John 4: 23, 24 the "God is spirit" controversy

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,199
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
One of the difficulties of dealing with biblical scripture is that none of it was written originally in English, so we deal with the blur of meaning by translation, whether done correctly or incorrectly, and innocently, or by intent to deceive.

One of the best examples is John 4: 23, 24, both of which, in English [KJV] contain the English word “spirit,” but the two verses in Greek, allegedly the original language, but who can know for sure as no original text has yet been discovered.

In Greek, v23 says πνεύματι [pneumati] and the other, v24 says πνεύμα [pneuma]. Though the words are related, v24 is the root word from which the v23 is derived.

V23 interpretation is “in, or by the spirit” whereas the root in v24 interpretation is the “spirit being a physical breath, or wind, such as saying God is a physical breath or wind.

But the more valid interpretation, since the NT has numerous references to a Trinity, where, again, in Greek, these are understood to be three gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, unified in purpose, but three distinct beings, the third being a spirit, πνεύμα [pneuma], .which is still physical matter, but refined, as implied by the distinction of John 4: 23, 24.

Once again, context is king since no language has the exact lexicon [library of words]  as another language. Therefore, correct interpretation from one language to another is critical for correct understanding.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,671
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yep John.

John was the girly looking one, who had a close relationship with Jesus and wrote a lot about love.

Your "tits" reference sprang to mind.

Controversy indeed.
Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,199
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
John was the girly looking one,
Well, yeah, that was da Vinci's view, anyway, but he allegedly swang [swung?] both ways, so to speak, because it was pretty obvious he was head over heels in love with Lisa del Giocondo [née Gherardini] as well as with some of his male students/aids in his studio. Lisa, of course, being the subject of "Mona Lisa," which was commissioned by her husband, but  Leo never did release possession of the portrait now hanging in the Louvre in Paris, and, as true of so many others of his paintings, likely unfinished.
#4
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,844
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
It's evident that the meaning in Greek is metaphorical, encrypted, so that people of that time can get it.

Today it's easier to grasp. Spirit could be explained as a kind of "mind". And if you want to figure out what "God" is, you'll end up finding that God is basically a "mind".

Religions are supposed to be a set of practices to nurture the mind, though they seem to be outdate for that job.

That's why I truly believe religions will fall down hopelessly to be replaced with other "spiritual" movements or practices, like Mindfullness for example which is much more useful than any religion.
#5
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,505
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
One of the difficulties of dealing with biblical scripture is that none of it was written originally in English, so we deal with the blur of meaning by translation, whether done correctly or incorrectly, and innocently, or by intent to deceive.
Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin and English is a rough approximation of the journey that had to be taken to arrive at an English translation of the Bible. All of these languages use different words, syntax and grammatical structures. Translation from one language to another always results in an inexact interpretation of words, meanings, and context. Even within a single language, words are very inexact, ambiguous and equivocal and they can have multiple meanings or different meanings to different people.

Aramaic, the native language of Jesus and the one he mostly taught in, is a rich, poetic language that utilizes webs of constellated meanings to represent ideas. Jesus "spoke as no man had spoken before", and he spoke as "One who knows". The language He used was polyphonic, poetic, with layered meanings, He used words in profoundly imaginative ways to inspire and initiate, to involve the listener, and to transmit complex ideas through imagery. He taught the truth of the Kingdom mainly in parables, which is an "invitational" form of speech that stimulates the imagination and needs to be completed in the mind and heart of the listener.

Jesus was inviting His listeners to seek the “Kingdom within”, it is a great tragedy if we try to take words and expressions that were originally meant to resonate on many different levels of meaning, (intellectual, metaphorical, and universal) and translate them into explicit representations of literal material facts. We are bound to "miss the mark", so to speak.

One of the best examples is John 4: 23, 24, both of which, in English [KJV] contain the English word “spirit,” but the two verses in Greek, allegedly the original language, but who can know for sure as no original text has yet been discovered.
Even if we had the original texts, we must recognize that they were translations from Aramaic into Koine Greek that weren’t even written down until decades later.
In Greek, v23 says πνεύματι [pneumati] and the other, v24 says πνεύμα [pneuma]. Though the words are related, v24 is the root word from which the v23 is derived.
That is assumption rather than fact, and it’s an assumption made retroactively, from a different time and a different culture in a profoundly different language.
V23 interpretation is “in, or by the spirit” whereas the root in v24 interpretation is the “spirit being a physical breath, or wind, such as saying God is a physical breath or wind.

But the more valid interpretation, since the NT has numerous references to a Trinity, where, again, in Greek, these are understood to be three gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, unified in purpose, but three distinct beings, the third being a spirit, πνεύμα [pneuma], .which is still physical matter, but refined, as implied by the distinction of John 4: 23, 24.
Nonsense, if you accept that Luke was a convert, then every single word in the NT was written by a Jew, none of which would accept, or write about the Trinity concept.

It is certainly not my intent to contend that what was implicit in His life and was made explicit through theological discourse three hundred years later is not an image of truth; it is only to say that the original intent of passages such as Matthew 28:19 and Matthew 3:16-17 could not have been about the Trinity, it was hundreds of years later that these passages were interpreted that way.

What does “a spirit which is still physical matter, but refined” even mean, aren’t “spirit” and “physical matter” mutually exclusive terms?

Once again, context is king since no language has the exact lexicon [library of words]  as another language. Therefore, correct interpretation from one language to another is critical for correct understanding.
We cannot confuse the words and the language with the reality and truth that they attempt to represent symbolically. Language is no more than a very limited symbol of the reality experienced and then expressed, changing in time and place, and meaning different things to different people of different points of view.

That is why Voltaire told us that we should always be highly suspicious of any religion that proclaims the truth to be captured territory. 


#6
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,520
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
The Trinity is not THREE gods. It is ONE God, three persons. 

The Christian religion has only ONE GOD. 


Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,199
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, I understand most Christians view the Trinity as three separate persons who are one God, but I am a Christian and do not agree with the mysticism. 
Nothing about God is mystical, which word, unfortunately, mostly bears unacceptable connotation. It makes much more sense to me that three holy persons can all be gods, and more yet. The sense of it is best explained in Psalms 82: 6 [The  singer and seer, Asaph, in David's court, who wrote Psalms 50 and 73-83] says, citing God, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” He is speaking to men who have become judges over Israel. In Exodus 22, it is explained that judges so called to that service in the days of Moses we’re called by God, “Elohim,” which is a name of God, but the term, in Hebrew, generally refers to multiple gods, thus, these judges are given great honor and responsibility to always judge as would God. Since God [and other gods],  hence the name, “Elohim,” can be conferred on men, why, then, is it forbidden men to ultimately become like God, since Jesus gave us the commandment [Matthew 5: 46] “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven us perfect.” That is my belief that such is ultimately possible, else why do we exist at all for eternity? It’s called “eternal progression” and what’s eternity for if not continuous improvement unto perfection, which is a never-ending process, not a destination.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,671
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Sort of what we refer to as conjoined triplets then.

One brain, two arms, six legs, and 3 dicks.

I bet that Mary wondered what the fuck it was in the stable.

Though it becomes clear why GOD created women with three entry ports.

Hallelujah.
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,520
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, I understand most Christians view the Trinity as three separate persons who are one God, but I am a Christian and do not agree with the mysticism. 
Nothing about God is mystical, which word, unfortunately, mostly bears unacceptable connotation. It makes much more sense to me that three holy persons can all be gods, and more yet. The sense of it is best explained in Psalms 82: 6 [The  singer and seer, Asaph, in David's court, who wrote Psalms 50 and 73-83] says, citing God, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” He is speaking to men who have become judges over Israel. In Exodus 22, it is explained that judges so called to that service in the days of Moses we’re called by God, “Elohim,” which is a name of God, but the term, in Hebrew, generally refers to multiple gods, thus, these judges are given great honor and responsibility to always judge as would God. Since God [and other gods],  hence the name, “Elohim,” can be conferred on men, why, then, is it forbidden men to ultimately become like God, since Jesus gave us the commandment [Matthew 5: 46] “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven us perfect.” That is my belief that such is ultimately possible, else why do we exist at all for eternity? It’s called “eternal progression” and what’s eternity for if not continuous improvement unto perfection, which is a never-ending process, not a destination.
Saying the Trinity is ONE GOD yet THREE persons is not mystical. It is based on the idea of Revelation. Not blind faith. True, it doesn't conform to Platonic Greek logic. Yet that is its strength.  When faith is blind, it becomes mystical. Hence, one reason I reject the Mormon approach. To say that the Bible is true, based on some fuzzy warm feeling that apparently the Holy Spirit provides, is mystical in a true sense. That is subjective mysticism based on a personal experience. 

Ironically, I suspect that you deem the Bible to be infallible, yet written by sinful men. Although it is possible you hold to the view that sinful men merely dictated it. 
If the former, you take a mystical point of view, using your earlier logic. Yuo may even have a lesser view of it but I can't recall. 

Elohim is used at times as a plural, but it is also translated in the singular.  The Jews themselves used it to describe ONE GOD. Not many gods. 

Psalm 82, which Jesus quotes in the gospels, can't be used to suggest that people are GODS. He was using the term quite differently. 

The Christian umbrella of the Worldwide church - which is very broad and even quite liberal in many respects - still hold to the idea that the Trinity as described in the Scriptures is one of the core elements of Christianity.  I notice that the Mormons and the JWs have seats at the table at the WCC - but it is not a full membership. I'm not even sure they can vote. 



#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,520
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Sort of what we refer to as conjoined triplets then.

One brain, two arms, six legs, and 3 dicks.

I bet that Mary wondered what the fuck it was in the stable.

Though it becomes clear why GOD created women with three entry ports.

Hallelujah.

Nope. 
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,671
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Hi Trade.

Hope you are well.
Topic's author
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,199
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Saying the Trinity is ONE GOD yet THREE persons is not mystical. It is based on the idea of Revelation. Not blind faith
Nope, that is incorrect. By that philosophy, faith and belief are synonymous, and they are not.  It is mystical because it describes the Godhead like 3-in -1 oil, when it is simply 3 separate personages with three separate specific tasks, but united in purpose, but only in purpose. What most of Christianity alleges from the deep history of Christianity confuses how Paul defined faith in Hebrew's:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Hebrew's [KJV] 11:1  In Greek, it is clearer: faith is πιστις [pistis], which synonyms are persuasion and credence, which is stronger than mere belief. Hope is ελπισω [elpiso] which synonyms are expect, trust. Evidence is απόδεξη [apodeixi] which synonyms are proof, conviction. Therefore, both hope  - ελπισω [elpiso]  and evidence - απόδεξη [apodeixi]  represent words which are greater than mere belief. Faith is its own category that depends on an inner, spiritual conviction that a concept is true with sure evidence. That is in no way "blind." Period. Yes, faith, itself, is revelation, not belief. That is why faith drives one to act on it, to gain greater confidence that the quest will yield positive and concrete results. Faith precedes perfect knowledge, not just theory. If people believe faith is the equivalent of theory, they are not yet on board.


The Jews themselves used it [Elohim] to describe ONE GOD. Not many gods. 
Obviously the Jews used Elohim as descriptive of both many and as one. Much like they used "day" יוֹם [yom] as a single day of 24 hours, and as descriptive of a much longer period, depending on context. For example, the "yom" of creation used the same word in days 1, 2, & 3, yet the sun and moon are not created until day 4, 60% into the creation period, so the first 3 days cannot mean a day of  just 24 hours, yet. Our English translation is very undependable, which is why I say that prayer must be employed to obtain a better understanding of what is written.

can't be used to suggest that people are GODS.
No, you misunderstand. I never said "people are Gods." I said they can become as God in a distant future, didn't I? "Eternal"  is a long time. Perhaps that is a word, in English, that does not have the full context of the word in Greek [αιώνιος] which is understood as "everliving," and "without beginning, and without end." That understanding does not have  a "big bang" beginning. No balloon, and no needle. That is our finite mind talking, but we must get past that limitation. That is why Jesus taught that "...with God, all things are possible." THAT is an application of faith, not mere belief, that makes it possible for a mustard-seed sized amount of faith allowing us to remove a mountain to another place. Do you think he is kidding?? Look it up. He is serious. Matthew, but you find it. I've said enough.