The Breath of God.

[JAL]

The Holy Spirit is a Spirit and baptism with the Spirit involves the combination of the Spirit with our spirit. It has nothing to do with respiration. Once cannot "breathe in" the Holy Spirit, because He is already dwelling in our spirit. He is beyond the reach of our five senses, therefore we cannot fellowship with Him through them, as some think they can.

The only way that we can fellowship with the Holy Spirit is through faith. This cuts out dreams, visions, voices, feelings, emotions, physical manifestations such as jerking, shaking, or falling down. All these involve the five senses of the flesh.

I viewed a post where someone claimed to have smelled the "fragrance" of the Spirit. Others have said they felt the "presence" of the Spirit. All these are of the flesh, because they involve the senses.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the time is coming when believers will worship God in spirit and in truth. The only way to do that is by faith in what the Holy Spirit has inspired in the written Scriptures. The Scripture says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. If we want to hear the Word of God, we can hear it being preached, exposited, or even reading to one's self out loud!

Sure, when the Gospel is preached to the unconverted, there are visible signs and wonders, for example, Paul, after being shipwrecked on Malta, healed the head man of dysentery, and many others of their diseases. These healings, along with Paul being bitten by a venonous snake with no ill effects, were the signs and wonders that confirmed that the Gospel Paul preached was the truth and that unconverted people could have confidence in it. But these visible signs and wonders were for the unconverted, who were totally in the flesh so the Holy Spirit got to them through the visible signs and wonders.

But Christian believers have the Holy Spirit within them, therefore they don't need the five senses of the flesh to maintain their faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit does that from within their spirit, reminding them of God's promises in His Word.

Actually this is all dead wrong because God is a physical figure and the Third Person is, physically, His Holy Breath. I have a thread on this: God Is a Physical Being | Christian Forums

The ONLY way to interact with God is via physical sensation. As a matter of fact, Scripture states in several places that He seeks "fellowship" with us and fellowship, as a concept, can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations/impressions, between two parties, that is more or less distinct (more or less 'loud and clear'). Some noted theologians define the new birth as a vision of Christ - precisely what happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus - even though, for lack of revival, our vision isn't sufficiently distinct ("loud and clear") for us to even realize that we behold Him. But in fact we do see Him, per 2Cor 3:18 for example.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We are called to worship Him IN SPIRIT and in truth.

This is a union between His Spirit and ours, it has nothing to do with the 5 senses.

 

[topher694]

Yes it does, the dead can't hear.

He judges them on account of what they chose to ignore, from seeing and hearing evidence of Him in what He created.

Otherwise how could He judge if He didn't make it known to them.

Dead folks dont know nuttin.

These folks were alive and refused to acknowledge God.

A) That is not the Biblical definition of spiritual death.

B) Your interpretation of God speaking ditectly to human spirits in Rom 1 is a major stretch

 

[JohnRabbit]

Yes it does, the dead can't hear.

He judges them on account of what they chose to ignore, from seeing and hearing evidence of Him in what He created.

Otherwise how could He judge if He didn't make it known to them.

Dead folks dont know nuttin.

These folks were alive and refused to acknowledge God.

There is a spirit in man, but it is not the man and is not alive - job 32:8. it only imparts intellect to the brain.

1 Corinthians 2:11(NKJV)
11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?...

"of the man" denotes possession, which means it's something the man possesses inside him.

 

[JAL]

We are called to worship Him IN SPIRIT and in truth.

This is a union between His Spirit and ours, it has nothing to do with the 5 senses.

No, as shown on that thread of mine, "Spirit" is not a valid translation of the Hebrew/Greek words for breath/wind/air. That term originated in a homosexual pagan philosopher named Plato, who was the founder of all non-physical fantasies/fairy-tales.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Actually this is all dead wrong because God is a physical figure

Really?!

John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Actually this is all dead wrong because God is a physical figure and the Third Person is, physically, His Holy Breath. I have a thread on this: God Is a Physical Being | Christian Forums

The ONLY way to interact with God is via physical sensation. As a matter of fact, Scripture states in several places that He seeks "fellowship" with us and fellowship, as a concept, can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations/impressions, between two parties, that is more or less distinct (more or less 'loud and clear'). Some noted theologians define the new birth as a vision of Christ - precisely what happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus - even though, for lack of revival, our vision isn't sufficiently distinct ("loud and clear") for us to even realize that we behold Him. But in fact we do see Him, per 2Cor 3:18 for example.

What do you make of what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman?

"But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

How about: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" (John 1:18).

Also, can you find a reference anywhere that says that the Holy Spirit is a physical being?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, as shown on that thread of mine, "Spirit" is not a valid translation of the Hebrew/Greek words for breath/wind/air. That term originated in a homosexual pagan philosopher named Plato, who was the founder of all non-physical fantasies/fairy-tales.

The word used for when Jesus breathed on His disciples was "ἐνεφύσησεν", and then He said "Receive the Holy Spirit" - "Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον".

In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the word for "breath" is "πνεύματι"

In 2 Timothy 3:16 the word for "God breathed" is "θεόπνευστος"

Even if the word "πνεύμα" is used for "breath" the first Greek letter is lower case. but when it is used as "Spirit" the first letter is always in the upper case. I looked through all the Greek letters that referred to just "breath" and the first letter was never upper case. So that is the difference between "breath" (πνεύμα) and "Spirit" (Πνεῦμα).

 

[JAL]

Even if the word "πνεύμα" is used for "breath" the first Greek letter is lower case. but when it is used as "Spirit" the first letter is always in the upper case. I looked through all the Greek letters that referred to just "breath" and the first letter was never upper case. So that is the difference between "breath" (πνεύμα) and "Spirit" (Πνεῦμα).

Regarding the words in bold: Assuming what is to be proven is NOT an argument. Scripture NEVER uses ruach/pneuma in the sense of immaterial Spirit.

There's no burden of proof on me. Suppose I walked up to you using Star Wars language, "Use the immaterial Force!" (Yoga instructors use this sort of language daily). That's an extraordinary claim, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of corroborating evidence. In the Scriptures there ISN'T ANY reasonably persuasive evidence for immaterial Spirit, except that theologians fell for a lie known as Platonic philosophy.

Any Philosophy 101 class will teach you that immaterialism originated in Plato. This shows it did NOT originate in the Hebrew use of ruach (air/breath/wind). The Hebrew text has no substantial basis for spirit-nonsense. And the Greek pneuma simply translates the Hebrew term ruach. Both terms, therefore, mean air/wind/breath.

Difficult to see that, because we've been brainwashed into Plato for 2,000 years.

 

[JAL]

What do you make of what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman?

"But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

You're looking at a verse with spectacles tainted by 2,000 years of indoctrination into Plato. Let's come back to that verse in a while, shall we? I think you'd make a better start by reading post 422 on another thread.

How about: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" (John 1:18).

Are you sure that no one has ever seen God? Who dwells in inapproachable Light, right? Except anyone can see Him if He shades that Light. Ex 33:18-21 is all about Moses asking for the full, unshaded view of His glory. And God granted it! Except that He shaded His face. In fact, God put Moses in the cleft of a rock as part of the shading process - a process that CLEARLY ESTABLISHES physical dynamics. Don't believe me? Consider the ISBE authored by 200 evangelical scholars. Here's what it comments in a section on the Glory of Yahweh:

"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 expression "glory of the Lord" is used in the OT BOTH for the physical pillars of Fire and Cloud, on the one hand, AND for the human-shaped figure shrouded within those pillars, who spoke to men. Examples exist not only in the Pentateuch but also, for example, in the Book of Ezekiel.

 

[JAL]

@Oscarr,

So the relevance of all this is the following. Since maturity is a personal relationship with the Father, and since He is a physical being, then maturity is the exact opposite of how you picture it.
1. You picture it with a minimalist expectation of the five senses.
2. Scripture pictures it as a sensory plenum, where the Father comes into the picture in a way very distinct (loud and clear). Thus maturity looks like this:

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend"

If you have any further doubts that such is what maturity looks like, please re-examine Num 12:6-8.

You can gauge/measure maturity by the quantity and quality of Direct Revelation that a man receives. Maturity is premium-grade Direct Revelation, such as visions, received in large quantities.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

@Oscarr,

So the relevance of all this is the following. Since maturity is a personal relationship with the Father, and since He is a physical being, then maturity is the exact opposite of how you picture it.
1. You picture it with a minimalist expectation of the five senses.
2. Scripture pictures it as a sensory plenum, where the Father comes into the picture in a way very distinct (loud and clear). Thus maturity looks like this:

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend"

If you have any further doubts that such is what maturity looks like, please re-examine Num 12:6-8.

You can gauge/measure maturity by the quantity and quality of Direct Revelation that a man receives. Maturity is premium-grade Direct Revelation, such as visions, received in large quantities.

It is recognised by most respected commentators that it was the pre-incarnate Son of God who spoke with Moses. Also, it was the Son of God who was one of the three personages who spoke with Abram just before Sodom was destroyed. It was also the same Person who was the fourth person in the fiery furnace along with the three young men.

The notion that Christian maturity comes through visions is just nonsense, and nothing like that is found, or taught in the New Testament.

 

[JAL]

It is recognised by most respected commentators that it was the pre-incarnate Son of God who spoke with Moses. Also, it was the Son of God who was one of the three personages who spoke with Abram just before Sodom was destroyed. It was also the same Person who was the fourth person in the fiery furnace along with the three young men.

The notion that Christian maturity comes through visions is just nonsense, and nothing like that is found, or taught in the New Testament.

Newsflash: Calling a conclusion nonsense is NOT an argument. [Staff Edit]

Num 12:6-8 is complete nonsense? Gotcha.

Who were the most mature saints of the Bible? Moses, Joshua, Paul, Abraham, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Isaiah, Samuel (etc, etc, etc). These men were known as prophets, also called seers which means see-ers of visions. From the ISBE which, again, is authored by 200 evangelical scholars:

"The word [seer] in English Versions of the Bible represents two Hebrew words, ro'eh (1 Samuel 9:9,11,18,19; 2 Samuel 15:27; 1 Chronicles 9:22, etc.), And chozeh (2 Samuel 24:11; 2 Kings 17:13; 1 Chronicles 21:9; 25:5; 29:29, etc.). The former designation is from the ordinary verb "to see"; the latter is connected with the verb used of prophetic vision. It appears from 1 Samuel 9:9 that "seer" (ro'-eh) was the older name for those who, after the rise of the more regular orders, were called "prophets."

I could walk you through 1Corinthians showing how it defines maturity as mature prophethood (the whole church missed this point exegetically). To keep it short, let me just show you one passage:

" 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues d ? Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."

Top-level leaders are apostles and prophets. Who do you think God puts at the top, to lead the church? The least mature? Or the most mature? Oh that's right. He puts seers at the top - men who see visions.

Paul said,
"I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord... because of these surpassingly great revelations" (2 Cor 12).

So in your view, it is foolishness to think of visions and revelations as significant, yet here Paul selects them as the ONE THING topping his list of boasts.

[Staff Edit]

 

[JAL]

@Oscarr,

Please don't respond. It is a complete waste of time and will destroy this thread.

It is a waste of time to try to rebut me, because I will always come back with more Scripture supporting my position than others can muster in support of theirs.

 

[JAL]

The notion that Christian maturity comes through visions is just nonsense, and nothing like that is found, or taught in the New Testament.

And please be cautious about putting words in my mouth. A superlative measure of Direct Revelation is both a necessary AND sufficient INDICATOR of maturity. It is not the only ingredient of maturity.

Meaning, for example, that a person who fails to pray, or fails to walk in love, will NEVER experience that degree of Direct Revelation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The word used for when Jesus breathed on His disciples was "ἐνεφύσησεν", and then He said "Receive the Holy Spirit" - "Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον".

In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the word for "breath" is "πνεύματι"

In 2 Timothy 3:16 the word for "God breathed" is "θεόπνευστος"

Even if the word "πνεύμα" is used for "breath" the first Greek letter is lower case. but when it is used as "Spirit" the first letter is always in the upper case. I looked through all the Greek letters that referred to just "breath" and the first letter was never upper case. So that is the difference between "breath" (πνεύμα) and "Spirit" (Πνεῦμα).

Further to my previous post, the normal Greek usage for "breath" is αναπνοή while it retains πνεύμα for "spirit".

There is another Scripture that puts things quite clear:

"For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3).

ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες,

The Greek in bold means: "The Spirit of God".

The flesh is another way of referring to our mortal body. The five senses are part of the mortal body. So it is valid to "put no confidence in the flesh" to mean not to put any confidence in our five senses. Because visions are perceived by our physical senses, they are part of the flesh and the Scripture shows that we are not to put our confidence in them. This shows that God is not perceived physically, but spiritually.

ἐγενόμην ἐν Πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day", etc. Notice that the word "Πνεύματι" is used. It would be ridiculous to say, "I was in the Breath on the Lord's Day". so the word cannot be used for "breath" in this instance.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And please be cautious about putting words in my mouth. A superlative measure of Direct Revelation is both a necessary AND sufficient INDICATOR of maturity. It is not the only ingredient of maturity.

Meaning, for example, that a person who fails to pray, or fails to walk in love, will NEVER experience that degree of Direct Revelation.

The only direct revelation is found written in the Scriptures. God has said all He has to say in the pages of the Bible. Any "direct revelation" not found already stated in the pages of the Bible comes from the world, flesh or the devil.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The only direct revelation is found written in the Scriptures. God has said all He has to say in the pages of the Bible. Any "direct revelation" not found already stated in the pages of the Bible comes from the world, flesh or the devil.

I must say I disagree with this.

I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit Who is not silent.

The trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Not the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible.

At the same time the Scriptures are the final reference to Truth but are not exhaustive.

You will hear a voice behind you saying "this is the way, walk ye in it..."

Your position silences the voice...

 

[JAL]

The only direct revelation is found written in the Scriptures. God has said all He has to say in the pages of the Bible. Any "direct revelation" not found already stated in the pages of the Bible comes from the world, flesh or the devil.

I tried to post a response but...draw your own conclusions.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I must say I disagree with this.

I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit Who is not silent.

The trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Not the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible.

At the same time the Scriptures are the final reference to Truth but are not exhaustive.

You will hear a voice behind you saying "this is the way, walk ye in it..."

Your position silences the voice...

From what I see from the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit spoke directly in the form of guidance - "separate me Paul and Barnabas", etc., and the Spirit not allowing Paul to go into Asia. Also, the Spirit telling Peter of Ananias' and Saphira's lie. Also the Spirit speaking to Paul that Ananias was going to visit him, and Ananias hearing from the Spirit to go and visit Paul in Damascus. Also the Holy Spirit assuring Paul that He had people in Corinth, and that He would be with Paul during his imprisonment and transport to Rome. And others I can't quite remember right now. But these encounters don't deal with the teaching of new doctrine. Paul's ministry and calling was unique in that his teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit by direct revelation (in a sense), although the bulk was established on the Old Testament "Moses and the Prophets".

A student of Scripture and a man of prayer would instantly recognise if a revelation came from the Holy Spirit or not. This is because our knowledge of the plans and purposes of God comes from the Scriptures, and so any revelation that is not consistent with those plans and purposes could be quite easily recognised as fabricated from imagination rather than being on the basis of sound doctrine.

In fact, we know that the teaching that comes from "revelation" from the likes of Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and the prophets who had the "revelation that Donald Trump was going to serve a second term as President, is false. It comes from an inner "sixth sense" that comes from "use and experience that causes us to discern between good and evil".

I'm not sure how we inwardly know whether a doctrine put forward as new "revelation" is right or wrong, but somehow we know that there is something fishy about a "revelation" so we go to prayer and the study of God's Word to find out why we have a negative "vibe" about it.