One Died For All

[JAL]

I've got some work to catch up on. I'll try to make it back here later.

 

[Clare73]

I don't believe you fully understand what you are saying, because you are denying that Jesus didn't actually share a nature with us.

Is it you who actually is not apprehending the consequences revealed in the NT of Adam being our father?

We are born condemned by God for Adam's sin. (Ro 5:18)
To be totally like us, Jesus would have to be born under the same condition--condemned by God.

That is preposterous in light of the NT.

Jesus definition of himself excludes a fallen unregenerate nature.
"I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
If you know anything about the holiness of God in Leviticus, you know that a sinful nature is not one with God.

"I have come down from heaven, not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." (Jn 6:38)
That is not the disposition of a fallen unregenerate nature naturally disposed to self, nor is there anything in heaven that is sinful.

"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures (Mt 22:29). . .Go and learn what this means." (Mt 9:13)

Can we put this to rest now?

 

[Fervent]

Matter is a useless term? By "material" I mean "tangible". That's all. Is that clear enough?


That's exactly what Jesus meant - except capitalize it, born of [divine] Water and [divine] Wind. Verse 8 is a clear reference to divine Wind - if you don't see why, just ask, and I will explain it to you. When the divine Wind slowly parted the waters of the Red Sea over the course of an entire evening, Moses called it a blast of breath from God's nostrils. That word for "breath" is the same word historically mistranslated "Spirit of God" in all of the Bibles.

It was literal physical Wind. Maybe Pentecost will help?

"They heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind...They were all filled with the Holy [Wind]."

As you can see, the context clearly indicates physical Wind. There is no support here for the spirit-nonsense fabricated by the pagan homosexual philosopher Plato.

Yes, matter is a useless term because it is a catch-all. A photon, a quark, etc are not obviously the same substance. Exactly what "matter" is cannot be defined in any sensible way, and "materialists" always rely on a misleading common use definition that relies purely on appearance of substance as if appearance is fact.

 

[Fervent]

"Dying (spiritually), you will die (physically)" is the meaning in the Hebrew.

That first dying, that loss of eternal (God's own) life in his spirit, caused the fallen disposition of his nature.

He shared everything but the consequences of Adam's sin in us (Ro 5:17).

That part of the response was a computer glitch. Ignore it here.
It belongs to my response to you of post #392.

Care to cite the Hebrew grammar you're basing that reading on? Because from my Hebrew classes it's a case of emphasis using a qal infinitive with a qal imperfect.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, it is you who does not understand what hou are saying.

You are not adequately apprehending the consequences revealed in the NT of Adam being our father.
We born condemned by God for Adam's sin. (Ro 5:18)
To be totally like us, Jesus would have to be born under the same condition--condemned by God.

That is preposterous in light of the NT.

Jesus definition of himself excludes a fallen unregenerate nature.
"I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
If you know anything about the holiness of God in Leviticus, you know that a sinful nature is not one with God.

"I have come down from heaven, not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." (Jn 6:38)
That is not the disposition of a fallen unregenerate nature naturally disposed to self.

"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures (Mt 22:29). . .Go and learn what they mean." (Mt 9:13)

Can we put this to bed now?

No, Romans 5:18 does not say we are condemned by God. At least not in the sense you appear to be using it, we are destined to die from birth from the corruption of sin but not held guilty on account of it otherwise Paul would be contradicting rather than revealing mysteries of the Old Testament, e.g. Ezekiel 18. That you have to remove Jesus from having a nature like ours in order to justify your faulty reading should give you pause since the incarnation is an essential truth to uphold, but instead you simply double down and try to play word games.

 

[JAL]

Yes, matter is a useless term because it is a catch-all. A photon, a quark, etc are not obviously the same substance. Exactly what "matter" is cannot be defined in any sensible way, and "materialists" always rely on a misleading common use definition that relies purely on appearance of substance as if appearance is fact.

For practical purposes - certainly for my purposes - "tangible" is a sufficient definition of matter. And it's something we experience every day. If you won't accept any description of matter for debate's sake, you've thereby invalidated everything in the Bible, including the people, the places, the cross, the books of the Bible, the resurrection. And you might as well throw your computer and your keyboard out the window right now.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that belief in tangible substance is irrational and warranted, whilst belief in "intangible spirit" is fully warranted? Because that's what I'm disputing at the moment - the whole question here is which of those two beliefs is really warranted, both biblically and experientially.

Is this a dancing game, now that I've begun to illustrate the complete lack of biblical support for "intangible spirit"?

 

[JAL]

Yes, matter is a useless term because it is a catch-all. A photon, a quark, etc are not obviously the same substance. Exactly what "matter" is cannot be defined in any sensible way, and "materialists" always rely on a misleading common use definition that relies purely on appearance of substance as if appearance is fact.

Maybe another verse would help? How about this one.

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

In my understanding, "Holy Breath" was the unanimous consensus on the literal reading of the Greek, for at least the first 1,000 years of church history. As always, the text clearly supports physical, tangible divine Wind. It's as if God, as the real author of this text, were doing everything in His power to have the text rule out any notion of "intangible spirit" nonsense.

The title of the Three do not change (Father, Son, and Holy Breath). Thus the translation "Holy Breath" (or Holy Wind), since it is a clear implication in this passage, automatically applies to all other passages as well.

I can give more examples.

 

[Fervent]

For practical purposes - certainly for my purposes - "tangible" is a sufficient definition of matter. And it's something we experience every day. If you won't accept any description of matter for debate's sake, you've thereby invalidated everything in the Bible, including the people, the places, the cross, the books of the Bible, the resurrection. And you might as well throw your computer and your keyboard out the window right now.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that belief in tangible substance is irrational and warranted, whilst belief in "intangible spirit" is fully warranted? Because that's what I'm disputing at the moment - the whole question here is which of those two beliefs is really warranted, both biblically and experientially.

Is this a dancing game, now that I've begun to illustrate the complete lack of biblical support for "intangible spirit"?

A lot of this boils down to where we started, you believe in a god that lacks any ultimate characteristics. "Tangible" may make sense intuitively, but it's really not specific enough and relies on a classical understanding that no longer matches what has been observed. But God, being transcendant, must in some sense have an aspect that is not observable or contained within creation. And if that "god" is a part of reality, he is in no sense creator merely arranger of a pre-formed substance so it is clearly not the Ancient of Days. If you want to create the false god you seem intent to create that has none of the characteristics of God, you're free to do so but one day you will stand before the true God and have to give an account for your unbelief.

 

[Fervent]

Maybe another verse would help? How about this one.

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

In my understanding, "Holy Breath" was the unanimous consensus on the literal reading of the Greek, for at least the first 1,000 years of church history. As always, the text clearly supports physical, tangible divine Wind. It's as if God, as the real author of this text, were doing everything in His power to have the text rule out any notion of "intangible spirit" nonsense.

The title of the Three do not change (Father, Son, and Holy Breath). Thus the translation "Holy Breath" (or Holy Wind), since it is a clear implication in this passage, automatically applies to all other passages as well.

I can give more examples.

The bolded words are two different Greek words, one meaning "to puff" and the other which includes things now assigned to the category "spirit." Why are you using a false English equivalence?

 

[JAL]

A lot of this boils down to where we started, you believe in a god that lacks any ultimate characteristics. "Tangible" may make sense intuitively, but it's really not specific enough and relies on a classical understanding that no longer matches what has been observed.

Dancing. You DO believe in matter, at least in the sense of tangible substance, even though all of us have difficulty defining matter to a higher degree of specificity than that.

All I'm asking is that, for the sake of discussion, let's proceed with "tangible". I don't think you'd try to sit down in a chair, or eat food, or cross a bridge, if you lacked confidence in the existence of tangible substance. (Sigh). Can we move on?

But God, being transcendant, must in some sense have an aspect that is not observable or contained within creation.

Sheer assertion. By "transcdant" you mean something beyond ordinary human experience and understanding. In other words, your claim is that theology is not real theology unless it is gibberish. So an example of productive discourse would be, for example, 12 theologians sitting around a table, discussing the Bible in chinese, except none of them learned the language, so it's all gibberish. Then they arise from the table and pat each other on the back saying, "Boy, wasn't THAT a productive endeavor!"

If you want to create the false god you seem intent to create that has none of the characteristics of God, you're free to do so but one day you will stand before the true God and have to give an account for your unbelief.

That's exactly what YOU will have to confess on account of buying into the bogus claims of the pagan homosexual philosopher Plato.

 

[JAL]

The bolded words are two different Greek words, one meaning "to puff" and the other which includes things now assigned to the category "spirit." Why are you using a false English equivalence?

Irrelevant. He expelled literal physical breath/wind from His nostrils.

You must think God is the most stupid teacher in history. Recall that Plato lived 500 years before this text. Thus the notion of "intangible spirit" already existed in society. Therefore God KNEW that we, as translators, would have to decide between two possible translations of His title:
(1) The Holy Spirit/Ghost as immaterial substance.
(2) The Holy Breath/Wind as physical substance.

If God WANTED us to opt for #1, why create a verse like this:


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

Is God a stupid instructor in your view? Because you sure seem to think so.

 

[JAL]

I've given four examples already - although you didn't press me for clarification on one of them (John 3:8).

And beyond those four, I have several more.

 

[Fervent]

Dancing. You DO believe in matter, at least in the sense of tangible substance, even though all of us have difficulty defining matter to a higher degree of specificity than that.

All I'm asking is that, for the sake of discussion, let's proceed with "tangible". I don't think you'd try to sit down in a chair, or eat food, or cross a bridge, if you lacked confidence in the existence of tangible substance. (Sigh). Can we move on?


Sheer assertion. By "transcdant" you mean something beyond ordinary human experience and understanding. In other words, your claim is that theology is not real theology unless it is gibberish. So an example of productive discourse would be, for example, 12 theologians sitting around a table, discussing the Bible in chinese, except none of them learned the language, so it's all gibberish. Then they arise from the table and pat each other on the back saying, "Boy, wasn't THAT a productive endeavor!"

That's exactly what YOU will have to confess on account of buying into the bogus claims of the pagan homosexual philosopher Plato.

The issue is, if you're going to claim "everything is matter" it requires more than a simple definition of "tangible" and an explanation of what you mean by matter. Be specific. By transcendant, I mean outside of space and time, beyond it The term used for beyond human understanding is incomprehensible. It's quite ironic that you want me to accept a term that is so broadly defined that it is meaningless and you accuse me of speaking gibberish.

 

[Fervent]

Irrelevant. He expelled literal physical breath/wind from His nostrils.

You must think God is the most stupid teacher in history. Recall that Plato lived 500 years before this text. Thus the notion of "intangible spirit" already existed in society. Therefore God KNEW that we, as translators, would have to decide between two possible translations of His title:
(1) The Holy Spirit/Ghost as immaterial substance.
(2) The Holy Breath/Wind as physical substance.

If God WANTED us to opt for #1, why create a verse like this:


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

Is God a stupid instructor in your view? Because you sure seem to think so.

You're trying to force English semantics onto a Greek word, when the word itself speaks of insubstantiality which is why it was used in so many diverse ways. The reason it's "breath" and "wind" is because they are invisible, the Greeks didn't understand the physical forces and certainly didn't widely believe in substantial objects so small they couldn't be seen. The modern usage of spirit reflects directly the contextual meanings of pneuma/pnoe(and ruach in Hebrew)

 

[JAL]

The issue is, if you're going to claim "everything is matter" it requires more than a simple definition of "tangible" and an explanation of what you mean by matter. Be specific.

Be specific. Maybe you can clarify for me why reality cannot be wholly material. What aspect of matter, in your opinion, is clear unaccounted for by tangible substance?

The most common response here is "conscious experience". Thomas Aquinas argued that:
(1) Thought is not a material substance.
(2) Therefore the mind is an immaterial substance.

That's a blatant category mistake - understandable for the average believer like myself, but unconscionable intellectual dishonesty for a man of his IQ. He has no excuse for creating such a nonsense "argument".

It's like asking whether my vocabulary is red or blue in color. The question doesn't make sense - it's a category mistake.

Conscious experience is, well, an experience - it is NOT a substance. Thus it is NEITHER a material substance nor an immaterial substance. I can't pour you a glass of joy. Thus, conscious experience is a subjective impression (basically a feeling) had BY a substance. The question is whether this substance (this mind) is tangible mind or an intangible mind. Since the EMPIRICAL data indicates it is a tangible mind (feel free to ask me why), the notion of an intangible mind is logical insanity.

By transcendant, I mean outside of space and time, beyond it..

You're not getting it. These words already seem to be delving into the real of gibberish - concepts beyond human understanding. Let's not be hypocritical here. Earlier, when I gave you a scenario about the human soul removed from the human body, you immediately objected with (paraphrased), "Invalid argument , you can't base a conclusion on something we have no experience of."

And yet this is precisely what you are doing when speaking of beyond space and time. But more than that. It's pretty easy to show that anything beyond space and time contradicts any plausible definition of conscious experience.

 

[Fervent]

Be specific. Maybe you can clarify for me why reality cannot be wholly material. What aspect of matter, in your opinion, is clear unaccounted for by tangible substance?

The most common response here is "conscious experience". Thomas Aquinas argued that:
(1) Thought is not a material substance.
(2) Therefore the mind is an immaterial substance.

That's a blatant category mistake - understandable for the average believer like myself, but unconscionable intellectual dishonesty for a man of his IQ. He has no excuse for creating such a nonsense "argument".

It's like asking whether my vocabulary is red or blue in color. The question doesn't make sense - it's a category mistake.

Conscious experience is, well, an experience - it is NOT a substance. Thus it is NEITHER a material substance nor an immaterial substance. I can't pour you a glass of joy. Thus, conscious experience is a subjective impression (basically a feeling) had BY a substance. The question is whether this substance (this mind) is tangible mind or an intangible mind. Since the EMPIRICAL data indicates it is a tangible mind (feel free to ask me why), the notion of an intangible mind is logical insanity.

You're not getting it. These words already seem to be delving into the real of gibberish - concepts beyond human understanding. Let's not be hypocritical here. Earlier, when I gave you a scenario about the human soul removed from the human body, you immediately objected with (paraphrased), "Invalid argument , you can't base a conclusion on something we have no experience of."

And yet this is precisely what you are doing when speaking of beyond space and time. But more than that. It's pretty easy to show that anything beyond space and time contradicts any plausible definition of conscious experience.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by tangible. If you mean perceptible by touch, then there are many phenomena that do not fall in that category that are demonstrably real, such as light. If you mean subject to our 5 senses, again there are phenomena that are too small to be detected by us and can only be inferred through their action on other objects. The problem with declaring "everything is matter" and then not really defining what you mean by matter is there is no way to confirm or deny the claim, it's either simply taken as true or discarded outright. The lack of specificity means any disparate phenomena will simply be assumed under "material" whether they share commonality or not.

 

[JAL]

You're trying to force English semantics onto a Greek word, when the word itself speaks of insubstantiality which is why it was used in so many diverse ways. The reason it's "breath" and "wind" is because they are invisible, the Greeks didn't understand the physical forces and certainly didn't widely believe in substantial objects so small they couldn't be seen. The modern usage of spirit reflects directly the contextual meanings of pneuma/pnoe(and ruach in Hebrew)

Hogwash. Physical breath/wind escaped His nostrils. I'm sorry you don't like what the text says. Have fun explaining to God why you opted to believe Plato's bogus speculations over the facts of Scripture.

Let's get something straight - you can argue about grammatical nuances until the cows come home, but you can't convincingly argue with are the FACTS:
(1) A literal physical wind/breath exuded from Jesus' nostrils (Jn 20:22).
(2) A literal physical wind/breath divided the Red Sea - the Breath of God per Moses (Ex 15).

Maybe a third example will help? You've heard of hurricanes and tornadoes hauling off matter, right? All of us are familiar with that concept. What about an "intangible wind" hauling off matter. Stupid idea, right? I certainly think so, I'd like to think you'd agree. Consider two possible readings of Acts 8:39:

"The [intangible] Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away"

"The [tangible] Breath/Wind of the Lord suddenly took Philip away"

You can either go with the stupid translation, or the rational one - by now you seem to be making it pretty clear that you think God is a stupid instructor.

 

[Fervent]

Hogwash. Physical breath/wind escaped His nostrils. I'm sorry you don't like what the text says. Have fun explaining to God why you opted to believe Plato's bogus speculations over the facts of Scripture.

Let's get something straight - you can argue about grammatical nuances until the cows come home, but you can't convincingly argue with are the FACTS:
(1) A literal physical wind/breath exuded from Jesus' nostrils (Jn 20:22).
(2) A literal physical wind/breath divided the Red Sea - the Breath of God per Moses (Ex 15).

Maybe a third example will help? You've heard of hurricanes and tornadoes hauling off matter, right? All of us are familiar with that concept. What about an "intangible wind" hauling off matter. Stupid idea, right? I certainly think so, I'd like to think you'd agree. Consider two possible readings of Acts 8:39:

"The [intangible] Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away"

"The [tangible] Breath/Wind of the Lord suddenly took Philip away"

You can either go with the stupid translation, or the rational one - by now you seem to be making it pretty clear that you think God is a stupid instructor.

Specious superficiality. I certainly don't think God is the stupid one as far as this conversation goes...

 

[JAL]

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by tangible. If you mean perceptible by touch, then there are many phenomena that do not fall in that category that are demonstrably real, such as light. If you mean subject to our 5 senses, again there are phenomena that are too small to be detected by us and can only be inferred through their action on other objects. The problem with declaring "everything is matter" and then not really defining what you mean by matter is there is no way to confirm or deny the claim, it's either simply taken as true or discarded outright. The lack of specificity means any disparate phenomena will simply be assumed under "material" whether they share commonality or not.

More dancing. Tangible means capable of physical collisions with other objects, and certainly light falls into this category.

As to whether matter goes beyond that is worth discussing, but the point is that Scripture provides clear support for tangible substance (which isn't even necessary because we see matter every day), but provides no support for intangible substance (an apparent oxymoron).

 

[Fervent]

More dancing. Tangible means capable of physical collisions with other objects, and certainly light falls into this category.

As to whether matter goes beyond that is worth discussing, but the point is that Scripture provides clear support for tangible substance (which isn't even necessary because we see matter every day), but provides no support for intangible substance (an apparent oxymoron).

Realistically, I should have put an end to this conversation a long time ago. Some Scripture you should read and understand:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 1:19-25 ESV