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

[JAL]

If what you've said was inspired of God then it would be recognizable by every Bible teacher and Bible scholar.

I take it then you've rejected every conclusion drawn during the Protestant Reformation. Right? Because according to your words, when the majority of the church is in consensus, then any rebel - whether me, or Martin Luther, or anyone else - is in the wrong.

Those are only people who don't pay attention to context. Their ability to impress would be a monumental task.

So the numerous church fathers cited in favor of physical angels (termed 'pneuma' in Scripture) does not impress you? But a moment ago you wanted me to be impressed with all the biblical scholars that YOU favor?
(1) Angels are pneuma. They are physical - and I can provide you plenty of biblical evidence for that conclusion.
(2) Therefore the Holy Pneuma is physical.

How about Augustine? I take it he doesn't impress you either? Augustine used the term corporeal in the standard sense of material substance, for example “Whoever saw that dove [descend upon Christ] and that fire [at Pentecost],” he wrote, “saw them with their eyes….in corporeal forms”. Augustine‟s additional examples of “corporeal forms [were] the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount.” (Augustine, NPNF Part 1 Vol 3 Book 2 chap 6).

Those words in bold are Augustine's exact words. Note he says that these men saw God with their actual physical eyes.

Not a physical mouth, but the text makes use of anthropomorphic terms due to the truth that God is Spirit and therefore not flesh as we are.

Sure you're free to draw that conclusion. You're free to dismiss all the biblical data as 'mere anthropomorphisms' and then look to Plato for your beliefs. That's your prerogative.

Me? I'll go with Scripture. I'll go with the biblical data.

Look, I'm not saying you DELIBERATELY look to Plato. I'm talking about 2,000 years of societal influence upon our thinking. None of us are completely objective.

I said:
"We speak by exhaling material breath. Immaterial speech is a logically incoherent contradiction in terms. God speaks. He is therefore material."

Not so.

Sorry but I can't find any coherent definition of speech except matter/energy. Especially when Scripture takes the time to spell it out that breath is released from God's mouth when He speaks (Psalm 33:6).

Approximately 7 billiion people per day speak this way. If I were to embrace your hermeneutic - one that essentially tells me to be so distrustful of the biblical writers as to disregard an experience empirically confirmed 7 billion times a day, I might as well throw away my Bible. There's evidently no data there I can have any confidence in.

It seems that you are struggling with the truth that a s/Spirit being can speak.

I don't think I'm the one struggling. I think you don't much like what Scripture teaches.

 

[JAL]

But you and your small number of mistaken teachers or preachers are doing all the work, not God.

Hmm...You didn't have much to say about that citation from ISBE, a reference composed by 200 evangelical scholars. Here it is again, in reference to when God walked by Moses:

The glory of Yahweh is clearly a physical manifestation, a form with hands and rear parts, of which Moses is permitted to catch only a passing glimpse, but the implication is clear that he actually does see Yahweh with his physical eyes. (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on "glory")

"His face shone brilliantly like the sun" (see Rev 1). Let's also delve a little deeper in that Mosaic passage. Scripture teaches that the fullness of God's radiance is too overwhelming for us to approach without dying, hence "No man can see my face and live." How then did men see God face to face? He had to physically shade it enough. In the above passage, however, Moses wasn't requesting a shaded view. He was asking to see the fullness of God's glory. God's response? To paraphrase, God told him this, "I can show you my back, but I must shade my face." Therefore He warned Moses to stay within the cleft of the rock (itself providing a bit of shading) but not ENOUGH shading, so God had to hand-shade His face as well, "I will cover you with my hand, so that my face will not be seen". The plan was that, after His face had passed by, it would then be safe to remove the hand-shading. "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

These are indisputably physical dynamics. When Moses came down from the mountain, his face was too radiant for Israel's eyes to bear. They couldn't bear the Light. He had to put a physical veil over his face to shield their eyes. Now here's the clincher. A material veil cannot protect your eyes from immaterial light. This proves -unequivocally - that it was a real material Light, restrained by the veil.

 

[JAL]

So he injected his own materialistic "private interpretation" into the Biblical text.

Post 258 wasn't addressed to you directly but certainly applies to you - and to anyone else who imagines that Scripture is short on evidence for my conclusions.

But you and your small number of mistaken teachers or preachers are doing all the work, not God.

Small number of scholars? You need to rethink that, in light of Thomas Oden's work. Oden wrote a very unusual type of Systematic Theology. His goal was to itemize all the main points of consensus in mainstream Christianity, certainly for the first 1,000 years, but also points of consensus up till the Protestant Reformation. Thus nothing on his pages is his distinctive view - it is rather the overwhelming consensus of the Christian church. I'll cite him in a moment.

Earlier I pointed out that God's titles such as "Father" don't change. Thus if we can find even one clear passage indicating "Holy Breath" as His title, we must read it back into all the passages. Enter John 20:22:

"He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" (John 20:22).

He was expelling physical breath from his nostrils. He identified it as the Third Person. Now here's what Thomas Oden had to say about that verse:

"Jesus himself chose the expression 'Holy Breath‘ to designate the Comforter to follow Him (John 20:22)'" (see Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Volume Three (Peabody: Prince Press, 2001, reprint), p. 16).

The actual LITERAL rendering of John 20:22 is the "The Holy Breath", therefore, by consensus for the first 1,000 years of the church, and probably at least until the Protestant Reformation.

That pretty much wipes out your theory that I can only claim "a small number of scholars" for my views. Again I ask you, does the credibility of rebels like Calvin and Luther lie ONLY in the number of scholars supporting them?

 

[JAL]

So he injected his own materialistic "private interpretation" into the Biblical text.

Injected? When faced with verses like John 20:22, it is clear enough that the Platonic reading is the one meriting charges of injection/eisegesis.

Scripture repeats the same Wind/Breath theme over and over and over again. Consider Pentecost.

"Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy [Wind]" (Acts 2:2-4).

Evangelical scholars still lack a seamless reading of John 3:5. Of course they are in denial about the fact that their every attempt to explain that verse sounds tortorous and forced. That verse is a cinch for a materialistic metaphysics, as I demonstrate here. The interpretive key unlocking this passage is blowing Wind, as verse 8 makes obvious.

Moving on. The waters of the Red Sea did not part instantly but were gradually pushed apart by a blowing Wind over the course of an entire evening. Moses said it was a blast of Breath from God's nostrils (Ex 15) - and he used the SAME Hebrew word (ruach) typically mistranslated as "Spirit of God".

An immaterial, intangible wind cannot push material waters. This brings us to one of several logical problems facing spirit. If God were an intangible spirit, He would be unable to actually DO anything, not even so much as push a pencil. This is incoherent stuff.

Suppose you were a sorcerer/magician who could say, 'Abracadabra' and your will would be done. That being the case, would you bother to physically travel to each geographical locale in need of a miracle? Not at all. And yet Scripture depicts God as sending forth His Presence into the regions to perform the miracles on site. That indicates that He is PHYSICALLY performing the miracles just like a surgeon stands over his patient to heal him with his own hands. See for example Isaiah 55:11:

"My [spoken/exhaled] word that goes out from my mouth will not return to me void, but will accomplish the purpose for which I sent it"

According to a renowned evangelical commentary (Keil &Delitzsch), this verse shows that a substance exudes from God's mouth into the region to perform the miracle, and then returns to Him.

 

[JAL]

Equally illogical to say that breath or wind has created the universe.

I take it you believe in another incomprehensible theory known as creation ex nihilo. And just like you've decided you are infallible on the question as to whether God is a Spirit, you likewise, I'd imagine, see yourself infallibly right about creation ex nihilo.

Creation out of nothing is incomprehensible not just with respect to the logistics of how it's supposedly accomplished, but with respect to the outcome. Surely it violates the principle of identity. By that principle, I am a unique reality separate from all others, for example I will never be God. In the terms of professional philosophers, I am numerically distinct from everything and everyone else. Fine. But what happens if God sends me back into nothingness? And then pulls out another JAL? Maybe 2 or 3 at a time? Which is the real JAL? How is the principle of identity affirmed, when in fact this schema surely contradicts it? And if that principle isn't reliable, if my identity isn't actually discrete, then indeed I CAN be God (or vice versa).

This is unintelligible fluff. Why should I accept it? I provide a perfectly reasonable theory of creation on this thread - a theory consistent with the principle of identity.

 

[DamianWarS]

Holy Spirit” is a mistranslation of the Greek phrase in question.

then what Greek word would you use for spirit?

 

[JAL]

then what Greek word would you use for spirit?

The Greek term pneuma and the Hebrew term ruach both manifest - if we include the Greek OT - at least a hundred clear references to material wind/breath. No scholar disputes this fact.

Later, Plato spawned generations of Greek philosophers commited to a belief in immaterial substance. These followers often referred to it as pneuma. Thus a term that was possibly understood universally in material terms up till Plato had NOW acquired a 2nd possible meaning, "immaterial spirit".

Hence the biblical exegete shouldn't presume one or the other. He should examine the context to decide. In other words, does the context clearly allude to breath/wind? Are the dynamics of the context physical in nature? Or is it clearly making an effort to exclude matter?

 

[JAL]

Which brings up another point. A firmly established rule of hermeneutics is dedication to interpreting the unclear passages in light of the clear ones. We have at least 100 clear passages for breath/wind - that is, all passages which are not referring to a soul. This tips the scale in favor of reading the remaining passages in that same vein.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Greek term pneuma and the Hebrew term ruach both manifest - if we include the Greek OT - at least a hundred clear references to material wind/breath. No scholar disputes this fact.

Later, Plato spawned generations of Greek philosophers commited to a belief in immaterial substance. These followers often referred to it as pneuma. Thus a term that was possibly understood universally in material terms up till Plato had NOW acquired a 2nd possible meaning, "immaterial spirit".

Hence the biblical exegete shouldn't presume one or the other. He should examine the context to decide. In other words, does the context clearly allude to breath/wind? Are the dynamics of the context physical in nature? Or is it clearly making an effort to exclude matter?

so the short answer is the word "spirit" in Greek is "pneuma". languages are not mirrors and English is a very abstract language where Hebrew is a very concrete language. Greek for it's day was abstract but is still very concrete when compared with English.

For example, the word for generic word for God in Hebrew is "EL" combining the aleph and lamed characters. The aleph in pictograph is an image of an ox and abstractly represented strength. The lamed is a pictograph of a shepherds crook and abstractly represented authority as he who holds the shepherds crook controlled the sheep. Together both strength and authority are combined to form the fundamental concept of God. A suitable English word to recognize the etymology would be "powers" as power can represent both strength and authority yet what is translated is simply "God". There is also a pile of other Hebrew words that are conflated to one English word "God" and sometimes it is "gods" yet I don't see a concern for how this word is translated?

EL is one of literally thousands of examples so why this problem with pneuma when there are so many other more words to pick apart? Have you looked at the etymology of the English? the root of "spirit" fully agrees with the greek, it may have turned to more abstract directions, as is the nature of an abstract language, but if we eliminate "spirit" this means eliminating the adjective "spiritual". Would you prefer the adjectives "blown", or "breathed". I admit this can be useful for study but I don't see any practical use out of this and I think the translations are trustworthy.

This perhaps would be suited for a niche translation but not well suited for a translation for the masses. In the end, what are you proposing anyway? are you challenging the trinity?

 

[1213]

...
I don't see the problem and don't understand your objection.

God is wind, and those who worship him must worship in wind and truth.
John 4:24

Sorry, I think spirit means something else than wind. All though wind can in some way describe spirit. But what do you think is the “wind” of man?

For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit [pneuma] of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God's Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:11

I think spirit is good word and I think it is like attitude, similarly as in “team spirit”.

 

[JAL]

Sorry, I think spirit means something else than wind.

The difference is that my views are contextually/exegetically demonstrable, not some fantasy created by statements like this:

(Luke Skywalker): 'Trust in the force'
(Yoga instructor): 'Tap into the energy of all things'
(Christian): 'Tap into the immaterial spirit who is in all things'

Immaterial? Huh? Who made up that fantasy? Oh that's right. Plato.

For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit [pneuma] of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God's Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:11
All though wind can in some way describe spirit. But what do you think is the “wind” of man?

See post 248. That language sounds odd to you because you're 2,000 years divorced from the original mindset.

 

[JAL]

I meant post 248.

 

[fwGod]

You are insisting that we should ignore context and think that we are worshiping the Holy wind, the Holy breath.

LOL. What context am I ignoring?

You are ignoring the context of the verse that dictates whether to use the word "breath", or "wind", or "spirit"

For instance the following will demonstrate adhering to scripture context.

Jesus on the cross committed his spirit unto God (ps.31:5; Lk.23:46)

from Bible site
רוּחַ rûwach, roo'-akh; from H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):—air, anger, blast, breath, × cool, courage, mind, × quarter, × side, spirit(-ual), tempest, × vain, (whirl-) wind(-y).​

Any of those words are usable in any verse of scripture according to the context.

2 Sam.22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath H7307 of his nostrils."
- not wind, not spirit.

2 Sam.23:2 "The Spirit H7307 of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."
- not breath, not wind.

1 Kngs 18:12 "And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit H7307 of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth."
- not breath, not wind.

1 Kngs 19:11 "And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind H7307 rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: H7307
and after the wind H7307 an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake."
- the Spirit of the Lord was not in the wind. The the Spirit is not the wind. According to John 4:24, the Holy Spirit is like the wind.

Jer.49:36 "And upon Elam will I bring the four winds H7307 from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; H7307 and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come."
- the movement of air.

2 Chron.36:22 "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit H7307 of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.."
- not breath, not wind.

Lk.23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

from Bible site
The KJV translates Pneuma Strong's G4151 in the following manner: Spirit (111x), Holy Ghost (89x), Spirit (of God) (13x), Spirit (of the Lord) (5x), (My) Spirit (3x), Spirit (of truth) (3x), Spirit (of Christ) (2x), human (spirit) (49x), (evil) spirit (47x), spirit (general) (26x), spirit (8x), (Jesus' own) spirit (6x), (Jesus' own) ghost (2x), miscellaneous (21x).​

From where then do you JAL get the idea that the word Pneuma be translated- "breath", "wind"?

Continuing with the information of that Bible site page..

* the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
* sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit)
* sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")
* never referred to as a depersonalised force
* the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
* the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides​

at the very bottom of the list-

A. of the wind, hence the wind itself.
B. breath of nostrils or mouth.​

Concerning those-

STRONGS NT 4151: πνεῦμα
πνεῦμα, πνεύματος, τό (πνέω), Greek writings from Aeschylus and Herodotus down; Hebrew רוּחַ, Latin spiritus; i. e.:
1. a movement of air (gentle) blast;
a. of the wind: ἀνέμων πνεύματα, Herodotus 7, 16, 1; Pausanias, 5, 25; hence, the wind itself, John 3:8; plural Hebrews 1:7 (1 Kings 18:45; 1 Kings 19:11; Job 1:19; Psalm 103:4 (Psalms 104:4), etc.; often in Greek writings).
b. breath of the nostrils or mouth, often in Greek writings from Aeschylus down: πνεῦμα τοῦ στόματος, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (Psalm 32:6 (Ps. 33:6), cf. Isaiah 11:4); πνεῦμα ζωῆς, the breath of life, Revelation 11:11 (Genesis 6:17, cf. πνοή ζωῆς,​

.

Now here is the post to 1213 who quoted the scripture John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Concerning that verse, you JAL ignored the context and changed the words to fit with your private interpretation.

"God is wind, and those who worship him must worship in wind and truth."

And now returning to post #259

Your shoving a Platonic bias INTO the context..

Since I correctly quote the scripture verse from any Bible today "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
That is according to the Bible translators, and get this, none of them have any explanation anywhere that they have used Plato's teachings to make their translations. Neither did they say that any ancient manuscript had any Plato bias in them.

It's clear then that you are using a strawman to accuse me of having a Plato bias, and shoving it into the context.

..and berating me for ignoring it!

I merely pointed out that you are ignoring context. You have interpreted erroneously that I berated you.

The only CLEAR thing mentioned in those contexts is breath/wind !!!

What's clear concerning John 4:24, is that it says "Spirit". And it's clear that you incorrectly, without any inspirational authority from God.. have inserted "wind".

As I stated previously, and the Bible site confirms it, an impersonal wind cannot accurately describe the personable Holy Spirit.

I suspect that you grossly misunderstood the following.. an excerpt that has been taken from.. or from an article like it
The Holy Spirit: Breath of God

"Lets take this into the New Testament because we have almost the same thing where Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.
He says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:608, NKJV).
Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, and He's saying it is like wind. When you get into the Greek behind that, the Greek word is pneuma, which again means "a current of air,".. "breath,".. or a "breeze, " .. and again by analogy, "a spirit."​

"So both the Hebrew and the Greek word are talking about breath. It's talking about wind."​

It must be pointed out that the person still uses the word "Spirit" when talking about the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is not teaching that we should all call the third person of the Trinity - "the Holy Breath", or "the Holy Wind".
He is describing the effect of the Holy Spirit being like the wind. Or to say that no man can determine or predict what the Holy Spirit will go next or what He will do next.

There is no indication in that article that anyone should, as JAL does, formulate a new doctrine based on it, or that it's scriptural for us all to henceforth change words in the text to address the Holy Spirit as "Breath" and "Wind".

I haven't looked at your other posts yet, but I'll let you know now that I may or may not answer your other posts. It depends on whether I have time, and/or whether they are just repeating what has already been covered.

 

[fwGod]

"A breeze is wind" - characterizes the breeze as an instance of wind.
"God is wind" - characterizes God as an instance of wind.
"God is fire" - classifies God as an instance of fire.
"God is water" - classifies God as an instance of water.

Your classifications are incorrect. An instance of wind, fire, water does not mean that God is wind, fire, or water. It means that He can cause them.

Any of these statements are valid.

Those you muddled? They are only in your own mind.

You have to put your mind into the biblical mindset of the authors. They were aware of one invisible material substance - wind. And since they knew:
(1) God is material
(2) God is (typically) invisible
(3) Therefore God is wind.

That again is incorrect. In saying that God is material is a quote from Tertullian, it's unfortunately chosen to cause such as I to object in that John 4:24 says that God is Spirit. He resides in heaven, a spiritual location which functions according to the spiritual kingdom of God.

God or the Holy Spirit is not of material substance as all created things are of material substance.

God is not wind. He created air that moves. The Holy Spirit moved or hovered over the face of the waters in Gen.1. On the day of Pentecost there came a rushing wind that filled the place where they were sitting.
There appeared to them tongues of fire and sat upon each of them.
But it says that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and they began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I don't see the problem and don't understand your objection.

God is wind, and those who worship him must worship in wind and truth.
John 4:24

The problem is that you take an unauthorized license to change the word "spirit" indicating a personable spirit being from the spirit realm, to "wind" indicating a natural realm reality.. to suit yourself.

 

[JAL]

You are ignoring the context of the verse that dictates whether to use the word "breath", or "wind", or "spirit".

Most of your post is based on this false premise already discredited. (Sigh). (#1) Again, a TITLE of God cannot change according to contextual clues.

Once we find even one passage where the context clearly renders His title as, say, 'The Father', then ANY parallel reference to God using that same Greek word will ALWAYS mean 'The Father' - it will NEVER mean, for example, brother-in-law, cousin, mother, sister, daughter, etc, etc,etc. Thus I didn't ignore the context, what I did was find at least one clear passage (in fact several) contextually decisive for "The Holy Breath" or "The Holy Wind" (breath/wind was the same word in the two ancient languages).

For instance the following will demonstrate adhering to scripture context.

Jesus on the cross committed his spirit unto God (ps.31:5; Lk.23:46)...

Wrong again. (#2) First of all, this is NOT a title and thus is not even the primary topic in dispute. Here are the NT titles of God:
"The Father
"The Son"
"The Holy Breath"
"The Holy Spirit" (debated by me as erroneous).

Do you understand what a TITLE is?

(#3) Secondly, "committed his spirit unto God" may or may not be a valid translation. Based on post 248, for example, I vigorously dispute it. The ancient biblical mindset knew of ONE word for invisible matter (breath/wind) hence they HAD to classify the inner man as breath/wind. After 2,000 years of Platonic brainwashing, you're finding it impossible to recognize that the proper literal translation is:
"committed his breath/wind unto God"
WHEREAS you and I, 2000 years later, would be more likely to say:
"committed his spirit unto God"
both versions are similar (both refer to the inner man) EXCEPT that the literal version is more accurate because it captures the ancient writer's RECOGNITION that this inner man was physical. Which I backed up with empirical facts PROVING that the inner man is physical - the mind-body proofs originally submitted by Tertullian, for which even Charles Hodge admitted he had no solution. NO ONE has refuted the mind-body proofs since Tertullian penned them in 200 AD. Trust me, Charles Hodge WANTED to. He could not.

(#4) Are we clear that God is numerically distinct from the universe in my view? The universe consists of matter separate from His own. I ask this because you seem to think that I equate God with ORDINARY wind, that is, any gust of wind out there must be God Himself. Nonsense of course.


(#5) Unbelievable. Some of your statements are still tainted with that primary false premise of yours that I named the "fwGod-Assumption" in post #260. Hence you submit unbelievably inappropriate 'objections' like this one, " [God is] never referred to as a depersonalised force." Well duh! We're 275 posts deep, and you still don't get that I'm a Trinitarian? How can a PERSON of the Trinity be a depersonalized force? Whom are you debating with? Whom are you responding to? Definitely not me. You need to read post 260 again.

In fact Tertullian - staunch materialist - was the first church father to use the word Trinity. I've discussed him again and again and again. Phillip Schaff considered Tertullian to be one of the best defenders of mainstream doctrine, including the Trinity, in church history. You seriously think Schaff would have said that if Tertullian defined God as a depersonalized force? Again, re-read post 260 please.

All the following statements are based on false premises exposed in #1 and #2 and #3 and #4 and #5 above. (Forthwith I'll group them under the rubric 'The Five False Premises'.

from Bible site
רוּחַ rûwach, roo'-akh; from H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):—air, anger, blast, breath, × cool, courage, mind, × quarter, × side, spirit(-ual), tempest, × vain, (whirl-) wind(-y).​

Any of those words are usable in any verse of scripture according to the context.

2 Sam.22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath H7307 of his nostrils."
- not wind, not spirit.

2 Sam.23:2 "The Spirit H7307 of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."
- not breath, not wind.

1 Kngs 18:12 "And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit H7307 of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth."
- not breath, not wind.

1 Kngs 19:11 "And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind H7307 rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: H7307
and after the wind H7307 an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake."
- the Spirit of the Lord was not in the wind. The the Spirit is not the wind. According to John 4:24, the Holy Spirit is like the wind.

Jer.49:36 "And upon Elam will I bring the four winds H7307 from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; H7307 and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come."
- the movement of air.

2 Chron.36:22 "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit H7307 of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.."
- not breath, not wind.

Lk.23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

from Bible site
The KJV translates Pneuma Strong's G4151 in the following manner: Spirit (111x), Holy Ghost (89x), Spirit (of God) (13x), Spirit (of the Lord) (5x), (My) Spirit (3x), Spirit (of truth) (3x), Spirit (of Christ) (2x), human (spirit) (49x), (evil) spirit (47x), spirit (general) (26x), spirit (8x), (Jesus' own) spirit (6x), (Jesus' own) ghost (2x), miscellaneous (21x).​

From where then do you JAL get the idea that the word Pneuma be translated- "breath", "wind"?

Continuing with the information of that Bible site page..

* the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
* sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit)
* sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")
* never referred to as a depersonalised force
* the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
* the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides​

at the very bottom of the list-

A. of the wind, hence the wind itself.
B. breath of nostrils or mouth.​

Concerning those-

STRONGS NT 4151: πνεῦμα
πνεῦμα, πνεύματος, τό (πνέω), Greek writings from Aeschylus and Herodotus down; Hebrew רוּחַ, Latin spiritus; i. e.:
1. a movement of air (gentle) blast;
a. of the wind: ἀνέμων πνεύματα, Herodotus 7, 16, 1; Pausanias, 5, 25; hence, the wind itself, John 3:8; plural Hebrews 1:7 (1 Kings 18:45; 1 Kings 19:11; Job 1:19; Psalm 103:4 (Psalms 104:4), etc.; often in Greek writings).
b. breath of the nostrils or mouth, often in Greek writings from Aeschylus down: πνεῦμα τοῦ στόματος, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (Psalm 32:6 (Ps. 33:6), cf. Isaiah 11:4); πνεῦμα ζωῆς, the breath of life, Revelation 11:11 (Genesis 6:17, cf. πνοή ζωῆς,​

 

[JAL]

An instance of wind, fire, water does not mean that God is wind, fire, or water. It means that He can cause them.

By church consensus for a MININUM of 1,000 years (as I demonstrated a few posts back), the literal rendering of John 20:22 is, "He breathed on them, and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Breath'." That translation was UNANIMOUS IN THE CHURCH. The church unanimously understood John 20:22 to be a DESIGNATION (read this as Title) for the Third Person.

And I provided many similar passages. You must think God is the most stupid teacher on the face of the planet because ANYONE - any normal reader unbiased by Platonic indoctrination - would see at John 20:22 that Christ was IDENTIFYING His expelled physical breath with the Holy Breath. In fact, I CHALLENGE you to find a way for Him to drive that point home with any more clarity. Essentially He exhausted the limits of both language and mime in driving that point home.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm NOT saying that every breath expelled by Christ during the Incarnation was The Holy Breath. Normally His lungs were filled with ordinary breath/wind, but this OCCASION, according to the text, was an expulsion of The Holy Breath, similar to how He does it from the throne:

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens formed, the starry host by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6).

He resides in heaven, a spiritual location which functions according to the spiritual kingdom of God.

Spiritual? Where have you exegetically established this magical substance that you refer to as 'spiritual substance' and this magical location that you refer to as 'spiritual location'? You don't recognize these artifacts as Platonic fabrications? Louis Berkhoff - one of the most esteemed theologians in the Reformed tradition - stated in his Systematic Theology that Scripture - again and again and again - decisively points our eyes physically upward to heaven. Case in point:

"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight" (Acts 1:8).

Then later:

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Here Jesus was standing, elsewhere He is said to be seated on a throne. A throne is a material seat. And we stand on solid material floors. If God were trying to convey some kind of immaterial reality, why all this reference to sitting and standing? Again, do you think God is the most stupid teacher of all? And angels, they too are magical substances in your view? Intangible?

"An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it" (Mat 28).

How does an intangible, immaterial angel push a material stone? And then sit on it? That makes zero sense. Therefore, could you lay aside the Platonic blinders for even ONE MOMENT and actually take a look at what Scripture says?

Everything in Scripture militates AGAINST a Platonic metaphysics. The ONLY way to reach your conclusions is to regard Greek philosophy as an authority equal to Scripture. And you know what? That's a historical fact! An article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, attested that most of the church fathers believed that God had supplied the Greek philosophical writing as a SUPPLEMENT to Scripture and therefore placed it on a par with Scripture.

God or the Holy Spirit is not of material substance as all created things are of material substance.

I too was indoctrinated to make the same faulty assumptions. I too was on the blue pill. Then I took the red pill.

God is not wind.

Yes, you've already made clear your ASSUMPTION that God is not physical. At some point are you going to provide any EVIDENCE for it? Because everything in Scripture militates against your position.

He created air that moves.

You're making presumptions about HOW God created the world. I linked you to a thread where I present an alternative theory. And it's not just a theory - my cosmogony is part and parcel of a (successful) effort to resolve a number of contradictions in traditional theology. You are not aware of such problems because for you, like so many Christians, ignorance is bliss. I do not mean you are an ignorant person. What I mean is that all of us are somewhat ignorant, and in some cases it's selective ignorance because ignorance is bliss. I'm sure I've been guilty of it many times myself.

But it says that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and they began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Would you please stop DOING that! Why do you keep assuming what is to be proven? The CONTEXT favors breath/wind!

Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy [Wind].

You see the difference? My translation is exegetically derived FROM THE CONTEXT. Yours is based on Platonic influence vis a vis your Five False Premises that I enumerated a while back. And yet you have the gall to suggest that I'm the one ignoring the context!

The problem is that you take an unauthorized license to change the word "spirit" indicating a personable spirit being from the spirit realm, to "wind" indicating a natural realm reality.. to suit yourself.

This one was named 'The fwGod-Assumption' but is one of your overall Five False Premises. See post 260.

 

[JAL]

An instance of wind, fire, water does not mean that God is wind, fire, or water. It means that He can cause them.

Correct. As I already stated, the fact that Scripture records materalistic theophanies innumerably many times need not concern you. You are free to throw away all the biblical data, disdaining it as misleading, deceptive anthropomorphisms in preference for the assumptions of Greek philosophers. That's your prerogative. Nothing I can do about it. I'd just ask you to be honest about the fact that your beliefs didn't derive from actual Scripture.

You should, however, reflect on the following point. One of the rebellions most insidious among ancient Israel was their predilection to worship idols that, in many cases, looked like human figures. And God has to be equally concerned with conceptual idolatry, not just literal idols. I mean in some cases the idol merely REPRESENTED the false god conceived. Ok that being the case, I ask you again, is God the most stupid teacher of all? Why appear as a material human figure and other material forms if He is not in fact such? Just to exacerbate the problem of conceptual idolatry? Consider:

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple" (Isaiah 6).

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him" (Dan 7:9-10).

Inevitably, such mental images became stamped PERMANENTLY in the minds of men like Isaiah and Daniel. (And now our minds too !!!!!) For what purpose? Just to foster conceptual idolatry?

I'm just asking you to use a little common sense here. Here's another common-sense argument. Several times the NT refers to actual fellowship with the living God(1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6). Are you aware that any effort to define 'fellowship' in immaterial, spiritual terms, is logically incoherent? There must be a sensory exchange more or less distinct ('loud') - although even feelings of joy and peace, if sufficiently distinct ('loud') qualify. However, the broader the SPECTRUM of sensations, the greater is the intimacy, as when "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend".

The following conversation between a man and his comrade will illustrate that fellowship/intimacy are partially dependent on both the intensity (loudness) and VARIETY of sensations.

A man says to his comrade, “Guess what? I have recently been enjoying incredibly intimate fellowship with a woman. Indeed we are in love.” “Oh really? Tell me all about it! Is she beautiful?” “Well, I‟ve never actually seen her.” “No? Ok. In that case, I‟ll bet she has a wonderfully feminine voice.” “Well, honestly, I‟ve never actually heard her voice.” “No? How exactly do you know her, then?” “Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules for me to obey.” “Wait a minute, I thought you referred earlier to enjoying intimate fellowship with her!” “Yes I did. It‟s a spiritual relationship.”

Sorry to burst that guy‟s bubble, but what he denoted as a “spiritual relationship” is not fellowship. Fellowship between two parties can only be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear).

God created us for fellowship, right? To minimize it? Or maximize it? For the responsible exegete the choice is clear. A materialistic metaphysics utterly trumps any notion of a 'spiritual' one.

 

[JAL]

From where then do you JAL get the idea that the word Pneuma be translated "breath", "wind"?

That's a weird question. Pneuma translates the OT word Ruach. Taking the Hebrew OT and Greek OT together (not to even mention the NT), you have at least:
(1) 100 Hebrew references to Ruach as breath/wind
(2) 100 corresponding Greek references to Pneuma as breath/wind.

No scholar disputes this fact, as far as I know. And I've already discussed John 20:22. Have you looked at John 3:8 recently? I don't have any Bible software installed on my computer, but you yourself cited some tools. You saw no evidence of breath/wind there?

Again your question is surprising:

From where then do you JAL get the idea that the word Pneuma be translated "breath", "wind"?

From the very scholars that you esteem! Take a hard look at the Bible translations, comparing them. Here's what you'll find about the translators:
(1) When Pneuma/Ruach refers to impersonal matter, they translate it as breath/wind. And I agree.
(2) When it refers to a soul (human, angelic, divine), they USUALLY translate it as spirit, with rare exceptions. What are these rare exceptions? (Pay close attention here). They sometimes make an exception when the context seems to decisively indicate breath/wind.
Don't you see evidence of Platonic bias here? They TRY to read 'spirit' into every such text but then essentially CONTRADICT THEMSELVES when the context shows how ludicrous that translation is. Why not translate the term consistently, as I do? Let's take a look at an example of these 'rare exceptions':

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming" (2Thes 2:8).

The Bibles are divided on this:
- Half of them translate it as 'the breath of his mouth'
- Half of them translate it as 'the spirit of his mouth'
Now let me ask you. FROM THE CONTEXT, which do you suppose is the better translation? Let me rephrase the question. Normally, when you open your mouth, do you expel breath from your lungs? Or do you normally expel immaterial spirit from your lungs? How does that work exactly? Can physical lungs push intangible spirit up the human airways and then out through the nostrils and mouth?

But that's not even the point. The point is, due to Platonic bias, the translators WANTED to inject spirit into this text, as usual, but due to the context, only half of them found themselves able to do so in good conscience.

If God is not a physical being, it seems odd to me that He plans to destroy the evil one via the breath of His mouth. Oh that's right, Paul included this verse hoping to foster more conceptual idolatry in our minds, in reality God is not physical at all.

The same is true of other passages. The translators LOVE to translate Ruach as the "The Spirit of God" but when faced with a passage like Ex 15, they suddenly contradict themselves, because it is obviously the case, as Moses recorded, that God pushed apart the waters of the Red Sea via blowing Wind, that is, a blast of material Breath from His nostrils, not by a blast of intangible Spirit. So to answer your question:

From where then do you JAL get the idea that the word Pneuma be translated "breath", "wind"?

From the very scholars/translators that you so esteem - it amuses me to see them contradicting themselves in their efforts to uphold their Platonic bias.

Now here is the post to 1213 who quoted the scripture John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Concerning that verse, you JAL ignored the context and changed the words to fit with your private interpretation.

Changed the words? Why do you keep assuming that such is the correct translation? Why do you assume what is to be proven? You haven't established ONE CLEAR CASE - one clear passage - for the translation 'spirit'. I addressed that passage at post 248, as I recall.

Scripture features passages with EXPLICIT contextual evidence for material breath/wind. Scripture has ZERO passages with clear evidence for "immaterial substance". That's one difference. Here's the other. Why should I believe in magical substance? I have no empirical evidence for that fantasy whereas on a daily basis, I experience wind/breath at every moment. And we haven't discussed the TECHNICAL definition of 'spirit' believed among the theologians. It is so logically problemmatical that I find it impossible to believe that such exists.

And now returning to post #259

Since I correctly quote the scripture verse from any Bible today "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." That is according to the Bible translators, and get this, none of them have any explanation anywhere that they have used Plato's teachings to make their translations. Neither did they say that any ancient manuscript had any Plato bias in them.

It's precisely these translations that I dispute. In a debate, it is not helpful to assume what is itself in debate.

And the influence of Plato is well known. Phillip Schaff openly admitted it. The Catholic Encyclopedia does as well. Even Tertullian was influenced by Plato to some extent. As I said before, ignorance is bliss. The fact that you are ignorant of Plato's influence doesn't nullify it.

It's clear then that you are using a strawman to accuse me of having a Plato bias, and shoving it into the context.

Here's why it is not a strawman. You have had every opportunity to prove that is NOT A BIAS. You've had every chance in the world to SHOW me where Scripture declares that numinous reality is immaterial, intangible substance or even makes it contextually clear. You haven't even FOUND ONE VERSE. All you do is keep repeating your PRESUMED translations and beliefs (the very translations in dispute here!). That's what I call bias - and it ultimately doesn't matter all that much whether it originated in Plato, yourself, or someone else.

Jesus is not teaching that we should all call the third person of the Trinity - "the Holy Breath", or "the Holy Wind".

And at least 1,000 years of church fathers and church consensus would disagree with you at John 20:22. But that's not even the main point. The main point is that the CONTEXT of John 20:22 exegetically implies "The Holy Breath". In that gesture of expelling breath, Jesus literally exhausted the limits of mime and language to persuade us that the Third Person's title is "The Holy Breath".

I suspect that you grossly misunderstood the following.. an excerpt that has been taken from.. or from an article like it
The Holy Spirit: Breath of God

"Lets take this into the New Testament because we have almost the same thing where Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.
He says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:608, NKJV).
Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, and He's saying it is like wind. When you get into the Greek behind that, the Greek word is pneuma, which again means "a current of air,".. "breath,".. or a "breeze, " .. and again by analogy, "a spirit."
​

"So both the Hebrew and the Greek word are talking about breath. It's talking about wind."​

The blowing Wind is a metaphor at John 3:8? Really? Metaphor for what? Spirit? You do realize, don't you, it's the same Greek word used twice in the passage? So what Jesus was saying is that Pneuma is a metaphor for Pneuma? Got a question for you:
(1) In popular speech, culture, and literature, what percentage of metaphors is constructed that way? Where a sentence containing the same word twice, utilizes the first instance as a metaphor for the second instance?
(2) What precedents can you find? How many such sentences exist in Scripture? I'd like to know. And I'm inclined to suspect it's pretty rare, at least in the historic and didactic texts (regardless of Psalms, prophecy, and poetic stanza).
(3) According to the verse this blowing Wind has the ability to blow WHEREVER IT PLEASES. Ordinary wind doesn't choose its destination, it doesn't blow where it pleases, rather it ends up wherever driven by the forces of nature.

There is no indication in that article that anyone should, as JAL does, formulate a new doctrine based on it, or that it's scriptural for us all to henceforth change words in the text to address the Holy Spirit as "Breath" and "Wind".

I'm not changing anything. You seem to think that the biblical writers penned in English. It's not a question of changing the text, it's in fact my responsibility to TRANSLATE it responsibly into my native English language. When I stand before God, He won't permit me the excuse, "I was just following the translators". I'm responsible before God to critically examine the work of the translators and thus ultimately translate it FOR MYSELF. As are you.

It feels like you're pushing me to be exegetically irresponsible. Shame on you.

 

[1213]

...That language sounds odd to you because you're 2,000 years divorced from the original mindset.

To me, your language sounds odd, not what the Bible tells. And I think the older translations are better in this case. But, I think the important thing is, what meanings Bible gives to the word "pneuma". In that we don’t even need to translate the word “pneuma”, because we have the meaning of it in the description Bible gives. If modern people give different meanings to what the Bible tells, I really don’t see any reason to receive them.

 

[JAL]

To me, your language sounds odd, not what the Bible tells. And I think the older translations are better in this case. But, I think the important thing is, what meanings Bible gives to the word "pneuma". In that we don’t even need to translate the word “pneuma”, because we have the meaning of it in the description Bible gives. If modern people give different meanings to what the Bible tells, I really don’t see any reason to receive them.

Modern? The church father Tertullian, writing in 200 A.D, was the first man known to use the word Trinity, and was a staunch materialist like myself, and read these terms the same way I do. He was praised by Phillip Schaff as being one of the greatest defenders of orthodox/mainstream Christianity in church history.

If modern people give different meanings to what the Bible tells, I really don’t see any reason to receive them.

Huh? Wind/breath is the standard meaning of Ruach/Pneuma, as every scholar in human history has admitted. For example there are at least:
(1) 100 verses in the Hebrew OT where ALL SCHOLARS (both ancient and modern) translate Ruach as wind/breath.
(2) 100 corresponding verses in the Greek OT where ALL SCHOLARS (both ancient and modern) translate Pneuma as wind/breath.

What do you mean by 'different' meanings?

Yet these same scholars have injected a different meaning - 'Spirit' - whenever it suits them. What you've got to understand is that this decision is rooted in a history of (weird) philosophical argumentation whose premises can be traced to Plato. And the scholars themselves admit as much.

Perhaps I'll get you a sample of that argumentation so you can see for yourself the weird roots of your own beliefs. I don't think you've any idea what you bought into.