Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[mark kennedy]

Ok so what is the real name of the Holy Spirit? What it boils down to is that God is NOT a Spirit. The English word 'spirit' doesn't actually exist in the real Bible because it is a mistranslation of the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew word ruach.

One thing's for sure. The TITLES of the three do not change in meaning. For example if one passage alludes to Father and Son, and then another passage, using the same two Greek words, likewise refers to God, we should be consistent in the translation. That is to say, we shouldn't do something like this:
(1st passage) - Read it as Father and Son
(2nd passage) - Read it as Mother-in-Law and Uncle.
That would be stupid, right? Certainly. So we need to be CONSISTENT on how we translate the titles of each member. This means that if we can find even ONE VERSE where the title of the third person IS CLEAR, then we must read that same title into ALL the parallel passages (if they use the same Greek words as a title of God) - no exceptions, no inconsistencies.

Fortunately we can form a pretty reliable hypothesis because, historically, there are really only two contending translations of the Greek word pneuma:
1. (Immaterial) Spirit.
2. (Physical!) Wind or Breath.

Since we've already seen that option 1 is a PROBLEM, option 2 is the most reasonable choice.

After all, the distinction between physical and non-physical is crucial if we want to avoid cognitive idolatry. In my mind, am I suppose to worship a physical being with actual dimensions? Or am I suppose to worship a non-physical, dimension-less being devoid of size and shape? Orthodoxy has always insisted on the latter position, despite the testimony of Scripture (viz. Moses speaking to God face to face).

Is God a foolish teacher? Does He write in a way to FOSTER confusion and cognitive idolatry? The point is this. If 'Spirit' were the correct translation, God would be foolish to create a Bible that mentions physical wind/breath in the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of third-person activity, because such might mislead us to favor the translation (physical) Wind/Breath over (immaterial) Spirit.

Conclusion: If we can find even ONE PASSAGE where physical wind/breath is mentioned in the context of third-person activity, we can JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDE that His title is "The Holy Wind/Breath".


Fortunately there is MORE than one such passage. The most clear is John 20:22, "Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy [Breath]". Jesus was expelling PHYSICAL wind/breath from His nostrils. Therefore the traditionally accepted translation, "Receive the Holy Spirit", is incredibly weak. In fact, classical scholarship held in consensus that "Receive the Holy Breath" was a legitimate translation.

Let's look at another example. The waters of the Red Sea did not divide instantaneously but rather were parted slowly by a PHYSICAL WIND over the course of an entire evening. According to Moses, this wind a blast of breath from God's nostrils (Ex 15). The Hebrew word used there for 'breath' is ruach, it is the SAME word mistranslated 'The Spirit of God' by mainstream theologians.


Third example. On the day of Pentecost, the 120 saints all heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind. 'And they were all filled with the Holy [Spirit ?]'. They were filled with the Holy SPIRIT? Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. They heard the sound of blowing WIND. Therefore, "They were all filled with the Holy WIND." Even a 10-year old child raised in an ancient Greek city could have easily figured out the correct reading based on the context.

Fourth. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens formed, the starry hosts by the breath of His mouth." Here the word 'breath' is the SAME Hebrew word often mistranslated 'Spirit of God'. When we speak WORDS, we exhale physical breath/wind. This passage reveals that the third Person, in the form of physical Breath/Wind, goes forth from God's mouth to perform any needed miracles. Thus He performs miracles by speaking. Which is precisely the teaching of Isaiah 55:11, "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please." Notice that it RETURNS to God. As even the Protestant Keil-Delitzsch commentary commented on Isa 55:11, the verse clearly denotes a SUBSTANCE exuding from the mouth of God into the region of need, performing the miracle in that vicinity, and then RETURNING to God. And here's what you need to understand. These dynamics MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS GOD IS A PHYSICAL BEING. After all, if you were a magical spirit (a kind of wizard or witch), you could perform a miracle by simply shouting an incantation FROM AFAR. There would be no NEED to travel into the physical vicinity to perform the miracle WITH YOUR OWN HANDS (viz. God's Breath/Wind pushing the waters apart).

Fifth. Take a look at Psalm 18. Has a couple of allusions to the fiery Breath/Wind of God's nostrils (the same Fire/Breath seen on Pentecost). This psalm uses that same Hebrew word mistranslated 'Spirit of God'.

Sixth. "He will baptize you in the Holy [Spirit?], and fire" (Math 3:11). Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. John refers to the farmer's fan that used breath/wind/air to separate the wheat from the chaff cast into the fire. The better translation is, "He will baptize you in the Holy Wind, and with Fire" (almost certainly an unmistakable reference to Pentecost).

Your Haveing some real problems with the term 'spirit', here. Yes literally it's breath but the Holy Spirit is not air. He is also called the 'Comforter' promised by Jesus in the Upper Room. Denying the person and deity of the Holy Spirit isn't going to get you reform, it's a denial of essential doctrine. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike will reject something like that as nonchristian to put it mildly.

 

[rjs330]

You guys haven't refuted any of about 10 arguments on this thread. How many more arguments do you want?

Meanwhile, give me one irrefutable argument for a infinite God - and no gibberish. Woops that's impossible because an existing infinitude is ALREADY GIBBERISH.

It was your claim you made an irrefutable argument for a finite God. I haven't seen one. Please give us one using scripture then we can talk. Until then it is only opinion and philisophical with no substance. When you do then I will respond with a scriptural basis for an infinite God.

 

[HatGuy]

Therefore the atonement was not INFINITE LOVE (infinite intervention). It was FINITE intervention which flatly contradicts the notion that God is infinite.

You cannot say, "God is infinite in His love/intervention but intervenes to a finite degree, abandoning some of His creatures to the misery of hell which is probably more painful than STARVING TO DEATH." That's almost as bad as gibberish - it's a blatant logical contradiction.

The FACTS OF SCRIPTURE indicate a finite God.

I'm struggling to see how this follows.

Surely an infinite God can respond (or should) respond to finite beings in a finite way?

Besides, I think this may be mixing up the concept of infinity with the concept of timelessness. I'm happy to concede that God's relation to time may very well be temporal, as time itself may be eternal. But even a temporal relation to time would not have to mean God is finite.

This all seems to go one step too far. How do we know that the atonement wasn't an infinite act of love anyway? Because people go to hell? But we do not even know the nature of hell. What about free will? God's infinite love would surely include a respect for free will, which may be why it is more loving to respond In a finite way than an infinite way. God may very well have decided that a finite response was better than an infinite one, and in so doing he showcases an infinite love.

Look, a lot of what you're proposing does seem to be guilty of the very thing you claim you are trying to avoid. In your efforts to de-platonise, as it were, Christian theology, you may be inadvertently Stoicising it. In other words, you're just bringing in stoic ideas of materialism into the picture.

Also, there is a distinct Mormon metaphysical approach going on here.

I say this to merely point out that the idea of the infinite and immaterialism is not automatically wrong just because it does borrow from Platonic philosophy. Look, I'd like to get Platonic philosophy out of theology as much as the next guy, but the solution then isn't to just bring in another philosophy. Perhaps we ought to trust that the Holy Spirit has guided Christians throughout the ages, and statements such as "the church has never understood" this or that are simply signs of arrogant chronocentricism.

 

[Der Alte]

... You continue on with a lengthy reiteration of orthodox opinions on the Third Person, much of which I agree with. You don't need to remind me that He is a Person, or that He sanctifies. I'm a Trinitiarian, so we already agree on those kinds of things.

You evidently do not know the difference between scripture and so called "orthodox opinion." I listed 92 verses of scripture not one sentence of opinion.

 

[Micah888]

Meanwhile, give me one irrefutable argument for a infinite God - and no gibberish.

For Christians arguments and opinions are of little consequence. Scripture is the ultimate authority, and if you are prepared to accept that, then there are numerous Scriptures which reveal that God is infinite.

PSALM 139

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool... (Acts 7:49)

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:24-28)

 

[JAL]

It was your claim you made an irrefutable argument for a finite God. I haven't seen one. Please give us one using scripture then we can talk. Until then it is only opinion and philisophical with no substance. When you do then I will respond with a scriptural basis for an infinite God.

I don't recall making that claim. What I do remember claiming is that my arguments CURRENTLY stand mostly uncontested on this thread, certainly unrefuted - in fact I don't see anything taught in the last 2,000 years that would refute those arguments.

Looks like another strawman argument of the form, 'You promised something irrefutable and never delivered". My signature and numerous statements of mine belie this.

 

[JAL]

Hi Mark. I remember you from the early days of my membership. Good to hear from you.
Too bad that you and I will probably stand diametrically opposed on this thread. That's okay, take your best shot at me.

Your Haveing some real problems with the term 'spirit', here. Yes literally it's breath but the Holy Spirit is not air.

He's breath but not air? You seem to be contradicting yourself. Certainly He's not ordinary CREATED air - but He is a (living) physical Wind based on the testimony of Scripture.

He is also called the 'Comforter' promised by Jesus in the Upper Room. Denying the person and deity of the Holy Spirit isn't going to get you reform, it's a denial of essential doctrine. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike will reject something like that as nonchristian to put it mildly.

I have denied neither. I'm a Trinitarian.

You mentioned Catholics. Good. As far as I'm concerned, any Catholic who holds to Real Presence cannot credibly deny the physicality of God. I mean, at some point the term 'contradiction' must have some meaning, if we want to avoid gibberish.

 

[JAL]

I'm struggling to see how this follows.

Surely an infinite God can respond (or should) respond to finite beings in a finite way?

See post #41. You can't ascribe to God a morality contradicting your own. Meaning, if you have two leaders, and the one goes the extra mile to show mercy, he merits more praise than the other one.

You can't refer to God as supremely worth of praise if He has infinite resources but selfishly withholds some of them.

Besides, I think this may be mixing up the concept of infinity with the concept of timelessness. I'm happy to concede that God's relation to time may very well be temporal, as time itself may be eternal. But even a temporal relation to time would not have to mean God is finite.

Perhaps not, but if He doesn't transcend time - if He is constrained by it - He certainly DOES begin to look finite. For example it becomes more difficult to cogently argue that He knows the future, if He is trapped in time just like we are. Like anything else, the doctrine of infinitude is susceptible to death by a thousand cuts.

This all seems to go one step too far. How do we know that the atonement wasn't an infinite act of love anyway? Because people go to hell? But we do not even know the nature of hell.

Pretty weak. So hell is now a happy place compared to heaven? Look, I'll say it again. I'm not claiming to have apodictic arguments. I'm simply saying that opposing arguments are comparatively weak. When someone has to stretch to the point of embellishing hell just to defend against my arguments, it's a pretty good sign that he's on facile ground.

What about free will? God's infinite love would surely include a respect for free will, which may be why it is more loving to respond In a finite way than an infinite way.

No one like suffering - problem is that they are not really aware of how much hell can hurt so free will really shouldn't reign here. God PROMISES that sin will bring judgment and PROMISES that we won't like that suffering. Hence the most MERCIFUL and KIND thing to do is atone. Period. Again, you're reaching.

God may very well have decided that a finite response was better than an infinite one, and in so doing he showcases an infinite love.

I don't think you're being consistent with your own values. Certainly not with Scripture. NOWHERE does Scripture teach that the loving thing to do is DENY MERCY as to exalt free will.

Look, a lot of what you're proposing does seem to be guilty of the very thing you claim you are trying to avoid. In your efforts to de-platonise, as it were, Christian theology, you may be inadvertently Stoicising it. In other words, you're just bringing in stoic ideas of materialism into the picture.

Too unclear. Perhaps just a rubric for the arguments above, in which case see comments above.

Also, there is a distinct Mormon metaphysical approach going on here.

All religious systems have overlaps and intersections of belief. That's an inescapable fact, so it hardly makes for an argument.

I say this to merely point out that the idea of the infinite and immaterialism is not automatically wrong just because it does borrow from Platonic philosophy.

Agreed. But a major goal for me is less intellectual dishonesty:
(1) Immaterialism has no solid basis in Scripture. It's about time leaders stop pretending that it does. Tell the flock where it came from.
(2) Materialism DOES have a solid basis in Scripture. There's no need to look to heathen philosophy.

Look, I'd like to get Platonic philosophy out of theology as much as the next guy, but the solution then isn't to just bring in another philosophy. Perhaps we ought to trust that the Holy Spirit has guided Christians throughout the ages, and statements such as "the church has never understood" this or that are simply signs of arrogant chronocentricism.

Ultimately no one can escape philosophy altogether - all religious and philosophical systems intersect at points. But the responsible exegete will try to pick the ideas with the most biblical backing.

 

[JAL]

For Christians arguments and opinions are of little consequence. Scripture is the ultimate authority, and if you are prepared to accept that, then there are numerous Scriptures which reveal that God is infinite.

PSALM 139

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool... (Acts 7:49)

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:24-28)

You've been indoctrinated, by 2,000 years of theological influence on our society, to think about God in a certain way and so now it's impossible for you to evaluate the data from a neutral mindset. Those passages don't provide clear evidence of infinitude.

I suspect you assume that a finite God must be incompetent or inadequate as a ruler. I would urge you to rethink that assumption.

Basically, to be a competent leader, He needs to be able to monitor all matter well enough to protect His children from harm at all times.

 

[JAL]

Your Haveing some real problems with the term 'spirit', here. Yes literally it's breath but the Holy Spirit is not air. He is also called the 'Comforter' promised by Jesus in the Upper Room.

On this thread I've listed several verses that strongly insinuate that the Third Person characteristically subsists in a wind-like modality. Now, here's another verse on this topic I haven't mentioned yet. (The biblical evidence for materialism is very substantial).

"When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing."

Let's start with what we agree on. The translator probably understands this event as a (normally) invisible substance physically hauling off Phillip's body. And I would agree.

So we have two competing (normally) invisible substances (with stuff like smoke being an exception):
(1) The Third Person as immaterial Spirit (which I don't believe in)
(2) The Third Person as physical Breath/Wind

Follow my logic please. How does an INTANGIBLE hand pick up a body and haul it off? That makes zero sense. An intangible hand would lack the physical grip needed to do that sort of thing. So this would force you to go way outside the pale of the context concocting some elaborate (imaginary) theory as to how God solves this sort of problem - with no clear biblical basis for the theory.

Whereas, if we just take God at His Word - after all He named Himself after physical breath/wind, it's not an issue. Ever heard of a tornado or hurricane hauling off heavy material objects? We hear about this sort of thing every day.

So why should I believe some nonsense immaterial gibberish concocted by the church? Why not just take God at His Word?

 

[mark kennedy]

On this thread I've listed several verses that strongly insinuate that the Third Person characteristically subsists in a wind-like modality. Now, here's another verse on this topic I haven't mentioned yet. (The biblical evidence for materialism is very substantial).

"When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing."

Let's start with what we agree on. The translator probably understands this event as a (normally) invisible substance physically hauling off Phillip's body. And I would agree.

So we have two competing (normally) invisible substances (with stuff like smoke being an exception):
(1) The Third Person as immaterial Spirit (which I don't believe in)
(2) The Third Person as physical Breath/Wind

Follow my logic please. How does an INTANGIBLE hand pick up a body and haul it off? That makes zero sense. An intangible hand would lack the physical grip needed to do that sort of thing. So this would force you to go way outside the pale of the context concocting some elaborate (imaginary) theory as to how God solves this sort of problem - with no clear biblical basis for the theory.

Whereas, if we just take God at His Word - after all He named Himself after physical breath/wind, it's not an issue. Ever heard of a tornado or hurricane hauling off heavy material objects? We hear about this sort of thing every day.

So why should I believe some nonsense immaterial gibberish concocted by the church? Why not just take God at His Word?

Ok, let's take this one step at a time, yes the 'spirit' in the New Testament and 'soul' in the OT is speaking of life's breath. In certain context it can also mean the nonmaterial form of man and God. Understanding the natural context those words are used in is crucially important. God forms Adam's body from the dust of the earth, Adam didn't become a living soul until the breath of life entered his body. I'm going to offer a lengthy lexicon, dictionary definition for the word 'spirit' as it is used in the New Testament. I don't want to bog down your understanding of this but it is something that has to be sorted out:

Spirit (Vine’s Dictionary pneuma ‘spirit’ G4151): primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows:

"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Hbr 1:7; cp. Amo 4:13, Sept.;

(b) the breath, 2Th 2:8; Rev 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.;

(c) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Luk 8:55; Act 7:59; 1Cr 5:5; Jam 2:26; cp. Ecc 12:7, Sept.;

(d) the disembodied (or 'unclothed,' or 'naked,' 2Cr 5:3, 4) man, Luk 24:37, 39; Hbr 12:23; 1Pe 4:6;

(e) the resurrection body, 1Cr 15:45; 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18;

(f) the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Mat 5:3; 26:41; Mar 2:8; Luk 1:47, 80; Act 17:16; 20:22; 1Cr 2:11; 5:3, 4; 14:4, 15; 2Cr 7:1; cp. Gen 26:35; Isa 26:9; Eze 13:3; Dan 7:15;

(g) purpose, aim, 2Cr 12:18; Phl 1:27; Eph 4:23; Rev 19:10; cp. Ezr 1:5; Psa 78:8; Dan 5:12;

(h) the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:

1st person, 1Cr 16:18; cp. Gen 6:3;

2nd person, 2Ti 4:22; Phm 1:25; cp. Psa 139:7;

3rd person, 2Cr 7:13; cp. Isa 40:13;

(i) character, Luk 1:17; Rom 1:4; cp. Num 14:24;

(j) moral qualities and activities: bad, as of bondage, as of a slave, Rom 8:15; cp. Isa 61:3; stupor, Rom 11:8; cp. Isa 29:10; timidity, 2Ti 1:7; cp. Jos 5:1; good, as of adoption, i.e., liberty as of a son, Rom 8:15; cp. Psa 51:12; meekness, 1Cr 4:21; cp. Pro 16:19; faith, 2Cr 4:13; quietness, 1Pe 3:4; cp. Pro 14:29

(k) the Holy Spirit, e.g., Mat 4:1 (see below); Luk 4:18;

(l) 'the inward man' (an expression used only of the believer, Rom 7:22; 2Cr 4:16; Eph 3:16); the new life, Rom 8:4-6, 10, 16; Hbr 12:9; cp. Psa 51:10;

(m) unclean spirits, demons, Mat 8:16; Luk 4:33; 1Pe 3:19; cp. 1Sa 18:10;

(n) angels, Hbr 1:14; cp. Act 12:15;

(o) divine gift for service, 1Cr 14:12, 32;

(p) by metonymy, those who claim to be depostories of these gifts, 2Th 2:2; 1Jo 4:1-3;

(q) the significance, as contrasted with the form, of words, or of a rite, Jhn 6:63; Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2Cr 3:6;

(r) a vision, Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10." *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 204, 205.]​

Notes:

(1) For phantasma, rendered "spirit," Mat 14:26; Mar 6:49, AV, see APPARITION.

(2) For the distinction between "spirit" and "soul," see under SOUL, last three paragraphs.
​

The Holy Spirit The "Holy Spirit" is spoken of under various titles in the NT ("Spirit" and "Ghost" are renderings of the same word, pneuma; the advantage of the rendering "Spirit" is that it can always be used, whereas "Ghost" always requires the word "Holy" prefixed.) In the following list the omission of the definite article marks its omission in the original (concerning this see below): "Spirit, Mat 22:43; Eternal Spirit, Hbr 9:14; the Spirit, Mat 4:1; Holy Spirit, Mat 1:18; the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:19; the Spirit, the Holy, Mat 12:32; the Spirit of promise, the Holy, Eph 1:13; Spirit of God, Rom 8:9; Spirit of (the) living God, 2Cr 3:3; the Spirit of God, 1Cr 2:11; the Spirit of our God, 1Cr 6:11; the Spirit of God, the Holy, Eph 4:30; the Spirit of glory and of God, 1Pe 4:14; the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead (i.e., God), Rom 8:11; the Spirit of your Father, Mat 10:20; the Spirit of His Son, Gal 4:6; Spirit of (the) Lord, Act 8:39; the Spirit of (the) Lord, Act 5:9; (the) Lord, (the) Spirit, 2Cr 3:18; the Spirit of Jesus, Act 16:7; Spirit of Christ, Rom 8:9; the Spirit of Jesus Christ, Phl 1:19; Spirit of adoption, Rom 8:15; the Spirit of truth, Jhn 14:17; the Spirit of life, Rom 8:2; the Spirit of grace, Hbr 10:29." *
[* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 193.]

The use or absence of the article in the original where the "Holy Spirit" is spoken of cannot always be decided by grammatical rules, nor can the presence or absence of the article alone determine whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit." Examples where the Person is meant when the article is absent are Mat 22:43 (the article is used in Mar 12:36); Act 4:25, RV (absent in some texts); 19:2, 6; Rom 14:17; 1Cr 2:4; Gal 5:25 (twice); 1Pe 1:2. Sometimes the absence is to be accounted for by the fact that Pneuma (like Theos) is substantially a proper name, e.g., in Jhn 7:39. As a general rule the article is present where the subject of the teaching is the Personality of the Holy Spirit, e.g., Jhn 14:26, where He is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. See also Jhn 15:26 and cp. Luk 3:22.

In Gal 3:3, in the phrase "having begun in the Spirit," it is difficult to say whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit" or to the quickened spirit of the believer; that it possibly refers to the latter is not to be determined by the absence of the article, but by the contrast with "the flesh;" on the other hand, the contrast may be between the "Holy Spirit" who in the believer sets His seal on the perfect work of Christ, and the flesh which seeks to better itself by works of its own. There is no preposition before either noun, and if the reference is to the quickened spirit it cannot be dissociated from the operation of the "Holy Spirit." In Gal 4:29 the phrase "after the Spirit" signifies "by supernatural power," in contrast to "after the flesh," i.e., "by natural power," and the reference must be to the "Holy Spirit;" so in Gal 5:17.

The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios (the "resumptive" use of the article), lit., "the Spirit the Holy," stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Mat 12:32; Mar 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Luk 2:26; 10:21 (RV); Jhn 14:26; Act 1:16; 5:3; 7:51; 10:44, 47; 13:2; 15:28; 19:6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Eph 4:30; Hbr 3:7; 9:8; 10:15.

The Personality of the Spirit is emphasized at the expense of strict grammatical procedure in Jhn 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14, where the emphatic pronoun ekeinos, "He," is used of Him in the masculine, whereas the noun pneuma is neuter in Greek, while the corresponding word in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord probably spoke, is feminine (rucha, cp. Heb. ruach). The rendering "itself" in Rom 8:16, 26, due to the Greek gender, is corrected to "Himself" in the RV.

The subject of the "Holy Spirit" in the NT may be considered as to His Divine attributes; His distinct Personality in the Godhead; His operation in connection with the Lord Jesus in His birth, His life, His baptism, His death; His operations in the world; in the church; His having been sent at Pentecost by the Father and by Christ; His operations in the individual believer; in local churches; His operations in the production of Holy Scripture; His work in the world, etc. (Vine’s Dictionary pneuma ‘spirit’ G4151)​

 

[rjs330]

I don't recall making that claim. What I do remember claiming is that my arguments CURRENTLY stand mostly uncontested on this thread, certainly unrefuted - in fact I don't see anything taught in the last 2,000 years that would refute those arguments.

Looks like another strawman argument of the form, 'You promised something irrefutable and never delivered". My signature and numerous statements of mine belie this.

Post 98 said you had made irrefutable arguments for a finite God. I'm asking you to make ONE argument for it using scripture as your basis. Please do. So far you haven't.

 

[JAL]

Post 98 said you had made irrefutable arguments for a finite God. I'm asking you to make ONE argument for it using scripture as your basis. Please do. So far you haven't.

You're right. I went back and read that post about my 'irrefutable' arguments. Let's make some distinctions here. Two different contexts.
(1) I can't even prove that you exist. No argument FROM SCRATCH, therefore, is water-tight. This is what I mean when I say I can't make an irrefutable argument.
(2) When I'm debating with a Christian and I make an argument that seems to flow from his EXISTING ASSUMPTIONS (and thus NOT from scratch), I might conclude that the argument is 'irrefutable' (to him). Of course here too I can be mistaken in that assessment (see my signature) but nonetheless I call'em like I see'em.

When I point out, for example, that an 'existing infinity' is an oxymoron (it boils down to gibberish for one thing), that in itself seems to me an irrefutable argument (in the #2 sense)

Anyway, the main thought here is that the position taken by me on these issues is logically more water-tight than the opposing sides.

 

[JAL]

Ok, let's take this one step at a time, yes the 'spirit' in the New Testament and 'soul' in the OT is speaking of life's breath. In certain context it can also mean the nonmaterial form of man and God. Understanding the natural context those words are used in is crucially important. God forms Adam's body from the dust of the earth, Adam didn't become a living soul until the breath of life entered his body. I'm going to offer a lengthy lexicon, dictionary definition for the word 'spirit' as it is used in the New Testament. I don't want to bog down your understanding of this but it is something that has to be sorted out:

Spirit (Vine’s Dictionary pneuma ‘spirit’ G4151): primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows:

"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Hbr 1:7; cp. Amo 4:13, Sept.;

(b) the breath, 2Th 2:8; Rev 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.;

(c) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Luk 8:55; Act 7:59; 1Cr 5:5; Jam 2:26; cp. Ecc 12:7, Sept.;

(d) the disembodied (or 'unclothed,' or 'naked,' 2Cr 5:3, 4) man, Luk 24:37, 39; Hbr 12:23; 1Pe 4:6;

(e) the resurrection body, 1Cr 15:45; 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18;

(f) the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Mat 5:3; 26:41; Mar 2:8; Luk 1:47, 80; Act 17:16; 20:22; 1Cr 2:11; 5:3, 4; 14:4, 15; 2Cr 7:1; cp. Gen 26:35; Isa 26:9; Eze 13:3; Dan 7:15;

(g) purpose, aim, 2Cr 12:18; Phl 1:27; Eph 4:23; Rev 19:10; cp. Ezr 1:5; Psa 78:8; Dan 5:12;

(h) the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:

1st person, 1Cr 16:18; cp. Gen 6:3;

2nd person, 2Ti 4:22; Phm 1:25; cp. Psa 139:7;

3rd person, 2Cr 7:13; cp. Isa 40:13;

(i) character, Luk 1:17; Rom 1:4; cp. Num 14:24;

(j) moral qualities and activities: bad, as of bondage, as of a slave, Rom 8:15; cp. Isa 61:3; stupor, Rom 11:8; cp. Isa 29:10; timidity, 2Ti 1:7; cp. Jos 5:1; good, as of adoption, i.e., liberty as of a son, Rom 8:15; cp. Psa 51:12; meekness, 1Cr 4:21; cp. Pro 16:19; faith, 2Cr 4:13; quietness, 1Pe 3:4; cp. Pro 14:29

(k) the Holy Spirit, e.g., Mat 4:1 (see below); Luk 4:18;

(l) 'the inward man' (an expression used only of the believer, Rom 7:22; 2Cr 4:16; Eph 3:16); the new life, Rom 8:4-6, 10, 16; Hbr 12:9; cp. Psa 51:10;

(m) unclean spirits, demons, Mat 8:16; Luk 4:33; 1Pe 3:19; cp. 1Sa 18:10;

(n) angels, Hbr 1:14; cp. Act 12:15;

(o) divine gift for service, 1Cr 14:12, 32;

(p) by metonymy, those who claim to be depostories of these gifts, 2Th 2:2; 1Jo 4:1-3;

(q) the significance, as contrasted with the form, of words, or of a rite, Jhn 6:63; Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2Cr 3:6;

(r) a vision, Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10." *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 204, 205.]
Notes:

(1) For phantasma, rendered "spirit," Mat 14:26; Mar 6:49, AV, see APPARITION.

(2) For the distinction between "spirit" and "soul," see under SOUL, last three paragraphs.

The Holy Spirit The "Holy Spirit" is spoken of under various titles in the NT ("Spirit" and "Ghost" are renderings of the same word, pneuma; the advantage of the rendering "Spirit" is that it can always be used, whereas "Ghost" always requires the word "Holy" prefixed.) In the following list the omission of the definite article marks its omission in the original (concerning this see below): "Spirit, Mat 22:43; Eternal Spirit, Hbr 9:14; the Spirit, Mat 4:1; Holy Spirit, Mat 1:18; the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:19; the Spirit, the Holy, Mat 12:32; the Spirit of promise, the Holy, Eph 1:13; Spirit of God, Rom 8:9; Spirit of (the) living God, 2Cr 3:3; the Spirit of God, 1Cr 2:11; the Spirit of our God, 1Cr 6:11; the Spirit of God, the Holy, Eph 4:30; the Spirit of glory and of God, 1Pe 4:14; the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead (i.e., God), Rom 8:11; the Spirit of your Father, Mat 10:20; the Spirit of His Son, Gal 4:6; Spirit of (the) Lord, Act 8:39; the Spirit of (the) Lord, Act 5:9; (the) Lord, (the) Spirit, 2Cr 3:18; the Spirit of Jesus, Act 16:7; Spirit of Christ, Rom 8:9; the Spirit of Jesus Christ, Phl 1:19; Spirit of adoption, Rom 8:15; the Spirit of truth, Jhn 14:17; the Spirit of life, Rom 8:2; the Spirit of grace, Hbr 10:29." *
[* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 193.]

The use or absence of the article in the original where the "Holy Spirit" is spoken of cannot always be decided by grammatical rules, nor can the presence or absence of the article alone determine whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit." Examples where the Person is meant when the article is absent are Mat 22:43 (the article is used in Mar 12:36); Act 4:25, RV (absent in some texts); 19:2, 6; Rom 14:17; 1Cr 2:4; Gal 5:25 (twice); 1Pe 1:2. Sometimes the absence is to be accounted for by the fact that Pneuma (like Theos) is substantially a proper name, e.g., in Jhn 7:39. As a general rule the article is present where the subject of the teaching is the Personality of the Holy Spirit, e.g., Jhn 14:26, where He is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. See also Jhn 15:26 and cp. Luk 3:22.

In Gal 3:3, in the phrase "having begun in the Spirit," it is difficult to say whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit" or to the quickened spirit of the believer; that it possibly refers to the latter is not to be determined by the absence of the article, but by the contrast with "the flesh;" on the other hand, the contrast may be between the "Holy Spirit" who in the believer sets His seal on the perfect work of Christ, and the flesh which seeks to better itself by works of its own. There is no preposition before either noun, and if the reference is to the quickened spirit it cannot be dissociated from the operation of the "Holy Spirit." In Gal 4:29 the phrase "after the Spirit" signifies "by supernatural power," in contrast to "after the flesh," i.e., "by natural power," and the reference must be to the "Holy Spirit;" so in Gal 5:17.

The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios (the "resumptive" use of the article), lit., "the Spirit the Holy," stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Mat 12:32; Mar 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Luk 2:26; 10:21 (RV); Jhn 14:26; Act 1:16; 5:3; 7:51; 10:44, 47; 13:2; 15:28; 19:6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Eph 4:30; Hbr 3:7; 9:8; 10:15.

The Personality of the Spirit is emphasized at the expense of strict grammatical procedure in Jhn 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14, where the emphatic pronoun ekeinos, "He," is used of Him in the masculine, whereas the noun pneuma is neuter in Greek, while the corresponding word in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord probably spoke, is feminine (rucha, cp. Heb. ruach). The rendering "itself" in Rom 8:16, 26, due to the Greek gender, is corrected to "Himself" in the RV.

The subject of the "Holy Spirit" in the NT may be considered as to His Divine attributes; His distinct Personality in the Godhead; His operation in connection with the Lord Jesus in His birth, His life, His baptism, His death; His operations in the world; in the church; His having been sent at Pentecost by the Father and by Christ; His operations in the individual believer; in local churches; His operations in the production of Holy Scripture; His work in the world, etc. (Vine’s Dictionary pneuma ‘spirit’ G4151)

Was there a point to this post? Is there any relevance to the current debate? You seem to be merely regurgitating the conclusions reached by mainstream scholars and shoved down our throats for the last 2,000 years - conclusions which I've shown to be problemmatical. I don't see where you've addressed my arguments made in post #5 - made in rebuttal of the sort of material that you just regurgitated.

We do agree on some things. I AM a Trinitarian after all. Therefore you don't need to keep reminding me that He is a Person.

I think the problem here is that you probably don't believe that matter can have personality - but you fail to realize this is due to 2,000 years of indoctrination. From a purely logical point of view, matter seems to be the best - indeed the ONLY - candidate for grounding consciousness, for common sense reasons. I'll explain why - I realize this will be a philosophical discussion, but I'm just trying to unbrainwash you from Platonic philosophy.

So here goes. For a COMMUNITY OF BEINGS to exist, common sense finds three basic requirements (closely related)
(1) Individuation.
(2) Intercommunication
(3) Environment

Let's start with #3. Try to imagine yourself as having no size and shape and thus existing - nowhere? In fact you wouldn't even have a self to look at. There would be no YOU, that we could possibly imagine. You recognize your own existence as a SPHERE of existence called a body, specifically in CONTRAST to other bodies (objects in your environment) which cause you SENSATIONS.

What do we call a person who is no longer experiencing physical sensations from his environment? We say that he has LOST CONSCIOUSNESS (i.e. unconscious).

Consider point #1. Suppose the Romans had hammered the nails into the wrong body on the wrong cross. Would Christ have suffered? Not at all. That SPHERE of existence (our body) is what distinguishes us (individuates us) from others. It is what allows me or you or Christ to have SEPARATE experiences and thus SEPARATE minds/consciousness.

Now briefly #2. Intercommunication. Suppose I want you to know what I'm thinking. How do I get MY thoughts into YOUR mind? Simple. I physically BLOW AIR toward you (i.e. I speak to you). Because the mind is material, physical vibrations IMPACT YOUR THOUGHTS. Without matter, such intercommunication would not be logically possible. Thought is thus EMPIRICALLY shown to be matter in motion. If I want to FORCE you to think a particular thought, I blow air at you. Science has already shown that human thought is a thought-PROCESS, a flow of matter (called electrochemial streams) in the brain.


Even if you TRY to imagine a mental telepathy to intercommunicate without matter, it boils down to gibberish because:
(1) The telpathic wave has to JAR the individual to get his attention. This would seem to REQUIRE a flow of matter from you to him (such as blowing air).
(2) You have to be able to SHAPE differnt kinds of messages for this to work. Here too, matter is ideal.

You might object, "But isn't the unconscoius person in fact conscious, for example he's dreaming and thus doesn't really need a body to be conscious?" That's not a good proof. He is STILL receiving physical sensations - flows of matter within his brain are IMPACTING each other. We might call this an INTERNAL form of intercommunication and sensation.

Nothing about life really makes much sense without matter.

 

[JAL]

dup

 

[HatGuy]

See post #41. You can't ascribe to God a morality contradicting your own.

Of course I can. His morality is better than mine. His ways higher than mine.

I get what you're saying in post 41 - that we can come across as more merciful than Him if we subscribe to certain doctrines. I get that. But I think you need to be more careful in how you word this sentence.

Meaning, if you have two leaders, and the one goes the extra mile to show mercy, he merits more praise than the other one.

You can't refer to God as supremely worth of praise if He has infinite resources but selfishly withholds some of them.

You've made a big assumption by saying that God responding in a finite way means he 'selfishly' withholds some of his resources. Why the use of the word 'selfishly'? Why assume a withholding of resources is a selfish act? Especially when you don't have all the information at your disposal?

You've also made a leap by insisting love is only limited to mercy. What about justice? What about fairness? What about discipline? Are these not also attributes from a loving leader or parent? Yes they are and that can be demonstrated quite easily. We do not praise parents who never discipline their children. Would you praise God if he showed only mercy but never justice to an unrepentant leader like Idi Amin? I would not praise a God who cannot balance out justice and mercy perfectly. Fortunately, God can and does, and thus showcases his love to all creatures.

So again, there is no logical reason to say that an infinite God cannot (or should not) respond in a finite way to finite creatures who have a finite morality and finite understanding. His love can remain infinite even if it is given finitely, simply because a finite response may actually be the more loving response to finite creatures.

Your definition of love is too narrow and needs to be refined according to the scriptural standard of perfect love.

Perhaps not, but if He doesn't transcend time - if He is constrained by it - He certainly DOES begin to look finite. For example it becomes more difficult to cogently argue that He knows the future, if He is trapped in time just like we are. Like anything else, the doctrine of infinitude is susceptible to death by a thousand cuts.

.
"Trapped in time" indicates that you still view time according to the very Platonic philosophy you're trying to undercut.

God does not have to be 'trapped' in time if He is eternal, for time itself may very well be eternal. This can be demonstrated if we see God's relation to time as something of an extension of who is, given that He created all that is after all. There's no Biblical basis for saying time will end. We know that judgement will come down to earth, and that man is mortal, but there's nothing to indicate both Biblically and Philosophically and even when we look at physics that time itself has an end or even a beginning. There are beginnings and endings but Time itself (capital "T") is another whole other matter.

We will probably be scratching our brains for a long 'time' (lol) yet on time itself, and the fact that time is something so difficult to grasp or measure etc. is surely a hint that time has a certain infinite, God-like quality about it. Given that the Bible gives us limited information and is far more interested in explaining how God relates to creatures personally and less on how He does so metaphysically, these conversations are wonderful and interesting but we can not get dogmatic about our views.

Pretty weak. So hell is now a happy place compared to heaven? Look, I'll say it again. I'm not claiming to have apodictic arguments.

Firstly, I threw hell in there simply to indicate that there is information we do not have and so we cannot make too many assumptions about God's love and how hell fits into that picture. I never said hell is happy compared to heaven, where did you get that from?

Secondly, the fact that you've clearly stated that you have not found a single argument here or even in 2,000 years of Christian history that refutes your arguments is clearly an apodictic attitude. You are saying that neither anyone on this thread, or anyone in all of Christian history, has been able to refute or come up with a better argument than you. So you alone possess some sort of higher revelation or are smarter than 2,000 years of Christian thinkers. What is that if not apodictic? You need to practice what you preach by your actions . If it's not apodictic, then what is it? Simple arrogance? Simple ignorance? Please answer.

Okay, now let's ask a few questions of you.

Psalm 147:5
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
Please explain how a finite god has infinite understanding.

1 Kings 8:27
"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!"
Please explain how the 'highest heaven' cannot contain a material god.

Psalm 145:3
"Great is the LORD, and highly to be praised, And His greatness is unsearchable."
Please explain how a finite God has unsearchable greatness.

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Please explain what a finite god means when he says he is the Alpha and the Omega.

Jeremiah 23:23-24
"Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD."
Please explain why a finite, material god says he 'fills' the heavens and the earth.

Proverbs 15:3
"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good."
Please explain, under your view, how the eyes of the finite Lord are everywhere.

Please also explain what is meant by God's 'presence' in light of your interpretation of pneuma.

Thanks!

 

[JAL]

Your Haveing some real problems with the term 'spirit', here. Yes literally it's breath but the Holy Spirit is not air.

I want to look at another passage where immaterialism fails miserably - John 3:5.

This passage is arguably the most significant passage in the entire Bible. Why so? Because it features God Himself standing before mankind to articulate HIS KEYNOTE SPEECH ON SALVATION.

More than any other, then, this is the ONE speech that we'd EXPECT to be especially seamless, straightforward, and parable-free. Simply because God loves us and DOES want us to be saved, above all.

And I think if we're being PERFECTLY honest with ourselves, the traditional reading of John 3:5 isn't seamless, for two reasons:
(1) How could water POSSIBLY be crucial to our salvation?
(2) Didn't Jesus already formulate a water-less, seamless, faith-alone salvation at 3:16? Yes!

The traditional reading is clearly not seamless:

"Unless a man is born of (MATERIAL) water, and (IMMATERIAL) Spirit, He cannot see the kingdom of God."


Earlier I demonstrated that the human soul must subsist in a somewhat fleshy-like form as to interact with our bodies. Recall that flesh is largely water, and also has some oxygen (breath/wind). Thus for purposes of the NEW BIRTH, the Third Person likely enters our soul as Water and Wind. Hence:

"Unless a man is born of Water and Wind, he cannot see the kindgom of God" (Jn 3:5).

This is seamless because it concurs with the faith-alone formula of verse 16. God provides the Water. All I have to do is believe.

Is this indeed a breath/wind context? Verse 8 is decisive. "The[Pneuma] blows where it pleases, you hear its sound but don't know whence it came or where it's going. So it is of everyone born of the [Pneuma]" (3:8). Hence:

"The[divine] Wind blows where it pleases, you hear its sound but don't know whence it came or where it's going. So it is of everyone born of the [divine] Wind" (3:8).

WHY did Jesus expect Nicodemus to already be aware of Water and Wind? Due to several OT passages. Here's an example from the Greek OT - it uses the same two Greek words for Water and Wind as in John 3:5:
Then will I sprinkle clean [Hudor] upon you, and ye shall be clean…A
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you…And I will put my [Pneuma] within you, and cause you to walk in
my statutes (Eze 36:25-27, KJV)

 

[JAL]

Of course I can. His morality is better than mine. His ways higher than mine.

I get what you're saying in post 41 - that we can come across as more merciful than Him if we subscribe to certain doctrines. I get that. But I think you need to be more careful in how you word this sentence.

It that's your assessment, not sure you understand post 41 at all.

You've made a big assumption by saying that God responding in a finite way means he 'selfishly' withholds some of his resources. Why the use of the word 'selfishly'? Why assume a withholding of resources is a selfish act? Especially when you don't have all the information at your disposal?

I'll never have 'all the information' (i.e. be omniscient). But as a RESPONSIBLE EXEGETE, I've got to grapple with the data that I DO have and make a decision based on THAT.

And when I do that, I'm pretty sure I land in a position more cogent than yours. You go on to talk about BALANCE. You fail to see that atonement is justice, and therefore already IS BALANCED. Therefore your argument (paraphrased), "An infinitely loving God doesn't atone infinitely because that would be out of balance" DOESN'T WASH. As noted, it contradicts the biblical definition of love as intervention/assistance and thus includes atonement.

Again, I'm not expecting an apodictic conclusion, but surely what I just said is more consistent.

You've also made a leap by insisting love is only limited to mercy. What about justice? What about fairness? What about discipline? Are these not also attributes from a loving leader or parent? Yes they are and that can be demonstrated quite easily. We do not praise parents who never discipline their children. Would you praise God if he showed only mercy but never justice to an unrepentant leader like Idi Amin? I would not praise a God who cannot balance out justice and mercy perfectly. Fortunately, God can and does, and thus showcases his love to all creatures.

Atonement is perfectly balanced, as explained above.

And I've already discussed human discipline. It follows the same principles (minimizes suffering) but executes it differently due to human limitations. An infinite God has no such limitations.

So again, there is no logical reason to say that an infinite God cannot (or should not) respond in a finite way to finite creatures who have a finite morality and finite understanding. His love can remain infinite even if it is given finitely, simply because a finite response may actually be the more loving response to finite creatures.

See above.

Your definition of love is too narrow and needs to be refined according to the scriptural standard of perfect love.

"Trapped in time" indicates that you still view time according to the very Platonic philosophy you're trying to undercut.

God does not have to be 'trapped' in time if He is eternal, for time itself may very well be eternal. This can be demonstrated if we see God's relation to time as something of an extension of who is, given that He created all that is after all. There's no Biblical basis for saying time will end. We know that judgement will come down to earth, and that man is mortal, but there's nothing to indicate both Biblically and Philosophically and even when we look at physics that time itself has an end or even a beginning. There are beginnings and endings but Time itself (capital "T") is another whole other matter.

If God is in time, His consciousness DOES have a kind of beginning (as the past cannot extend back infinitely), as I outlined earlier in this thread, when I argued that His first thought - His first act of free will - begins time.

We will probably be scratching our brains for a long 'time' (lol) yet on time itself, and the fact that time is something so difficult to grasp or measure etc. is surely a hint that time has a certain infinite, God-like quality about it. Given that the Bible gives us limited information and is far more interested in explaining how God relates to creatures personally and less on how He does so metaphysically, these conversations are wonderful and interesting but we can not get dogmatic about our views.

Time as I defined it isn't so hard to grasp because I essentially denied it. I said the only thing real is matter in motion, not time, and that 'time' is just a word coined for a number of motions (a hand moving around a clock). I don't believe in 'time'

Firstly, I threw hell in there simply to indicate that there is information we do not have and so we cannot make too many assumptions about God's love and how hell fits into that picture. I never said hell is happy compared to heaven, where did you get that from?

I phrased it too harshly in my rush but the point remains. Your words were trying to cast hell in a somewhat less-than-hellish light. Not convincing.

Secondly, the fact that you've clearly stated that you have not found a single argument here or even in 2,000 years of Christian history that refutes your arguments is clearly an apodictic attitude. You are saying that neither anyone on this thread, or anyone in all of Christian history, has been able to refute or come up with a better argument than you. So you alone possess some sort of higher revelation or are smarter than 2,000 years of Christian thinkers. What is that if not apodictic? You need to practice what you preach by your actions . If it's not apodictic, then what is it? Simple arrogance? Simple ignorance? Please answer.

Yeah I'd like to answer this ridiculous tired accusation once for all. WE'RE ALL THE SAME IN THAT REGARD. The moment you form an opinion, you think YOU'RE right to the exclusion of all other contrary opinions. Duh. So using that against me is pure ad hominem.

Okay, now let's ask a few questions of you.

The trouble is that you're citing verses that easily lend themselves to other intepretations. Whereas I usually cite verses with a kind of logical rigor in the sense that I'm basing my arguments on assumptions that both you and I agree on. For example you and I have some agreement on how matter 'works'. Therefore if I point you to a physical event in Scripture in proof of materialism (just an example), it becomes hard for you to disprove my conclusion without impugning your own assumptions.

So the way that I MYSELF quote Scripture is very different than the way that I see many other Christians citing it. But here we go, briefly.

Psalm 147:5
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
Please explain how a finite god has infinite understanding.

My reading: (other translations, BEYOND MEASURE, not 'infinite'). No human being can quantitatively wrap their heads around the magnitude of God's virtues such as His love. I already said so myself several times.



1 Kings 8:27
"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!"
Please explain how the 'highest heaven' cannot contain a material god.

My answer: Of course it can't. Didn't you read my Doctrine of God and Creation? He presumably awakened out of the Totality (the original sum total of matter) and then formed the universe out of leftover, unawakened matter. He's probably much bigger than the universe.


Psalm 145:3
"Great is the LORD, and highly to be praised, And His greatness is unsearchable."
Please explain how a finite God has unsearchable greatness.

Already answered.


Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Please explain what a finite god means when he says he is the Alpha and the Omega.

Answered earlier. His first thought begins time. He is the beginning of everything. (Not to be confused with the beginning of 'time' as WE know it) - the rotations of the earth as 24 hour days.


Jeremiah 23:23-24
"Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD."
Please explain why a finite, material god says he 'fills' the heavens and the earth.

Why would you ask me a question like this? Are you not aware that matter fills containers?

Proverbs 15:3
"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good."
Please explain, under your view, how the eyes of the finite Lord are everywhere.

Already answered. I said that God monitors the whole Totality.

Please also explain what is meant by God's 'presence' in light of your interpretation of pneuma.

Thanks![/QUOTE] His physical presence. (Am I not a clear writer?).

 

[HatGuy]

I'll never have 'all the information' (i.e. be omniscient). But as a RESPONSIBLE EXEGETE, I've got to grapple with the data that I DO have and make a decision based on THAT.

And when I do that, I'm pretty sure I land in a position more cogent than yours

You're not being a responsible exegete when you assume that a finite response from an infinite God with infinite resources is responding selfishly. You cannot make such an assumption with your limited knowledge. I ask again: Why CAN'T an infinite God respond in a finite way to finite creatures? You're not actually answering that.

I'm sure you think your position is more cogent. You do appear to be in love with your own thoughts more than the thoughts of 2,000 years of Christian history, after all, so I don't know why I should be an exception.

You go on to talk about BALANCE. You fail to see that atonement is justice, and therefore already IS BALANCED. Therefore your argument (paraphrased), "An infinitely loving God doesn't atone infinitely because that would be out of balance" DOESN'T WASH.

I agree that the atonement gets the balance right, but I've no idea what that has to do with whether it is appropriate for an infinite God to respond in a finite way.

I would add that the atonement seems to atone infinitely, given that those who put faith in Christ do get eternal life. However, it does not appear to atone for those who refuse it. That does not mean it is not infinite, because if the atonement does get the balance right, then it has to also balance the free choices of free finite agents.

I've no idea why this seems to be a problem anyway. How does making God finite and material actually save souls?

As noted, it contradicts the biblical definition of love as intervention/assistance and thus includes atonement.

Ahem. No, that's YOUR definition of love.

Again, I'm not expecting an apodictic conclusion, but surely what I just said is more consistent.

No, it isn't.

Atonement is perfectly balanced, as explained above.

No it was not explained.

And I've already discussed human discipline. It follows the same principles (minimizes suffering) but executes it differently due to human limitations. An infinite God has no such limitations.

Ok.

If God is in time, His consciousness DOES have a kind of beginning (as the past cannot extend back infinitely), as I outlined earlier in this thread, when I argued that His first thought - His first act of free will - begins time.

God is not in time, and he is not outside of time. That's my view. He is ETERNAL, which means time, for lack of a better way to put it, exists within HIM and is eternal since He is the ultimate.

Time as I defined it isn't so hard to grasp because I essentially denied it. I said the only thing real is matter in motion, not time, and that 'time' is just a word coined for a number of motions (a hand moving around a clock). I don't believe in 'time'

Okay, fair enough.

Yeah I'd like to answer this ridiculous tired accusation once for all. WE'RE ALL THE SAME IN THAT REGARD. The moment you form an opinion, you think YOU'RE right to the exclusion of all other contrary opinions. Duh. So using that against me is pure ad hominem.

I have not claimed to have a more water-tight argument than 2,000 years of Christian thought. You made that claim. Highlighting that such a statement from an individual behind a keyboard is rather absurd is not an ad hominem, it's just a plain old rational observation.

So the way that I MYSELF quote Scripture is very different than the way that I see many other Christians citing it.

Bingo. Not only other Christians present, but other Christians past. And that doesn't make you worry?

You're the odd one out and yet you think you're the ONLY one who is right? Dude, that's actually called delusion. I'm not being ugly here, but have you seriously wondered why you're the odd one out?

Is there any one - perhaps a contemporary theologian, or some theologian in the past - that agrees with your views?

Psalm 147:5
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
Please explain how a finite god has infinite understanding.

My reading: (other translations, BEYOND MEASURE, not 'infinite'). No human being can quantitatively wrap their heads around the magnitude of God's virtues such as His love. I already said so myself several times.

You're putting words into the scripture's mouth. It does not say 'no human being can quantitatively wrap their heads around the magnitude of God's virtues such as His love' but it says 'His understanding is infinite / beyond measure'.

You need to explain HOW a finite God's understanding (knowledge) is BEYOND MEASURE.

Other translations say his knowledge is WITHOUT LIMIT.

Others say there is NO END to his understanding.

A finite God's understanding would be (a) measurable (even if not by us, by himself, at least); (b) limited; (c) have an end.

It appears, however, his understanding has no end. Well, that's according to scripture itself.

Try again. Your answer is not convincing and certainly not water tight at all.

1 Kings 8:27
"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!"
Please explain how the 'highest heaven' cannot contain a material god.

My answer: Of course it can't. Didn't you read my Doctrine of God and Creation? He presumably awakened out of the Totality (the original sum total of matter) and then formed the universe out of leftover, unawakened matter. He's probably much bigger than the universe.

Wait, what? The Totality?

Are we dealing with gnostic stuff now?

So God presumably awakened out of the Totality. Okay. Scripture please.

(P.S. is this 'original' sum total of matter infinite?)

Psalm 145:3
"Great is the LORD, and highly to be praised, And His greatness is unsearchable."
Please explain how a finite God has unsearchable greatness.

Already answered.

No, it hasn't

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Please explain what a finite god means when he says he is the Alpha and the Omega.

Answered earlier. His first thought begins time. He is the beginning of everything. (Not to be confused with the beginning of 'time' as WE know it) - the rotations of the earth as 24 hour days.

Okay. Not convinced overall, but at least it's consistent with your view.

Jeremiah 23:23-24
"Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD."
Please explain why a finite, material god says he 'fills' the heavens and the earth.

Why would you ask me a question like this? Are you not aware that matter fills containers?

Are the 'heavens' measurable? All time and space?

Proverbs 15:3
"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good."
Please explain, under your view, how the eyes of the finite Lord are everywhere.

Already answered. I said that God monitors the whole Totality.

Okay, you'll have to explain this Totality.

Secondly, is he measuring it all at once?

Please also explain what is meant by God's 'presence' in light of your interpretation of pneuma.

Thanks!

His physical presence. (Am I not a clear writer?).[/QUOTE]
Errr... how do I put this...?

 

[InterestedApologist]

JAL - You have now posted that you don’t believe in time, but God is somehow constrained by it? Please explain this.

You have stated God cannot have foreknowledge, as he is constrained by time (something you now say you don’t believe in). Your Bible is much thinner than mine, since it is full of prophecy, which cannot be from God, as, in your view, he cannot know the future.

You believe in a finite God, on a philosophical level, but fail to understand that a scientific examination of God's claimed attributes in scripture clearly force Him to be eternal and unconstrained by time. That you have narrowed your view strictly to philosophical understanding while not considering science or scripture in any way makes your assumptions fall apart when tested.

You assume God cannot be infinite, but is finite instead.You have assumed this because of his interaction with man on a finite level. This falls apart when considering that man is finite, and as such, why wouldn’t God’s interactions with him seem finite? Of course, that doesn’t mean they are finite, as God’s interactions have eternal data available to him. Perhaps your understanding of God’s love is warped because you have a thimble’s worth of data measured against God’s ocean of data?

You are being intellectually dishonest when you claim that you must form an opinion on only the data you have. While it may be true to an extent, the fact that you are aware that you have limited knowledge but are not making any provision that other possibilities may exist based on having greater information available is just simply dishonest.