Holy “Spirit”? Wrong. That’s Not His Name.

[Tarshish]

I recently posted an objection to the God-is-infinite view. I see no one has responded to that post.

You can continue to smirk at wind all you like but it hardly behooves a Catholic to do so - after all, you guys believe in the Real Presence. S

But transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian thought, not Platonic

 

[Strong in Him]

(sigh). You still don't get. He NEVER said that God is Spirit. "Spirit" is an English word. Jesus did not speak in English. OK? The PROPER translation of the Greek word Pneuma - based on the contextual evidence as I've been demonstrated - is not "Spirit" but breath/wind - and this is true in BOTH testaments..

I DO get it. You want to call the third person of the Trinity "Holy Breath" or "Holy wind" because you think that is the best translation from the Greek - even though I have told you what my Interlinear Greek NT and Greek dictionary say.

I am not going into this in great detail with you because I think that the term we use for him isn't that important. If you believe that the Spirit/wind/breath is;
- the third person of the Trinity
- was present with God the Father at the creation of the world (Gen 1:1)
- is our advocate/counsellor (John 14:16)
- will lead us into all truth, (John 14:17; 16:13)
- will enable us to be born again (John 3:3-8)
- testifies to us that we are children of God (Rom 8:14, 16)
- gives us gifts (1 Cor 12:12-28; Eph 4:11)
- enables us to bear fruit (Gal 5:22)
and acknowledge the passages about life in the Spirit and walking with the Spirit - that's great. If calling him "the Holy Breath" makes you feel more comfortable, then do it. As long as you believe in him, acknowledge him, ask to be refilled with him, and do not grieve, quench or blaspheme against him, I don't think God will mind.

If, of course, you don't actually believe these things and the argument about the name is a cover for that; that's more serious.

 

[JAL]

But transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian thought, not Platonic

I wasn't classifying transubstantiation as Platonic. After all, such a doctrine lends itself much more to materialism than immaterialism. To put it bluntly, I personally don't see how they make a move from immaterial Spirit to physical bread and wine.

And just to be clear, I don't believe that bread and wine can become God. I DO believe, however, that God can take the form/shape of bread and wine.

 

[JAL]

I DO get it. You want to call the third person of the Trinity "Holy Breath" or "Holy wind" because you think that is the best translation from the Greek - even though I have told you what my Interlinear Greek NT and Greek dictionary say.

I am not going into this in great detail with you because I think that the term we use for him isn't that important. If you believe that the Spirit/wind/breath is;
- the third person of the Trinity
- was present with God the Father at the creation of the world (Gen 1:1)
- is our advocate/counsellor (John 14:16)
- will lead us into all truth, (John 14:17; 16:13)
- will enable us to be born again (John 3:3-8)
- testifies to us that we are children of God (Rom 8:14, 16)
- gives us gifts (1 Cor 12:12-28; Eph 4:11)
- enables us to bear fruit (Gal 5:22)
and acknowledge the passages about life in the Spirit and walking with the Spirit - that's great. If calling him "the Holy Breath" makes you feel more comfortable, then do it. As long as you believe in him, acknowledge him, ask to be refilled with him, and do not grieve, quench or blaspheme against him, I don't think God will mind.

If, of course, you don't actually believe these things and the argument about the name is a cover for that; that's more serious.

No you still don't get it. It's not just the name - it's the nature of substance involved. The term 'Spirit', as understood by English readers, means 'immaterial ghost'. Whereas in both testaments, breath/wind denoted a material substance. "Jesus breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Breath." Was Jesus human in your view? Did the Son of God TRULY become man? And if in fact He did so, what kind of breathing did He do? Did it involve physical wind/breath? Or was it some kind of supernatural exhaling/inhaling of immaterial ghosts?

I don't see how we can call Jesus 'a genuine man' if He didn't experience normal respiration.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus was truly human; both God and man.

And God is a lot more than a "lump of physical substance".

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see how we can call Jesus 'a genuine man' if He didn't experience normal respiration.

Jesus breathed normal air, like every other carbon-based organism on this planet. He inhaled air--a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace carbon dioxide--the hemoglobin in His blood cells picked up the oxygen in His lungs, and transported it through His bloodstream to His brain, His limbs, His organs, etc. Normal terrestrial vertibrate respiration. Because He was human.

The stuff He breathed in wasn't the Ruach HaKodesh or whatever you want to call the One who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. He breathed in normal, ordinary, atmospheric gas--air. And depended upon it, like everyone else. Because He was a human being, a naturally ordinary human being, "with a rational body and a rational soul" as Chalcedon puts it--Mary's biological offspring.

Rendering this particular line of argumentation of yours moot.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

I'd say so. It's like watching a very boring ping pong match. If it was a worthy debate that would be one thing but Jal is just going on and on and on despite just about everyone giving him the proof he needs.

Post all the snyde remarks you want. Fine with me. At times, in fact, I actually enjoy it, because I find no stronger confirmation of my views than seeing members resort to empty rhetoric because they can't blunt the force of my arguments.


I'm confident you'll reply with protestations to the contrary but you're not fooling or impressing anyone, least of all me.


The ONLY things that impresses me is persuasive Scripture, logic, and data. Case in point - when I first joined this forum several years ago, I was a Young Earth Creationist. Had no idea how brainwashed I was on that point. On this forum I got slammed with posts documenting scientific data - plus solid reasoning - to the contrary. Wasn't long before I began to feel like a lunatic for believing in YECism - and it didn't take long for me to change my stance to Old Earth Creationist.

I KNOW myself to be a reasonable person. I listen to reason, and strive to adhere to it when taking stances. As a result, no measure of snyde remarks will in the least raise doubts in my heart about the cogency of my views - and their superiority to traditional views.

I CAN be persuaded that my views are incorrect, but this will require solid appeals to reason, data, and Scripture. Until then, here I stand - regardless of snyde remarks.

 

[JAL]

Jesus breathed normal air, like every other carbon-based organism on this planet. He inhaled air--a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace carbon dioxide--the hemoglobin in His blood cells picked up the oxygen in His lungs, and transported it through His bloodstream to His brain, His limbs, His organs, etc. Normal terrestrial vertibrate respiration. Because He was human.
The stuff He breathed in wasn't the Ruach HaKodesh or whatever you want to call the One who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. He breathed in normal, ordinary, atmospheric gas--air. And depended upon it, like everyone else. Because He was a human being, a naturally ordinary human being, "with a rational body and a rational soul" as Chalcedon puts it--Mary's biological offspring.

Rendering this particular line of argumentation of yours moot.

-CryptoLutheran

Um...You're not addressing John 20:22. First of all, you're only dealing with INHALING. Personally, for purposes of this debate, I don't much care how the divine Pneuma arrived within His lungs (the Father could have placed it there on that day without inhaling). So I don't need to debate that point, although personally I DO believe inhaling was involved. What is MORE relevant, however, is that the passage clearly documents the Son of God EXHALING the Holy Breath - which is PERFECTLY consistent with the OT depictions of God.

Sorry I'm not going to throw out the entire OT merely because YOU don't happen to relish what it says.

 

[JAL]

Jesus was truly human; both God and man.

And God is a lot more than a "lump of physical substance".

Sure.
Both sides define God as a substance, whether
(1) A sphere/lump of immaterial substance (the mainstream view).
(2) A sphere/lump of material substance (my view).
And both sides agree that the above description is merely a partial capture of His traits. He is certainly more than just a lump. Agreed.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't believe he even is,

a lump of physical substance

But I'm unsubscribing. I don't think we're getting anywhere and I'm sure we won't ever agree.

 

[James Is Back]

I don't believe he even is,


But I'm unsubscribing. I don't think we're getting anywhere and I'm sure we won't ever agree.

No one is getting anywhere with him that's why I say lock the thread. It's going nowhere and the horse has been beaten way too many times.

 

[drstevej]

Sure.
Both sides define God as a substance, whether
(1) A sphere/lump of immaterial substance (the mainstream view).
(2) A sphere/lump of material substance (my view).
And both sides agree that the above description is merely a partial capture of His traits. He is certainly more than just a lump. Agreed.

 

[JAL]

Most Protestant preachers imagine there is power in the written Word. However, picture an army detonating atomic bombs in a war. Many years later, when a history teacher brings into the classroom a textbook recounting the war, the students flee in terror of the atomic power. Pretty ridiculous, right? The history book is merely a description of the power, not the power itself. The written Word is likewise a mere description of the divine Word/Breath or, as Hebrews put it, the written law is merely a shadow of the heavenly realities. The written Law (the Bible) was certainly inspired, but the inspiration merely empowered the human writers to create an accurate history book. The book itself is not God’s power. As Paul put it, the Law had no power to cleanse or sanctify (see Rom 7 and 8) – regardless of how well it was preached.

And yet the Word released from Christ’s mouth DID have sanctifying power. “Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (Jn 15:3), because “the words that I speak unto you, they are Breath, and they are life” (Jn 6:63). “Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thes 2:8).

Someone will object, “I know the Bible is God’s power because various Scriptures have changed my life.” A lot of books have managed to change lives. Think of how the Koran, for example, has literally molded entire nations. Does this prove the Koran to be God’s power? Here’s the difference between books and the divine Power. When we read books, we find in them a reason to change. Whereas an outpouring of the Third Person is actual change. Two examples:
(1) The new birth. Instantaneous holiness.
(2) Revival (spiritual awakening). Entire cities become instantly holy/devout overnight, when God floods a nation with His reviving Presence.
Failing to comprehend that we need such revivals, preacher after preacher, Sunday after Sunday, remains content with preaching the powerless written Word – the law! The end result? After 2000 years, the moral character of the church is still almost as bad as the world. The divorce rate is about the same, for example. The church’s obsession with the written Word is the Galatian error repeated ad infinitum. After 2000 years, bible scholars are completely unaware that the Galatian epistle was written to stress ONE THING – the need for outpourings of the divine Word. Incredible.

 

[Targaryen]

I'm still subscribed to this nonsense?

Ok time to fix that.

 

[JAL]

I'm still subscribed to this nonsense?

Ok time to fix that.

Of course you have to call it nonsense. In Catholicism, infidelity to the magesterium spells a loss of salvation. What choice do you have, really?

 

[Targaryen]

Of course you have to call it nonsense. In Catholicism, infidelity to the magesterium spells a loss of salvation. What choice do you have, really?

I'm not Roman Catholic though....seems your reading skills match your theology, unreliant on observation.

 

[JAL]

I'm not Roman Catholic though....seems your reading skills match your theology, unreliant on observation.

Oh my bad. I guess when I see Catholic I think Catholic. Sorry I was too lazy to lookup Anglican Catholic.

 

[Ariel Gavriel]

If the Holy Spirit were a part of a family liken to a physical family, why would there be any need for man to physically die to inherit the Kingdom of heaven? 1 Corinthians 15:50. If God were a physical being, Christs death would have covered man's sinful nature so that man would not have to physically die. The problem with this theology is that God the father really is Spirit and Jesus is Spirit and the Holy Spirit is Spirit - indeed

The bible says: 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. I Corinthians 15:45.

 

[Hillsage]

Ariel Gavriel;

If the Holy Spirit were a part of a family liken to a physical family, why would there be any need for man to physically die to inherit the Kingdom of heaven? 1 Corinthians 15:50. If God were a physical being, Christs death would have covered man's sinful nature so that man would not have to physically die. The problem with this theology is that God the father really is Spirit and Jesus is Spirit and the Holy Spirit is Spirit - indeed

There's a problem in scripture with your POV. In the beginning was the "Word" which would have been spirit, as you say. But the "Word became flesh".

Jesus speaking in his glorified body;

LUK 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."


The bible says: 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. I Corinthians 15:45.

I think the correct thinking here must be rightly dividing the word. I believe that Luke is referring to 'Jesus as the 'son of man' after the flesh, and 1Cor is referring to 'Christ, as the 'son of God'.

 

[Hillsage]

Program won't let me 'edit'. I meant to say 'Christ as the 'son of God' after the spirit.

I do agree with you that Holy Spirit is not 'a name' as much as it is 'a title', like 'father' or 'son'.