The Truth Holds Us (Reposted)

Beautifully put. It is truly about submission and not arrogance. Thank you.

Blessings!

Hannah

You wrote: “There are many aspects of the faith that are clear, for instance, the basics: that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and supported his claim by his life, death, and resurrection. There are other aspects that remain mysterious or difficult.”

I recommend you to do an extensive research of the origins of NT, Paul’s doctrines and the Church in the below website (and learn what the followers of first century Ribi Yehoshua said about Paul and the Church.) : http://www.netzarim.co.il

Anders Branderud

SteveK,

Yes, but others feel that their views are also “supported by reasons”. For the average Christian (or whatever), it ends up being a reference to authorities: “I don’t really understand the issues behind this or that claim, but I trust Dr. Truthiness as he is obviously intelligent and seems to know what he’s talking about.”

Now, one common response (one that is seen in many apologetic works) is that this believer is simply deluded or (most strongly put) mentally incapable of actually seeing the apparently ‘obvious’ conclusion to this or that evidence. So, intelligent people can’t intelligently disagree, and must be seriously deluded in some way (sometimes this is accompanied by claims that ‘original sin’ is ‘causing’ their incoherence). This, I think, is where the “arrogance” comes in: honestly and intelligently looking at the issues must reach one to the same conclusion or else the other is just mentally incompetent.

Sure, there may be a “way things are”, but such an assumption then does not demand that multiple ways of approaching may more or less seem cogent if honestly researched. Put one more way, the ontological claim to the “way things are” doesn’t demand the epistemological claim that there must be, at this time and given our understanding (or lack thereof), only one interpretation that may be cogent, that may ‘fit’ the ‘facts’ ‘better’ than another (though our notions of how to judge the ‘better’ or when enough evidence is ‘enough’ are hopelessly vague and personal/subjective). That, at least, is where I stand: there may be truth to the claims of Christianity, but I don’t think it is so ‘obviously true’ in comparison with other competing models that an intelligent person cannot look at exactly the same evidence and yet honestly and intelligently come to a different conclusion.

I’m not making a claim to relativism (I reject relativism more thoroughly than any Evangelical), but that there doesn’t seem to be a necessary and sufficient reason to say that there cannot be two (or more) competing and cogent ways of understanding ‘the evidence’, that intelligently looking at what’s available cannot lead to two honestly held options, neither of which requires the ‘deluded’ epithet to be applied to the opposition.

An utter contempt for postmodernism is one thing I think most of the brand of atheists commonly commenting here have in common with most of the theists inclined toward apologetics.

And since its not all that interesting discussing all the ways one agrees with someone else I don’t have much else to say about that.

OS,

so perhaps we can agree that truths, at least when it comes to religion, are known through both reason and emotion?

Truth is a propositional claim/statement about reality. There is no emotional component to a propositional statement so I don’t agree with you. The truth claims that Tom and CS Lewis make mention of are, at root, supported by reasons not emotions.

For example, the statement “I feel sad” is not a conclusion rooted in emotions, it is a conclusion rooted in reason which is supported by sense data, which may or may not include an emotional component.

“If the sense data I am experiencing is correct, and I have no reason to think it is not correct, then I really am feeling sad.” I recognize the state of sadness as distinct from anger and jealousy by reasoning, not by emoting.

putting this in religous terms…

“If the sense data I am experiencing is correct, and I have no reason to think it is not correct, then I really am experiencing God nagging at my conscience.”

Tom,

Four things: first, I was attempting to point out (it seems somewhat inadequately) that, for the large majority of Christians, “the truth” depends on an appeal to authority without the rigorous understanding and approach to truth that you are saying is central to Christianity. This, to be honest, is true of most things for most human beings in all religious and non-religious traditions: we depend on authorities a lot. So, if we define knowledge as JTB, then most Christians (and most people) are un-knowledgable about much of the things in their lives, including things as important as the truth claims of Christiainty, primarily because they do individually lack justification (and whatever justification they can point to is either subjective [in the traditional sense] or, again, an appeal to authority). I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but merely pointing to the reality of the situation: the cogency of the average truth-claim given and believed by the average Christian is weak at best, from an epistemolgoical perspective (whether the claim is ‘ontologically’ true or not). If it weren’t for this fact, a movie like Religulous couldn’t have been made with such ease! This, I think, should be included in any discussion of how “Christianity” as a whole understands truth rather than just focusing on a relatively small scholarly subset of Christianity who might actually have a chance of at least getting close to the paradigm you are proposing.

Second, I understand your feeling of ‘being compelled’ or ‘submitting’ to the truth of Christianity, as that is a similar experience I’m having with Buddhism: it and its practices are illuminating so many aspects of my life, including why I’ve had years of suffering, both explicit and subtle, that I feel somewhat compelled to continue my Buddhist study and practice. Also, all the research I’ve done on Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy is compelling for how they understand reality. However, whatever I’ve found compelling in various Buddhist schools and practices would, no doubt, not be compelling to another person who would require extensive argumentation in order to justify these truth-claims (which I think are available) while most likely requiring considerably less about whatever tradition they find themselves in. Furthermore, they’re also considerably more likely to accept an argument from authority by someone within their tradition than they would be for someone within my tradition, almost no matter the claim. So, again, whatever compells us in relation to truth-claims, what and how much evidence is considered ‘enough’ is, in the common parlance, a very subjective thing or, at best, incredibly nebulous.

Third, I do not think that “if [you] all only understood Heidegger as you do, [you] would not be so foolishly simple as [you] are” (I wouldn’t use “foolish” or “simple”, nor any of their equivalent words, to describe your understanding, or else I’m falling into the same arrogance that I mentioned in my previous comment). I stand by my claim in the previous comment: I do think there can be multiple ways of describing reality, all of which can be seen as cogent when examined honestly. Sure, ultimately there may only be one truth, but, in our current context given our access (or lack of access) to the world, I don’t think there is enough to determine exactly what that is. So, if you did understand Heidegger, I’m not under any illusion that you would then have to bow to his superior understanding of ontology; you could understand him and still strongly disagree with much of what he says. I, for one, do find him compelling (on many levels), but I also realize that others can intelligently and honestly look at what he says, understand it, and yet disagree with it (sometimes strongly). I’ve said this many times (in other venues) about Mormonism (to use one example): there’s plenty in it that Evangelicals can find weak and potentially offensives without having to invent lies or misrepresent the tradition (as happens all too often in Evangelical so-called ‘counter-cult’ ministries). I would claim something similar in relation to Heidegger and other so-called ‘postmodern’ figures, as well as other wider religious and non-religious traditions.

Fourth, I won’t go into my usual rant (yes, I realize they sometimes are rants) about misunderstandings of so-called “postmodernism”, but I did recently find an article by an old professor of mine that I think might bring some nuance into the discussion (for those interested): The Myth of the Modern; The Anti-myth of the Postmodern.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Now before everyone piles on and says a person’s experience of God is no proof of God, note that I said it justifies an individual’s belief, not that it proves the belief to another person.

And is a person’s experience of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara justification for his belief in Avalokiteśvara?

Is a pagan’s belief in tree spirits justified by his experience of tree spirits?

Is my neighbor “Crazy Fred”‘s belief in telepathic aliens justified by his experience of hearing voices claiming to be telepathic aliens?

It seems much more reasonable to say that such experiences are too easily explainable as psychological phenomena (usually culturally conditioned) to call them justifications for belief even for the person having them. The odds of error employing such a technique for forming belief is just to high to call the beliefs “justified” in any sense that doesn’t do disservice to the meaning of the word.

david ellis,
Don’t confuse easily explained with sufficiently explained. Thoughts can be easily explained by material processes, but they certainly aren’t sufficiently explained by them.

Generally speaking, what makes it more reasonable to think a psychological phenomena sufficiently explains an internal experience, rather than the actual experience explaining the experience?

Specifically, are most of your internal, subjective experiences sufficiently explained by psychological phenomena, or are most of them best explained by the actual experience? How do you determine this?

Now, to say everything about this in the sense I just spoke of would require quoting just about all of Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief, in which this is laid out in a full analysis.

I’m pretty familiar with Plantinga. And its pretty clear, in my opinion, that Plantinga has started from the conclusion he wants (belief in God is rational) and worked backward to try to come up with an epistemological theory that’s favorable to it…..and it shows badly.

But since you’ve not really mounted a defense of Plantinga’s position I’m not going to mount any sort of detailed attack on it. It would take more time than I have for this while I’m back in school (and be tedious for all involved as well I suspect).

God does not invoke an intelligence test for entry into his kingdom; it is not necessary to be a Plantinga to have faith in God. He provides a direct experience of himself that is sufficient to induce faith.

What a coincidence. I could say much the same for the 350 year old Great Old Oak in the woods on my parents property. The Spirit of the Great Old Oak provides a direct experience of himself that is sufficient to induce faith.

And since I’ve applied my full epistemic capacities to testing the knowledge I have of the Great Old Oak, and find that knowledge to hold up under what scrutiny I am able to apply to it, my belief in the Spirit of the Great Old Oak is warranted.

OK, at least I didn’t go with the Great Pumpkin.

Seriously, though, it doesn’t exactly take a genius to see that human imagination is more than sufficient to explain such experiences….and that should be all the “defeater” a reasonable person (even the one having the experience) needs.

Hi davidellis,
What kind of “psychological explanation” do you have in mind which explains religious experiences?

Seriously, though, it doesn’t exactly take a genius to see that human imagination is more than sufficient to explain such experiences….and that should be all the “defeater” a reasonable person (even the one having the experience) needs.

These assertions sound very confident but I don’t hear an argument.
Are you aware of Mario Beauregard’s work? Here’s the case he describes in his book The Spiritual Brain.
http://www.iapsych.com/articles/beauregard2006.pdf

From Charlie’s link:

“The main limitation of this study was the fact that the subjects were asked to remember and relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. Such a strategy was used because the subjects told us a priori that they were not capable of reaching a mystical state at will. In our view, this does not represent a major problem since the phenomenological data indicate that the subjects actually experienced genuine mystical experiences during the Mystical condition. These mystical experiences felt subjectively different than those used to self-induce a mystical state.”

Knowing that one experience is meaningfully different than another is very much key to knowing which experience is all in your mind and which isn’t. For example: being able to know the difference between remembering or hallucinating vs. actually experiencing.

If you can’t self-induce the experience of communicating with God, then perhaps you really aren’t communicating with yourself. It’s pretty easy to communicate with yourself. I think the only person capable of knowing which is which is the first-person subject, and we have a lot of first-person subjects out there who claim they aren’t communicating with themselves.

But maybe they’re all deluded. If they’re all deluded into thinking they are communicating with God, but just aren’t capable of knowing that, then perhaps we’re all deluded into thinking THAT, but just aren’t capable of knowing that we really are communicating with God.

Charlie, Tom…

Please merely cite any single reference – you know the drill – “chapter and verse” where Jesus makes the claim “I am God in the flesh.”

The rest of your responses are merely “snow” piled up to obscure the obvious lack of a single assertion by Jesus that he was “God in the flesh.”

And since you claim to have “1000 references” that teach that God is a “trinity” (which is a bogus concept, since three does not equal one, no matter how many word games you play), would you please be a dear and cite a single one that makes that assertion?

Do you know what an “assertion” is? This silly article said that the basic “Truth” is that Jesus “claimed to be God in the flesh.” Where is that “claim” by Jesus?

Rather than being the bearer of “truth” that the article claims, your “truth” is, on closer inspection, merely a 4th century Catholic tradition.

SteveK, am I to understand you to be saying that you admit that the Bible does not record any claim by Jesus to be \God in the flesh?\

Do I further understand you to be basing your claim to the truth the fact that Jesus *must have* claimed to be \God in the flesh\ or it would not be the longstanding tradition of the Catholic church?

If so, should we not infer from this that you believe the traditions of the Catholic church to be, because of their antiquity, undeniable truth?

Is this a Catholic dogma list? Or a \thinking Christian\ list that I have stumbled upon?

Tom,
My statement about oral tradition over generations was a generic one. I wasn’t specifically talking about the biblical text. Just trying to give historical traditions their due.

Still, my statements are true about the biblical text if you were to leave out the reference to generations. All that to say, oral traditions helped determine what the text was trying to communicate should there have been any confusion at the time.

Hi Bill

You appear to be a man with a discerning mind… you search for the “literal” statement “I am God in the flesh” and do not find it in the Bible ergo, Jesus can not be God in the flesh. So, how do you explain the rather emphatic assertions of His closest companions that He was, in fact, “God in the flesh”?

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

[…]

και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν και εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου δοξαν ως μονογενους παρα πατρος πληρης χαριτος και αληθειας

John 1:1 and John 1:14

Not to mention the recurrent theme of the New Testament which portrays Jesus as divine and in which others refer to Jesus as God, the Son of God, the Messiah etc. and Jesus refers to Himself in terms which imply divinity. Let’s not forget those earliest documents, the Pauline Epistles which pre-date the Gospels and include catechetical and credal formulations regarding the divinity of Jesus as well as the “tradition” mentioned by SteveK the writings of which indicate a trinitarian conceptualization more than 200 years before the formal creeds were written.

τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω αλλ εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφην δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος εταπεινωσεν εαυτον γενομενος υπηκοος μεχρι θανατου θανατου δε σταυρου διο και ο θεος αυτον υπερυψωσεν και εχαρισατο αυτω ονομα το υπερ παν ονομα ινα εν τω ονοματι ιησου παν γονυ καμψη επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησηται οτι κυριος ιησους χριστος εις δοξαν θεου πατρος

Philippians 2:5-11

The sources of this “traditon” include at least one bishop, Polycarp, who was an apostle of John, the disciple of Jesus. It takes a particularly literal and obtuse, one might suggest deliberately obtuse, mind to believe that the divinity of Jesus is an invention of the 4th C. and a later interpolation to the Gospels.

Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had mad it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

[…]

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Eigther this man was, and is, the Son of God: or a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon: or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity” pgs. 51-52

I never cease to be astonished by the assertion “Jesus never actually claimed to be God in the flesh”. It requires a singularly unimaginative and literal mind to miss the central message of an entire corpus of literature, particularly one whose entire raison de etre is to make one proclamation, the divinity of its central character. You may dismiss Gospels as fiction, I could really think that you believe that, you might also dismiss the Gospels as a giant con, I could also believe you really think that, but please don’t pretend that the Gospels do not declare Jesus as God in the flesh – I can’t believe you really think that.

Dave, you wrote:

>>>…you search for the “literal” statement “I am God in the flesh” and do not find it in the Bible ergo, Jesus can not be God in the flesh…

Let’s not erect a straw man. At issue here is whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be “God in the flesh.” He did not. Do you admit that?

You quote Lewis:

“…I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say….”

Where, oh oft quoted Lewis, does Jesus make that claim?

Tom wrote:

“…I am not answering your questions until you answer mine.”

So sorry, I didn’t realize that I had to prove my worth to you before you would give a defense of the fundamental, incontestable “truth” that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. I’m not interested in such an irrelevant game, so I guess you are off the hook.

You also wrote:

“…Oral tradition leaves no evidence except as it is written down. It was written down. That’s the evidence. (Were you expecting us to produce mp3 recordings instead?)…

This is my point. The argument that Jesus made the claim to be God in the flesh rests upon an alleged unrecorded conversation. This requires faith not only in the unseen but in the unheard. It is hardly a case so compelling that a seeker of truth must humbly kneel before it. How do I know that you aren’t just making this up? It kinda seems to me that you are doing just that – telling a little white lie for the sake of defending another lie.

>>>…It tells us that there are three separate persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are that One God.
That’s the trinity.”

Okay, I’ll bite… where is it asserted in the scriptures that “the Holy Spirit” is “that One God”?

The Holy Spirit is shown to be God when is shown that He partakes in Creation, comes upon the 70 prophets, comes upon Saul, David and Samson in power, is eternal, is omniscient, is the Lord, alone knows the mind of the God, and that lying to the Spirit is lying to God.

Charlie wrote:

“…The Holy Spirit is shown to be God when is shown that He partakes in Creation, comes upon the 70 prophets, comes upon Saul, David and Samson in power, is eternal, is omniscient, is the Lord, alone knows the mind of the God, and that lying to the Spirit is lying to God.”

So you admit that there is claim made in scripture that “the Holy Spirit is that One God”?

Where are we told that “the Holy Spirit partakes in Creation”?

I hold that the notion of a person named “The Holy Spirit” is bogus. The term “spirit” is bogus. The Hebrew and Greek speak only of “holy breath” and “the breath of the holy [one]” etc. There are instances of personification, such as when the breath acts as a legal helper, preparing one’s testimony for their day in court, but that is as far as it goes.

As to Acts 5, the correct translation is “why have you made pretense of holy breath…” – when they tried to deceive *Peter*.

david ellis,

I mean psychological in the way that imagination, hallucination and dreams are psychological.

Then I guess I already addressed this part of your complaint.

You don’t have to accept any of it as being true, just realize that you’re at a disadvantage compared to the first-person subject.

I can’t prove to you that I am experiencing an actual event instead of dreaming, hallucinating or experiencing the solitude of myself – but I can prove it to my own satisfaction by testing it as it happens again and again.

I know the difference between experiencing the solitude of myself and experiencing the presence of another, and I’m certain you do too. You’re not a materialist so I expect you won’t add unecessary criteria to my test, such as, another material being must be present in order to experience the presence of another.

Dave wrote:

>>>”…Of course, there may have been resons for not standing in the market lace and yelling out “I am God in the flesh!”, reasons for a more subdued method, which included demonstrations of His divinity without an outright declaration. Perhaps it has something to do with the rather, shall we say, intolerant?, attitude of 1st C. Judaism to blasphemy…”

So added to the before mentioned excuses for not being able to produce said claim is offered:

* he demonstrated his “divinity” so he didn’t have to make the claim
* he knew he would get in trouble with the Jews, or was being sensitive to their sensibilities

Oh boy, so then why quote this?…

“…Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple…”

Note that in Greek, contrary to English, placing the words “I am” at the end of the sentence serves to *de-emphasize* that part of the sentence. It is not a divine title that sparks ire or the Jews would have stoned the man born blind:

Joh 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am [EGW EIMI].

Paul would be claiming “divinity”:

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am [eimi o eimi]: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

And note that he is not claiming pre-existence, but rather saying that Abraham was alive when Jesus was born:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my [birth]day: and he saw it [my birthday], and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was [will be born], I am [ie: I exist now, present tense].

Or, a better translation of John 8:58b:

“I am *prior to* Abraham’s [re-]birth.”

Offensive to those Jews, perhaps, but nothing of what he said had anything whatsoever to the idea of being “God in the flesh.”

Let me repeat the chronology, for those who may have missed it…

* Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ birth
* Now, Jesus exists and Abraham saw Jesus’ birth
* Abraham was glad

One may assume that the reason Abraham looked forward to the birth of Jesus was that God promised that “in your seed [singular] shall all the nations of the world bless themselves” (or as the LXX mistranslates, “be blessed.”)

Jesus did not pre-exist. He was, according to scripture, born a human being (with divinely conceived flesh) of a woman who was a descendant of David.

Bill,

He was, according to scripture, born a human being (with divinely conceived flesh) of a woman who was a descendant of David.

That’s not what everyone around him thought. The Church if Corinth didn’t have the problem you are having precisely because they had Paul and others to verbally clarify anything that was written down – hence the value of oral traditions. The first Churches worshiped Christ as God, not because they misread the text or guessed wrong, but because that was the message passed down to them from those that knew. Now you are saying that message was wrong and I’d like to understand how it is you know this.

Hi Bill,

So in your mind, saying that he was God’s “anointed one,” he was actually claiming to be his own Father (God)? “Ah, what a wangled web we teave…” Wouldn’t it be simpler to understand that Hebrew names often sported divine titles? “Isaiah” and “Joshua” (and the transliterated “Jesus”) mean something to the effect of “Yah-savior”, yet you would not conclude that Isaiah or Joshua were “deity,” would you?

I would not. They neither claimed to be nor assumed God’s roles and characteristics. They didn’t forgive sins, declare themselves lord of the Sabbath, tell us that they would be seated at His right hand, that they would come in glory with their angels, that they would direct their angels in separating the believers from the unbelievers, that they were the ones who would determine if you could enter the Kingdom or not.

Nor is Isaiah 9:6 applied to Jesus in the NT, because the writers of the NT spoke Greek and their scriptures were the LXX scrolls, which have a shorter name:

They read and quoted both the Septuagint and the Hebrew. Jesus read Isaiah in Hebrew in the synagogue and referenced it in the Targum tradition in Aramaic. Jesus many times cites Hebrew Scriptures in a way that couldn’t have come from the Septuagint and this is recorded in more than one of the Gospels. Neither He, Matthew or Paul, for instance, were Septuagint Jews or relied up it alone for their renderings.

he made the claim, only in an unrecorded speech

What makes you giggle and call it unrecorded?

Hello?

‘Hello’ goes at the beginning of an address. The question mark is unnecessary.

So you admit that there is claim made in scripture that “the Holy Spirit is that One God”?

Yes, I admit that there is such claim.

Where are we told that “the Holy Spirit partakes in Creation”?

In the Creation account.

I hold that the notion of a person named “The Holy Spirit” is bogus.

You hold incorrectly. The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against, is called “He”, speaks, refers to Himself as “I”, is referred to in the masculine, and can be lied to. That’s a person.

Your mistake on the “I Am” is not where ti comes in the sentence but how it is used for Jesus’ pre-existence.

In Greek, the words recorded in John 8:58 are “‘prin abraam genesthai ego eimi.” Literally, this is “Before Abraham was existing, I am.” “Ego eimi” is literally, “I am.” This is the present tense. To say “I have been” is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, his would have been “aemane.” But Jesus didn’t use it here. He used the present tense, “ego eimi” which is “I am.”

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am
Abraham didn’t last, according to this verse, long enough to see Jesus – Jesus existed before Abraham did.
And you mention that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for this saying. Was their grasp of language so bad that they didn’t know what He claimed? Or did it really rile them up to hear that Abraham had not ceased to exist?

Hi david ellis,
There has been a flurry going on here and I may have missed your answer to my questions above.
BUt you say, it appears, to Steve,

Actually, as a child I experienced brief auditory hallucinations on occasion (and even a few times into adulthood). I know from experience that they can be, based on the auditory experience itself, utterly indistinguishable from a normal experience of hearing someone speak.

This is why I asked you why you think that psychological explanations are a good fit with religious experience and whether or not you are familiar with Beauregard’s work.
You see, his fMRI studies of the Carmelite nuns demonstrates that their experiences are not consistent with hallucinations. Neither are they consistent with evoked memory or imagination. What they are consistent with, having correlates throughout the brain and not in some “God spot”. “Rather, our objective and subjective data suggest that RSMESs (religious and spiritual experiences) are complex and multi-dimensional and mediated by a number of brain regions normally implicated in perception, cognition, emotion, body presentation and self-consciousness”. p272
“Second, when the nuns were recalling autobiographical memories, the brain activity was different from that of the mystical state. So we know for certain that the mystical state is something other than an emotional state.” 275
He quotes Newberg and D’Aquili on page 261″

Hallucination, no matter what their source, are simply not capable of rpoviding the mind with an experience as convincing as that of mystical spirituality.

From The Spiritual Brain

david ellis,

Actually, as a child I experienced brief auditory hallucinations on occasion (and even a few times into adulthood). I know from experience that they can be, based on the auditory experience itself, utterly indistinguishable from a normal experience of hearing someone speak.

They were thought to be actual experiences (indistinguishable from them) at the time they were occuring, but were thought to be hallucinations later (now distinguishable). How do you, at a later time, distinguish between the two when neither one is occuring? By replaying it in your mind?

Steve wrote:

“…The first Churches worshiped Christ as God, not because they misread the text or guessed wrong, but because that was the message passed down to them from those that knew. Now you are saying that message was wrong and I’d like to understand how it is you know this.”

The scriptures do not merely fail to mention a “Trinity” or a worshiped Jesus – they specifically identify such as “antichrist” (taking the place of the Christ). For example, John claims to be an eyewitness (1 John 1:1-4) and insists that those who deny that Jesus was a flesh speak with the breath of the antichrist:

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

John further defines Antichrist as the worshiped version of Jesus:

Re 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And the distinguishing mark of this man that will be worshiped as God is a Trinity – the “number of a man”:

Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Paul also says that this one was “the man of sin”:

2 Thess 2:
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

So they were not silent about oral tradition of Jesus being God himself – they were outspoken about their falsehood.

You see, his fMRI studies of the Carmelite nuns demonstrates that their experiences are not consistent with hallucinations.

I don’t think most Christian’s are having hallucinations of Jesus. Few report anything like that. What they describe has more in common with the “monster in the closet” example of sheer imagination (though of a positive, rather than frightening, nature).

Second, when the nuns were recalling autobiographical memories, the brain activity was different from that of the mystical state. So we know for certain that the mystical state is something other than an emotional state.

You might want to examine that sentence a little more carefully. I think the flaw is sufficiently obvious that I don’t need to spell it out for you (at least I shouldn’t to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic—one needn’t even be particularly scientifically literate to see the mistake).

Hallucination, no matter what their source, are simply not capable of rpoviding the mind with an experience as convincing as that of mystical spirituality.

Nothing so far discussed even comes close to backing up this statement (though, as I already said, I don’t think most Christians are hallucinating anyway so it isn’t even particularly relevant).

Besides, from the statement “mystical states are more convincing to the experiencer than hallucinations” it does not follow that the statement “mystical states are a contact with a real, external, spiritual realm” is true (or even marginally more likely to be true). Two different forms of delusion can vary in degree to which they are convincing without one thereby becoming more likely to be true.

Charlie:

>>>”…I would not. They neither claimed to be nor assumed God’s roles and characteristics…”

I believe we have already seen that Jesus did not claim to be God, either. But the reason given in scripture that Jesus reflected God’s roles and characteristics is that God made him, appointed him, commanded him, empowered him, begat him (ie: by raising him from the dead), and promoted him. It never says that he is *intrinsically* or *metaphysically* divine. “It pleased the father that in him should all fulness dwell.”

>>>”…They didn’t forgive sins,…”

No, but the NT saints did, in the same way that Jesus did. That is, he and they could only forgive such as were already forgiven in the sky (by God).

>>>”…declare themselves lord of the Sabbath,…”

Remember, God gave Jesus the name above every name (KURIOS) because he was obedient, even to the point of death on the stake/cross:

Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that ***God hath made*** that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

>>>”…tell us that they would be seated at His right hand,…”

As God seated Christ, so he seats the believer:

Eph 1:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This was not Isaiah’s portion:

>>>”…that they would come in glory with their angels,…”

Remember that Jesus was a man and thus lower than the deputies (“angels”), as all men are, but *God* created man specifically to subject his wayward deputies:

5 ¶ For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 ¶ For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Angels were made subject to Jesus by God:

1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

>>>”…that they would direct their angels in separating the believers from the unbelievers, that they were the ones who would determine if you could enter the Kingdom or not…”

**God ordained a man**:

Ac 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he [God] hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

So all believers will judge angels:

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

You wrote:

“…They read and quoted both the Septuagint and the Hebrew. Jesus read Isaiah in Hebrew in the synagogue…”

Here is Jesus reading Isaiah 61 in the temple:

Luke 4:
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Here is the passage (very different) from the Hebrew:

KJV:
1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2a To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

Here it is from the LXXe:

1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent {1} me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; {1) Lu 4:18}
2a to declare the acceptable year of the Lord

How obvious that Luke’s text is old Greek, not Hebrew!

>>>”….and referenced it in the Targum tradition in Aramaic. Jesus many times cites Hebrew Scriptures in a way that couldn’t have come from the Septuagint and this is recorded in more than one of the Gospels…”

Can you give any evidence for these assertions?

>>>”…Neither He, Matthew or Paul, for instance, were Septuagint Jews or relied up it alone for their renderings…”

Matthew… allegedly written first in Hebrew… clearly depends on the Greek alone, and builds his doctrine of the virgin birth from the Greek, as the Hebrew only has “a girl.”

>>>”…What makes you giggle and call it unrecorded?”

Where is it recorded that Jesus claimed to be “God in the flesh?”

>>>.”..Yes, I admit that there is such claim…”

Where is the claim that “the Holy Spirit is that One God”?

>>>

Where are we told that “the Holy Spirit partakes in Creation”?

In the Creation account.

Do you mean here?:

Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If so, note that this is the description of the pre-existent chaos, **before** the making of the sky ceiling and the emergence of the dry land. The picture is that of a mighty wind blowing in the darkness over the surface of a bottomless, endless water.

>>>”…You hold incorrectly. The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against,…”

To “blaspheme” is to “speak evil of.” It does not imply personhood:

Re 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, ***and his tabernacle***, and them that dwell in heaven.

>>>…is called “He”,…

So did Jesus breath a person?:

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

>>>…speaks,…”

The breath of God, in scripture, is intelligent, and is linked to the faculty of speech, since breath is the vehicle of speech:

Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost [breath], and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance [the power of speech].

>>>”….refers to Himself as “I”,…”

?

>>>”…is referred to in the masculine,…”

Figuratively.

>>>”…and can be lied to. That’s a person.”

I already showed that it was Peter that was lied to, by feigning holy breath.

Loading...

I missed this part where you undo what you said in the first paragraph. There you said you could trust your ability to distinguish between the events (it was clearly an auditory hallucination you say). Here you say you can’t trust your ability.

I was entirely unable to distinguish, in the basis of the AUDITORY experience, the sound of the imaginary voice from that of real people I’ve heard speak.

But, of course, when you turn around and no one is within a couple of hundred yards and the voice sounded like it was coming from someone right behind you….you don’t have to be a genius to realize it was in your imagination.

In my case, I was able to check the auditory experience against my visual experience and come to the sensible conclusion that a had a brief, weird auditory hallucination (for the very vague amorphous religious experiences that make up the bulk of claims to having a “personal relationship” with Jesus cross-checking of any sort is, of course, impossible).

But, hey, in regard to my interpretation of my experience as an auditory hallucination, I could be wrong. It might have been the spirit of my departed great grandmother trying to communicate with me from beyond the grave…..

But the auditory hallucination hypothesis is rather more parsimonious. And that’s exactly my point.

Imagination (and weird brain states) is by far the more parsimonious explanation in regard to people’s religious experiences as well.

There simply isn’t any reason a sensible person, without bias, would come to the conclusion that belief in a spirit being was warranted on the basis of such experiences….as even Tom acknowledged, briefly, when the issue at hand was someone else’s dearly cherished religious belief rather than those of a Christian.

>>>”Bill Ross, where on earth are you getting your translations from?”

While I arrived at my translation of John 8:58 independently (I translated it myself), in this case, my reading agrees completely with that of Carl Conrad (though I do NOT accept his interpretation):

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/0219.html

Dave wrote:

>>>Note that in Greek, contrary to English, placing the words “I am” at the end of the sentence serves to *de-emphasize* that part of the sentence.
Please… don’t make assertions that a novice in Greek, such as I, may easily refute….”

Are you saying that my assertion is false? Note that you are concerned with the inclusion of EGW, which I do not contest. You are correct about the role of the personal pronoun. **I’m** concerned with the phrase “EGW EIMI” and my assertion regarding “that part of the sentence” still stands.

Tom inquired:

>>>”What on earth or in heaven is an intelligent breath?”

Note the account in Genesis where Yehovah molds a statue to look like himself and then animates it by breathing his own breath into it:

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Note that apart from breath of God, Adam was just sculpted dust. The entrance of God’s breath brought life and self awareness and man became a living person. This became corrupted fairly recently to the idea that man was “spirit, soul and body.” But “spirit” is just Latin for “breath” just as “ghost” is Germanic for “breath.”

But in the scriptures, it was always the “breath” of God. For example, here:

Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

This is a reference to Genesis. So is this:

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The *breath* gives life. This is all from Genesis. So are all of the references wrongly translated “spirit” or archaically as “ghost.”

In the scriptures, the breath of God in a person was a kind of intelligent organ:

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The “breath of the world” is that “air…that now works in the sons of disobedience.”

Modern “translators” are also evading the scripturally concept that sin lives in one’s muscles (“flesh”) by “translating” SARKH with the phrase “sinful nature.” Gimme a break.

Tom: Anyway, does that answer your question? Do you have any others?

No, I’m satisfied.

Steve: If the voice was the voice of someone you knew was physically still around then the absence of the physical person is a dead giveaway, so I agree with your conclusion. That’s not the same situation as certain religious experiences.

First, I never claimed that this was “the same situation as certain religious experiences”. Two different situations can have relevant features in common.

Second, the voice I heard was never identifiable as anyone I knew (it was usually female—and usually achingly beautiful). That’s as much of a description as I can give.

My one quibble is that you say it was indistinguishable from an ACTUAL auditory experience (to me that means in every way).

What I mean by that is that the experience itself was indistinguishable from the normal experience one has when one hears using one’s ears rather than one’s imagination. So much so that I often turned and responded out loud, answering the voice, before I realized that no one was there (the voice almost always sounded as if it was coming from behind me—that’s how compellingly real it felt—it even seemed to come from a specific direction just as normal auditory experiences).

I prefer to consider things on a case-by-case basis.

Feel free to submit your own experience for examination if you like (or, if you can find a detailed account, someone elses—not all Christians claim to have religious experiences that they find a compelling basis for belief, nor are all comfortable relating one for critical examination).

Hello Bill

Are you saying that my assertion is false? Note that you are concerned with the inclusion of EGW, which I do not contest. You are correct about the role of the personal pronoun. **I’m** concerned with the phrase “EGW EIMI” and my assertion regarding “that part of the sentence” still stands.

Breathtaking, absolutely breathtaking. Obviously you have made up your mind, and far be it from me to trouble myself with your view any longer… pearls etc. Astounding…

I was convinced it was a gentle, personal touch designed to give comfort and lift my spirits and to this day I believe that’s what happened.

Nothing like that has ever happened to me before or since. I could be completely wrong in my belief, but I’m very much justified in believing it.

That sounds like a reassuring explanation. But not especially parsimonious.

I’m interested in what sense you mean that you’re “justified in believing it”.

When I say a belief is justified I mean that its formed in such a way that there is a good likelihood I’ve come to a true conclusion.

That doesn’t seem to qualify here (imagination, again, explains such an experience quite adequately and far more parsimoniously). So what do you mean by “justified”?

I’ve never in my entire life mistaken an accidental bumping-into or a mental hiccup as something that comforted me.

You said that this is the only experience you’ve ever had that could potentially be classed as a “mental hiccup” (that is, an incident in which you had a sensory experience contradicted by your other senses).

So the fact that you’ve not mistaken any past mental hiccups for something comforting is hardly evidence of anything—you hadn’t had any before so you didn’t know how you would react to or interpret such an event.

And, of course, the one time you HAVE had such an experience you interpret it supernaturally because, according to you, you just know yourself well enough to know you couldn’t make such an error (never mind that you specifically mention that you were “praising God and thanking him for working out some things in my life” at the time—so it was rather on your mind at the time).

And never mind the fact that all the rest of us human beings are more than capable of such errors.

So I’m back from our church retreat and not sure blogging is the best use of my time, esp. since I start back to the new year tomorrow. But there are a few things that ought to be answered here.
Bill dismissed above the references throughout the New Testament, some by Jesus Himself, to the Holy Spirit as a person, as being called “He”, as having attributes of personhood, as speaking and calling Himself “I”, as having a will, and as being grieved (also in the OT – Isaiah 63:10 ) as no more than figures of speech.
The professor of Greek and Hebrew who ran our sessions this weekend thought those an awful lot of examples to be dismissed in such a manner. I’ll agree with him.

Having denied the Holy Spirit’s personhood Bill also has to ignore the times in the OT where the Spirit is spoken of in such a way that the Hebrews just read it as referring to God Himself.
Then, with all this evidence out of court, he translates the action of the Spirit of God and says it is the action of a “mighty wind”. This mighty wind, though, is said to be hovering or trembling, not raging or blowing. And then one has to wonder where such a wind comes from, given, as Bill says, that there is no atmosphere yet, or what it is supposed to be doing, how it removes chaos in Creation or why it is mentioned at all. It would seem that there must be a reason that it is mentioned right before God’s creative acts and that God is said to have a wind hovering and brooding.
And it would be odd to then attribute to “wind” the ability to give life, uplift people and animate bodies as the Spirit is said to throughout the OT afterward – according to the Hebrews who commented on their own works.

Knowing that the Spirit is a person, and the third member of the Trinity makes sense of all these passages.

pdf
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/38509

Charlie wrote:

“…Bill dismissed above the references throughout the New Testament, some by Jesus Himself, to the Holy Spirit as a person, as being called “He”, as having attributes of personhood, as speaking and calling Himself “I”, as having a will, and as being grieved (also in the OT – Isaiah 63:10 ) as no more than figures of speech.”

Let’s look at the verse you cite (and the one that follows) and see if it can’t give us some insights…

10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.
11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

I say that the Hebrew (and the Greek) reads “…vexed his holy breath…” And in 11b, “…he that put his holy breath within him.”

Now, if this RUACH/PNEUMA is a person, and is almighty God himself, then why is he treated as a commodity and slave? In what sense is this God the property of another? How does this God get placed into men?

If we see this as God’s breath, and that breath is the organ of his self-awareness (as it is in Adam) then we can see why it is “his breath” and how he places it into men. We have the description of when this placing took place:

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Thus David prays:

Ps 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit [breath] from me.

Now we see why man is breath and body:

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit [breath] and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have in Genesis the anatomy of man given as:

* mud, sculpted into God’s own likeness (Adam looked like Yehovah)
* the breath of Yehovah

As a result, man became a “living person.”

Where do you get a scriptural anatomy that has some feature called a “spirit?” That is NOT in the Genesis account.

And remember, the breath is the organ of self awareness, hence:

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit [breath] of man within him.

Here God claims to be one flesh with man, and one breath:

Ge 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit [breath] shall not always strive with man, for that he also [like myself] is flesh: [and] yet, despite that he is also flesh like myself], his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

What was troubled in Pharaoh? His breath. His organ of self-awareness:

Ge 41:8 And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit [breath] was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.

Was Pharaoh’s breath a separate person??? Hardly.

Once you realize that the anatomy of the scriptures is given in Genesis during the animation of the clay statue of God, the rest falls into place.

“Trinity” completely muddies the water.

“Eschew obfuscation!”

I say that the Hebrew (and the Greek) reads “…vexed his holy breath…” And in 11b, “…he that put his holy breath within him.”

You can say that if you like, but I’ll go with the translators and also, since it makes no sense to say that breath is vexed or grieved, stick with Holy Spirit.

Now, if this RUACH/PNEUMA is a person, and is almighty God himself, then why is he treated as a commodity and slave? In what sense is this God the property of another? How does this God get placed into men?

How is this supposed to derive from the above and how were we clearing anything up by further context if this is what you draw from this?
Clearly God the Father and God the Son send the Spirit as comforter and guide throughout the NT and there is no reason to jump to such prejudicial language as commodity and slavery here; subordination does not necessitate slavery.

You are going out of your way to claim that Spirit = breath but you are then forced to ‘breath’ such attributes (now it’s also the organ of self-awareness) that it no longer has any relation in context to ‘wind’ and has much more in common with a person. A divine life-giving, empowering, comforting, grieved, ‘breath’ is far more than a mighty wind.

So is one’s heart, or soul, or breath a separate person in these human cases?

De 15:10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.
Jud 10:16 And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.
1Sa 1:8 Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?
Ps 73:21 Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins.
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
Da 7:15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
Job 21:4 As for me, is my complaint to man? and if it were so, why should not my spirit be troubled?
Ps 77:3 I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah.
Ps 77:6 I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
Ps 142:3 When my spirit was overwhelmed within me, then thou knewest my path. In the way wherein I walked have they privily laid a snare for me.
Ps 143:4 Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate.
Ps 143:7 Hear me speedily, O LORD: my spirit faileth: hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.

It is important that you address this. If you insist on such a pedantic approach to language with regard to God’s breath, you must likewise insist that man is multiple persons.

Charlike:

>>>”….you are then forced to ‘breath’ such attributes (now it’s also the organ of self-awareness) that it no longer has any relation in context to ‘wind’ and has much more in common with a person…”

But this is my point. The anatomy of the scriptures is entirely materialistic. There is no concept of the immaterial, such as is found in philosophic dualism. That is an unscriptural concept.

For example, in the scriptures, man believes with his heart. We know that the heart is just a blood pump, but they didn’t know that:

Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Just as the mouth is the organ of confession, so the heart is the organ of belief.

So also the kidneys house the motives:

Re 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which **searcheth the reins** and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

And sin lives in the muscles:

Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

And so also is the breath an intelligent organ of self awareness, both in God and in man:

1 Cor 2:
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit [breath] of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit [breath] of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit [breath] of the world, but the spirit [breath] which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual [things of God’s breath] things with spiritual [our own breath].
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit [breath] of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually [by the organ of the breath] discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Does the world have a “spirit?” No, he is referring to the air of the breath that operates in the wicked:

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

You and I know that the heart is a blood pump and that breath is unintelligent (and the all awareness resides in the brain) but the brain’s purpose was unknown until recently.

The notion of man having a “spirit” that immaterial is *completely foreign* to the scriptures. They were all strict materialists (although 1 Cor 15 may be an exception, where Paul describes people as existing on after their body has decomposed).

Tom inquired:
>>>Bill, what’s your point?

That the term “spirit” is bogus, at least in terms of the scriptures, because it is a term derived from philosophic dualism, while the scriptures are decidedly materialistic (though 1 Cor 15 might be an exception).

Further, references to “The Holy Ghost” or “The Holy Spirit” are also bogus, as what is in view in the text is God’s own breath, which the scriptures view as an intelligent organ, just as it does the heart, kidneys and muscles.

Tom, can you please answer the question: scripturally speaking, of what is man composed?

Thanks.

Do you have a link for that?

Now, that one made me laugh out loud. 🙂