane thinker, but consider atheists for example, if you gave them this choice:
(1) An immaterial breath/wind pushed the waters apart.
(2) An material breath/wind pushed the waters apart.
They'd consider it insanity to prefer 1 over 2.
And please don't object on the basis of direct revelation - as I too regard it as a higher authority than reasoning and exegesis.
Exegesis involves REASONING. If you came to your conclusion by revelation, fine, but then don't pretend it was reached by the biblical data.
Don't put God in a mental box? Anything goes? So we're back to the possibility of God defined as the flying sphaghetti monster?
Exegesis is pure chaos if it isn't constrained by reason.
Angels are material beings. Like the heavenly city, God tends to keep them hidden from us until we grow spiritually into maturity and thus see them face to face like Elijah, Jesus, David, and the rest.
Can't legitimately praise God for something He already was from eternity. That would be like praising you for being born human.
Almost all your posts take the form, "I"m right and you're wrong" - and thus never address my arguments. You provide no hard evidence for your conclusion, nor refute mine.
For I am Adonai your God; therefore, consecrate yourselves and be holy, for I am holy; and do not defile yourselves with any kind of swarming creature that moves along the ground.(Maftir) For I am Adonai, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. Therefore you are to be holy, because I am holy. - Leviticus 11:44-45 Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 11:44-45 - Complete Jewish BibleWind is immaterial. A breath is immaterial. Wind moves material and so does a breath. The Bible uses human depictions of God all the time. The Bible also says he has feathers and is a door. You lack understanding. Hebrews begs to differ on the angels. The Bible tells us that they are created as spirits. You still have difficulty in understanding that a spirit such as God can still do things. Biblical immaterialism does not mean that God is some sort of invisible thing that cannot do anything. Your description if immaterialism actually would mean God doesn't exist.
Is Wind Matter?
You absolutely should worship God for being Holy in and of himself. He deserves it precisely for that reason. You have ZERO biblical evidence for your position. God said "I am holy.". No where does God or his prophets describe him as becoming holy.
Huh? Come again?Wind is immaterial. A breath is immaterial.
Right, because wind is material/tangible, it can move other pieces of matter. (I generally use the terms material and tangible as synonyms).Wind moves material and so does a breath.
Addressed in an earlier post. There are very few - perhaps no - valid mataphors for a material divine Word permeating all objects (albeit distinct from them) because He assumes all shapes and sizes. He is a door, He is feathers, and he is flesh and blood. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." He is all these things.The Bible uses human depictions of God all the time. The Bible also says he has feathers and is a door.
Wind and fire often go together (see Pentecost). Also see the fiery breath/wind of God's nostrils at Psalm 18. Heb 1:7 says, "He makes His angels winds [pneuma], His servants flames of fire". If you put the word spirits there, you create an immaterial-material disparity in the verse - it loses its metaphysical consistency.You lack understanding. Hebrews begs to differ on the angels. The Bible tells us that they are created as spirits.
You don't like the implications of spirit, but that's exactly what it extrapolates to - which is why it is nonsense. Look up spatial simplicity on web - this will give you some official definitions of immaterialism. As Charles Hodge says, mind and matter are two different “substances; the one extended, tangible, and divisible…the other unextended and indivisible” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. II: Anthropology (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers), 2001, reprint, p. 46).You still have difficulty in understanding that a spirit such as God can still do things. Biblical immaterialism does not mean that God is some sort of invisible thing that cannot do anything. Your description if immaterialism actually would mean God doesn't exist.
No evidence? Calvary is not evidence? Calvary demonstrates that, without suffering, there is no merit. If the Father had numbed Christ's nerves and emotions, Calvary would have no merit. In the same way, holiness would have no merit if God didn't suffer/labor to achieve it. Here again, it's not that I don't have evidence - you just keep ignoring it.You absolutely should worship God for being Holy in and of himself. He deserves it precisely for that reason. You have ZERO biblical evidence for your position. God said "I am holy.". No where does God or his prophets describe him as becoming holy.
He most certainly is holy. And?For I am Adonai your God; therefore, consecrate yourselves and be holy, for I am holy; and do not defile yourselves with any kind of swarming creature that moves along the ground.(Maftir) For I am Adonai, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. Therefore you are to be holy, because I am holy. - Leviticus 11:44-45 Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 11:44-45 - Complete Jewish Bible
The term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.oops. Look up for a while, Yahweh Willing, in the original languages, "soul". You might find out several surprises (we hope so).
Also, "spirit". Spirits have always been able to speak as far as I am aware from Scripture.
There may be a wealth worth much more than much gold, yeah than much fine gold, in the finding out.
This has nothing to do with Yahweh, Yahshua, or Ekklesia born againThe term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.
The term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.begin
Heb 1:7 does not say all souls are pneuma/ruach. While God does makes His angels pneuma/ruach not all pneuma/ruach are angels. I agree that pneuma/ruach is material in that it is comprised of atoms.
Thought I'd pop in and see how this one's goingSeems like it finally quietened down.
After doing some more (considerable) reading, I think I reached a conclusion that the Christian view of immaterialism is not the same as the Platonic view, although it borrows some ideas here and there.
Likewise, Christian views of materialism borrow some Stoic ideas. I noticed, JAL, that you quoted Tertullian. He believed that God was embodied, but that it is a 'spiritual' embodiment - as per as quote, a Spirit "has a bodily substance of its own kind.” It does seem, however, that his view of God having some corporeality is different to what you have proposed, but I could be wrong.
I find this all very interesting and am grateful that I've learned something - especially about Tertullian. So I want to thank you JAL for creating this thread and producing a challenge to these doctrines. Although I'm not sold on your proposals (or your method of proposing) I am grateful to you for creating this thread.
Right, Heb 1:7 is speaking specifically of angels. And yes, it doesn't claim that all winds/breaths are alive.The term 'spirit' is an English word referring to an immaterial soul.
I don't believe in immaterial souls. Only a material soul could be instrumental to the production of sound waves. An immaterial angel, if such existed, would be unable to speak.
Starting with Genesis 2:7, the proper definition of a soul is a tangible/substance that is (usually) unseen and thus fits into the category of wind/breath. Thus Scripture CLASSIFIES souls (including angels) as pneuma/ruach (winds/breaths). For example Heb 1:7, "He makes His angels winds [pneuma], His servants flames of fire."
Several church fathers upheld the materiality of angels.
Heb 1:7 does not say all souls are pneuma/ruach. While God does makes His angels pneuma/ruach not all pneuma/ruach are angels. I agree that pneuma/ruach is material in that it is comprised of atoms.
Heb 1:7 does not provide evidence that angels are fiery winds/breath.Right, Heb 1:7 is speaking specifically of angels. And yes, it doesn't claim that all winds/breaths are alive.
But it does provide evidence that angels - referred to here as pneuma - are fiery winds/breaths, which harmonizes well, logically, with the concept of material souls. In a nutshell, it's more biblical evidence of materialism (as though I needed more).
Does no such thing.It also further calls into question your assumption that all of the so-called 'ordinary winds' are non-living.
Note the speculation. God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants at any time He wants. God made a donkey speak in the OT. Jesus said that God could raise up sons from stone. That does not mean that all sons are raised up from stones or that all donkeys speak.Suppose for instance God intends to send judgment on a town or city. Is He confined to ordinary winds? Not necessarily. He could send an angel in the form of a tornado or hurricane. Or the divine Wind/Breath could do the same.
He makes His angels immaterial spirits? Winds is a more natural fit because wind and fire go together - try to start a fire without air. Why mention material fire in the first place if the writer is wanting us to read 'immaterial spirits'? This attempt to shove some immaterial Platonic fantasy right into the middle of the verse - without any immaterial basis in the context - is precisely the same error made at John 3:5. The context speaks of MATTER. Therefore the natural reading is MATERIALISTIC. Anything else is pure fantasy - you're welcome to believe it, but don't pretend it has any basis in Scripture.Heb 1:7 does not provide evidence that angels are fiery winds/breath.
Heb 1:7It does not read "He makes his angels spirits and flames of fire." The flames of fire are his servants distinct from angels.
(7) In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire."
I said God could do these things and then you agreed with me that He can do pretty much anything. Not sure why you think this statement is some big rebuttal.Does no such thing.
Note the speculation. God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants at any time He wants. God made a donkey speak in the OT. Jesus said that God could raise up sons from stone. That does not mean that all sons are raised up from stones or that all donkeys speak.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?