God is NOT just Spirit

[Turgonian]

So his body of flesh and bones was immaterial, despite that fact that proved he was just as material as any man?

I was talking about Christ's divine nature, not His human nature.

Unfortunately you have erred. The Law of entropy states that molecular disorder will always increase in a spontaneous reaction. Every reaction is not a spontaneous one.

So God laboured for aeons and aeons to ensure that eternal matter wouldn't become chaotic?

Don't you think that the sentence 'God created all things except God' is rather absurd and superfluous?

It presupposes that time, space and matter exist, especially if God is made of matter, dwells within time, and dwells within space.

Only if that is the case. You're still engaged in circular reasoning. Because you assume God is material, you think Gen. 1:1 presupposes time, matter & space. However, only God is mentioned in that sentence as the subject (which obviously presupposes God), while time, space and matter are nowhere mentioned.
I'd like to see positive proof that God is material.

The sentence "God created all things except God" does sound absurd, but the sentence "God created all things under heaven and earth" does not. It is clear he is referring to the creation of the earth and skies, not to time, matter, and space. Just as we can create "all things" within a laboratory, but that doesnt mean we created the space and time to do it in. Remeber, time is merely a yardstick for measuring intervals between events in eternity.

The laboratory was still built by someone else, unlike time, matter and space. Also, we are completely dependent on the things within the laboratory. A God completely dependent on things already existing around Him doesn't sound too good...

So God is not the only one who is self-subsisting.

Incorrect. Time and matter and space are not whos, but are whats. Those materials are self-subsisting. They exist as naturally as God himself.

The idea is the same. God isn't the only self-subsisting thing (only it sounds so irreverent to include God in a list of 'things'...which is why I talked about 'the only one'). God is not the Creator of everything.

The meaning of 'create' which you use is the human one. However, 'create' with reference to God has had the added meaning of ex nihilo for millennia. You can't really compare God's work to that of humans and assume that's any kind of proof.

The meaning for create that I use is the one used in God's word. The added meaning of ex nihilo is just that, an added meaning. It is not original, and not true.

How are you so certain this was intended in God's Word? You'd have to check how the Jews understood it.

You certainly can compare God's work to human work. Of course, it can't be on the same scale, but it is of the same nature. We are his children, created in his image. He created us to be like him, not to be him, but to be like him. Image and likeness.

Not everything about God can be likened to humans, such as omnipotence and omniscience. Creatio ex nihilo, if correct, belongs in this list. You still have to show positive proof that God had to use already existing materials.

I totally agree. It is completely senseless to fathom that there was ever an X-1. In fact, to imagine that there was an X(moment of the creation of time) at all is completely senseless. Time is only a measurement of events in eternity, and certainly events have been happening throughout all eternity, unless you believe God didn't exist until "time" came into being.

I believe God exists outside of time (whether you want to call it before, after, above, under, or all of those, doesn't matter). See James Watson's article about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

My concept stems from a logical conclusion based on biblical teachings. It is based on teachings that God is a person, as real and tangible as you and I. It is based on the gospel of Jesus Christ, that says that God is eternal and has always existed, and as such has always been active.

Only you don't believe in an actual infinite, just a potential infinite with infinite regress, which is decidedly illogical.
See also Does God dwell within or outside of time?
And God has indeed always been active, in the eternal relationship of the Trinity. See Matt Paulson's essay Trinity and Beauty, where he very beautifully describes the ecstatic relationship within the Trinity.
BTW, you still haven't given a positive example of Biblical teaching supporting your position. You've only said that the Christian interpretation of several verses is wrong. I say yours is.

Can he be considered God if he were the God of nothing? It is selfish to assume that we are only planet full of creations that God has ever created.

Why, and how is this relevant?

[Turgonian]

The meaning for create that I use is the one used in God's word. The added meaning of ex nihilo is just that, an added meaning. It is not original, and not true.

How are you so certain this was intended in God's Word? You'd have to check how the Jews understood it.

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

In general, Judaism views the existence of G-d as a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the universe. The existence of the universe is sufficient proof of the existence of G-d.

Emphasis mine. This suggests that Jews see God as Creator of the universe (matter...and thus space and time).

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d.

Time, space and matter are in the universe.

G-d is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope.

Emphasis mine, also in the following quote.

G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d's name, He replied, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." That phrase is generally translated as, "I am that I am," but the word "ehyeh" can be present or future tense, meaning "I am what I will be" or "I will be what I will be." The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d's eternal nature.

Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained by JP Holding

The verb bara therefore has no explicit connotation of ex nihilo; and yet, that it is linked only with the creative power of God suggests that something more than use of preexistent matter is in view. (Indeed, the quote Griffith lifts from Norman appears to rather distort what Stadelmann actually says. It is only after noting these things that Stadelmann describes the meanings of yasar and 'asah, and he hardly "insists" upon anything -- he merely describes what the words mean, and despite the tone of Norman's report, in saying that "both bara and yasar carry the anthropomorphic sense of fashioning, while 'asah connotes a more general idea of production" Stadelmann in no way detracts from the uniqueness of bara.) What that may be is not specified, but creation ex nihilo is not excluded, much less is eternal matter implied. Thus Matthews: "It is an unnecessary leap to conclude that the elements in v. 2 are autonomous, co-eternal with God and upon which he was in some way dependent for creation." [Matt.Gen, 141] Indeed, the fact that eternal matter is not indicated is in itself significant in the context of creation accounts, for as Sarna notes, "Precisely because of the indispensible importance of preexisting matter in the pagan cosmologies, the very absence of such mention here is highly significant." [Sarn.Gen, 5] Thus we conclude with Von Rad: "It would be false to say...that the idea of creatio ex nihilo was not present here at all (v. 1 stands with good reason before v. 2!), but the actual concern of this entire report is to give prominence, form, and order to the creation out of chaos..." [VonR.Gen, 51] And Matthews adds: "The declaration of v. 1 without any intimation of competing preexisting matter is so distinctive from its ancient counterparts that we must infer that all things have their ultimate origin in God as Creator." [Matt.Gen, 129]

In a more recent treatment [Cop.CEN2, 38ff] Copan and Craig offer another argument for understanding Gen. 1:1 in support of ex nihilo, having to do with the specific grammar of Gen. 1:1. The question is whether 1:1 is to be read in a temporal sense, or an absolute sense. If the former, Gen. 1:1 permits (but does not prove) the possibility of pre-existent matter. If the latter, it in no way permits such a thing. Here are their points on the matter:

- Some suggest that the temporal sense is supported by the lack of an article ("in beginning" as opposed to "in the beginning"). However, numerous Hebrew scholars have identified places where a temporal phrase lacks an article, and where such a phrase still has an absolute sense, so this is not a useful objection.
- A temporal reading requires a reading of the Hebrew described as "rambling" and "out of place" among the "staccato sentences" in the rest of the narrative. This works against an argument that a parallel can be made to the temporal structure of Gen. 2:4, alleged to be a parallel. It also relies on seeing Gen. 2:4 as a closing, rather than as an introduction.
- A temporal reading may wrongly take "heavens and the earth" as relating the order of creation; it is rather a merism, or an expression of the totality of what is created. This totality expression eliminates any possibility of a "primordial existence".
- The LXX clearly understood Gen. 1:1 in the absolute sense, as did other Jewish translations.
>> Proverbs 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Within this verse, Copan argues, there lies a significant clue that matter is not eternal, or at the very least, if it is, that it is not to be identified with the waters of Genesis 1:1-2. The word "depths" here is tehowm, the same word used of "waters" in Genesis. The indication of this passage would be that there was a time when the waters did not exist. [Cop.CEN] However, other commentators note that the tehowm referred to here are the earth's oceans, in line with the references to earth's other geographical features (mountains and hills) in verses 24-25. It is therefore possible, but unlikely, that this passage indicates creation ex nihilo.

Copan and Craig [Cop.CEN2, 65ff] suggest that ex nihilo is implied otherwise in the OT by passages like Is. 44:6, which speak of YHWH as the "first and the last". Such phrases imply that YHWH is the "ultimate originator and only eternal being".

Copan and Craig add some more intertestamental and later Jewish cites as evidence [100ff]: Jubilees implies ex nihilo creation in that it says God "created" the waters -- the alleged primordial matter. The Jewish book Joseph and Asenath says God "created all" ; as they note, the "sweeping comprehensiveness is difficult to avoid". Finally, for example, the Jewish historian Josephus clearly understands Gen. 1:1 in terms of an absolute creation.

But now, as we leave the Bible once again to examine Jewish extra-biblical literature, we encounter a truly unambiguous reference that teaches this doctrine.

BR 1.9, Th-Alb:8 A philosopher said to R. Gamiliel: Your God was a great craftsman, but he found himself good materials which assisted him: Tohu wa-Bohu, and darkness, and wind, and water, and the primeval deep. Said R. Gamiliel to him: May the wind be blown out of that man! Each material is referred to as created. Tohu wa-Bohu: "I make peace and create evil"; darkness: "I form the light and create darkness"; water: "Praise him, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters" -- why? -- "For he commanded, and they were created"; wind: "For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and created the wind"; the primeval deep: "When there were no depths, I was brought forth".

Our final cite of interest is a complex and curious one. In this fifth-century passage, the second-century Jewish rabbi Gamiliel II is depicted answering a philosopher's charge that God was "assisted" by certain materials in creation, by citing in each case a place in the Old Testament where a given material is said to have been created by God.

[Sargon]

All this quoting of modern Jewish beliefs is interesting, but doesn't really prove anything. We can study what modern christians believe, but that will not tell us what ancient christians believed. The same applies to Judaism. A few qoutes here and there that seem to imply the greek idea that matter is evil and that God created it is not convincing. The articles go to great lengths to preserve a doctrine that is not taught in the bible. Clearly this is eisegesis. I will not attempt to sort through them, because it wouldn't be worth it. There are many others who have written just the opposite of those you have cited.

Sargon wrote:
Unfortunately you have erred. The Law of entropy states that molecular disorder will always increase in a spontaneous reaction. Every reaction is not a spontaneous one.

So God laboured for aeons and aeons to ensure that eternal matter wouldn't become chaotic?

Possibly. But I dont know that any labor is necessary to prevent eternal spontaneous reactions. If it is necessary, then God has been doing it and will continue to do it. Will we not ressurrect with immortal bodies made of matter? This matter will have to be preserved eternally.

Only if that is the case. You're still engaged in circular reasoning. Because you assume God is material, you think Gen. 1:1 presupposes time, matter & space. However, only God is mentioned in that sentence as the subject (which obviously presupposes God), while time, space and matter are nowhere mentioned.
I'd like to see positive proof that God is material.

Indeed it could be called circular reasoning, but this entire discussion is based on circular reasoning. Both of us are assuming from the start that God exists at all, and we are placing faith in the bible, with is relative as well. Your argument is quite circular also, since the bible clearly does not teach that time, space, and matter did not exist prior to God. It is based on the greek philosophy that is engrained in western thinking that matter is evil.

A God completely dependent on things already existing around Him doesn't sound too good...

This is exactly what I mean. Why doesn't that sound good? If those material are just as eternal as God himself why does it matter if he is made from them? He will never be restricted by them because they are eternal.

You want to see positive proof that God is material? I can show you what I believe to be proof in the bible that God is material. But you must apply your standards to yourself and be able to demonstrate positive proof in the bible that God is not material.

Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You see "God created the heaven and the earth out of nothing" while I see "God created the heaven and the earth."
I will not delve into the minute arguments over this verse, because you have already demonstrated that an intense disagreement exists in the scholarly world.

BTW, you still haven't given a positive example of Biblical teaching supporting your position. You've only said that the Christian interpretation of several verses is wrong. I say yours is.

Well then if you would like to discuss particular verses, let us. Let us maintain this conversation to that alone, so we do not get too distracted.

Lets start with this reasoning:
Jesus is God. Jesus has flesh. God has flesh. A=B, B=C, A=C.

This argument lies in the circular reasoning that Jesus still has flesh, even after ascenscion. Do you support this?

Sargon

[Jac3510]

I thought I had read somewhere that you knew Koine Greek, Sargon? Your error in the OP is sort of silly on a grammatical level.

John uses the exact same construction in this sentence to teach that God is love. Does this mean that God is not also patience? or power? or light? Well we know that God is light: . . . Are we to interpret this passage to mean that God is literally nothing but light?

The construction we are dealing with is extremely common, consider:

• pneuma ho theos; God is spirit. (John 5:24)
  
  ho theos agape estin; God is love. (1 John 4:8)
  
  theos en ho logos; The Word was God. (John 1:1)
  
  Elias anthropos en; Elijah was a man. (James 5:17)

In other words, this is nothing more than the a word functioning as a predicate nominative. In the above examples, the subject (S) is italicized and the predicate nominative (PN) is bolded. Please note that we are not dealing with predicate adjectives. Their job is to "modify the noun or assert something about it." (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, (Zondervan, '96: p. 306)) The purpose of a predicate nominative is to place S in a larger category identified by PN. Your entire argument would require that the text say "God is spiritual" and "God is loving." However, the fourth example above clearly shows the differences in the usage of PN's vs PA's. "Elijah was a man" is very different from "Elijah was manly."

Now, in fact, Elijah was a man. In the same way, God is Love (this is, of course, not to say that Love is God). God is Light (John identifies the metaphor for us - he is not referring to physical light). Both of these are different from "God is Holy" or "God is powerful." Those are PA's. Therefore, notice your conclusion:

"God is holy, righteous, and perfect, and those who worship him must do so in holiness, righteousness, and perfection."

You are using PA's and not PN's. Thus, you have misunderstood the basic grammatical thrust of the argument. In fact, when John says that God is Spirit, he means just that. God is a spirit, just like Elijah was a man. In one sense, the JW's can properly say that the Word was a God (but not in the theological sense they mean it).

So to sum up, when thinking of S-PN constructions (at least in subset propositions, as in the cases we are discussing), think member->category, not object<-modification. Terribly sorry, but you are simply wrong on this point; classical evangelicalism has it exactly right.

[Turgonian]

Sargon, the idea that God is spirit has nothing to do with the Greek philosophy that matter is evil. Women are not evil simply because Jesus was a man.

Your argument is quite circular also, since the bible clearly does not teach that time, space, and matter did not exist prior to God. It is based on the greek philosophy that is engrained in western thinking that matter is evil.

I am saying that time, space and matter must always coexist. None of them can go without the other two.
If the universe would be infinite, it would not be at all. And infinite regress just doesn't work.

You have not given positive proof. All you have said is, 'God made the heavens and the earth.' How He did it is not mentioned in the text.

Jesus is God. Jesus has flesh. God has flesh. A=B, B=C, A=C.

The conclusion is false, because Jesus is not everything there is to God. One might as well say, 'Jesus is God. Jesus is human. God is human.'

This argument lies in the circular reasoning that Jesus still has flesh, even after ascenscion. Do you support this?

That's a starting premise, not circular reasoning. But yes, I do support it.

[Sargon]

I thought I had read somewhere that you knew Koine Greek, Sargon? Your error in the OP is sort of silly on a grammatical level.

I have no idea where you read that, because I do not know a lick of Greek. The only languages I speak are english and portuguese. I served as a missionary in Brazil.
I wont even attempt to challenge your greek knowledge, because I have no authority to do that. But I will challenge your conclusions.

I am not argueing that God is not a spirit. I am argueing that God is not

only

a spirit, with no physical tangible features. You have impressively demonstrated that the text teaches that God is a spirit, that God is a unit of light, and that God is a unit of love. God is a multi faceted personality, his character not able to be summed up in 3 words as classical evangelicism likes to try and do by saying "God is Spirit". Just as God takes part in a spiritual nature, the text does not limit him to that alone, as you have so interestingly demonstrated.
Let us quote the verse in it's entirety:

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

I certainly don't claim to understand ancient Greek, but using the wonderful information you have provided, I can make more sense of this verse. Christ is making a comparison here. God is a spirit(partakes in a spiritual nature), and those who worship him must do so in a spiritual manner and in a truthful manner, not being restricted to either just as God is not restricted to being spirit.
Are we to believe that because God is spirit man needs to shed his fleshy exterior so that he can properly worship the Lord, in spirit? Nonsense.

Sargon, the idea that God is spirit has nothing to do with the Greek philosophy that matter is evil

.
Yes it does, it has everything to do with it. The earliest Christians believed that God was a tangible being, until the aristocratic "theologians" decided they needed a God who was more like the "rational" God of the philosphizing greek fathers, socrates and plato. If you want quotes I can provide plenty.

You have not given positive proof. All you have said is, 'God made the heavens and the earth.' How He did it is not mentioned in the text.

I have not attempted to. My duty here is only to point out that the philosophy you espouse is not taught in the bible.

The conclusion is false, because Jesus is not everything there is to God. One might as well say, 'Jesus is God. Jesus is human. God is human.'

That is exactly what I say. My conclusion is false because you wont accept logic.

That's a starting premise, not circular reasoning. But yes, I do support it.

Ok. We agree that Christ ascended with a body of flesh and bones and still retains that body. Now we have God, with a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as our's, though at a more glorious state. Is this not proof enough that God has a body of flesh and bones? What was the purpose of the ressurrection if not to be a perfect and immortal God? Surely he has a spirit as well tucked away in that body, but spirit is not some ever present immaterial substance. It is a pure and refined matter with a definite shape. That is the way it was viewed by early jews.
Sargon

[Turgonian]

Sargon, the idea that God is spirit has nothing to do with the Greek philosophy that matter is evil

.
Yes it does, it has everything to do with it. The earliest Christians believed that God was a tangible being, until the aristocratic "theologians" decided they needed a God who was more like the "rational" God of the philosphizing greek fathers, socrates and plato. If you want quotes I can provide plenty.

I do want quotes. I doubt that anyone of the Jews-turned-Christians saw God as a being of flesh.

See this piece of an article by Dave Armstrong:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ430.HTM#9. WHAT WAS THE STANDARD JEWISH CONCEPT OF GOD

You have not given positive proof. All you have said is, 'God made the heavens and the earth.' How He did it is not mentioned in the text.

I have not attempted to. My duty here is only to point out that the philosophy you espouse is not taught in the bible.

Neither is yours, if you want to play that game.

Dave Armstrong again:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ456.HTM#V.%20 ... 20Nothing)

The conclusion is false, because Jesus is not everything there is to God. One might as well say, 'Jesus is God. Jesus is human. God is human.'

That is exactly what I say. My conclusion is false because you wont accept logic.

You are saying that God is human? He Who created heaven and earth is a mere human?
Although Jesus was and is God, Jesus is not the same as God. God the Father was not nailed to the Cross.

Ok. We agree that Christ ascended with a body of flesh and bones and still retains that body. Now we have God, with a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as our's, though at a more glorious state. Is this not proof enough that God has a body of flesh and bones? What was the purpose of the ressurrection if not to be a perfect and immortal God?

The purpose of the Resurrection was to defeat death and proclaim the Christian faith. Without the Resurrection, our faith falls.
The Bible states clearly that Jesus was the incarnation of God. God took on on a body of flesh. It does in no way prove that the Trinity has a body of flesh and bones.

May I ask what you make of Luke 24:39? 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.'

[Jac3510]

I have no idea where you read that, because I do not know a lick of Greek. The only languages I speak are english and portuguese. I served as a missionary in Brazil.

Ah, my bad. I found my mistake. I was actually browsing another forum and confused these two. My bad.

Anyway, as to your challenges to my conclusions:

1) I did not attempt to show that God was only a Spirit. Being a Trinitarian, I naturally belief that the second Person in the Godhead became a human ("and the Word became flesh.") Therefore, this is entirely irrelevant to my point to you.

2) I did show that your conclusion is invalid. You attempted to show that John 4:24 does not prevent God from having a body on the basis of comparing it to predicate adjectives. Again, in order for your conclusion to be valid, the text would have to read "God is spiritual." It does not.

Now, what we do know is that God is a spirit (for the record, the text can be rendered that way: "God is a spirit.") It does NOT say that God "takes part in a spiritual nature," as you have asserted. AGAIN, that would require the text to use a predicate adjective. It is up to you to show how a spirit can also have a physical body. I've no interest in that debate other than to say that the words themselves ("spirit" vs. "flesh") are prima facie evidence against your position (observe carefully how John differentiates between the concepts in his gospel!).

Finally, as to your exegesis of the whole verse:

I certainly don't claim to understand ancient Greek, but using the wonderful information you have provided, I can make more sense of this verse. Christ is making a comparison here. God is a spirit(partakes in a spiritual nature), and those who worship him must do so in a spiritual manner and in a truthful manner, not being restricted to either just as God is not restricted to being spirit.

You are correct that the second half of the verse is reference to the manner of worship. However, notice the bolded parts above. These statements are not born out of the text, but are theological assertions of your own. We have already discounted the first part, that God "partakes in a spiritual nature." F.F. Bruce has a good summary of this, saying:

'God is Spirit': is not merely that he is a Spirit among other spirits; rather, God himself is pure Spirit, and the worship in which he takes delight is accordingly spiritual worship - the sacrifice of a humble, contrite, grateful and adoring spirit.

(Bruce: The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Eerdmans, '94), p. 110-111). This is in line with Wallace's further grammatical comments on this particular passage, where he says:

Jesus says to the woman at the well, pneuma ho theos. The anarthrous [a word without the article] PN comes before the subject and there is no verb. Here, pneuma is qualitative--stressing the nature or essence of God.

(Wallace, 270) In short form, John is stressing the fact that God's essential essence is that of Spirit. That essence is set against the idea of God being flesh.

The application is BECAUSE God is Spirit, we are to worship in a particular way. You have reversed that, though. You have cited our manner of worship and attempted to work that into your view of the nature of God.

Your second part bolded above is simply an unsupported assertion that has no root in the text whatsoever.

Conclusion:

Q1 - On the assumption the grammar I have cited is correct, do you agree that your statement, "God is holy, righteous, and perfect, and those who worship him must do so in holiness, righteousness, and perfection" is incorrect?

Q2 - Do you agree that John 4:24 does not teach that God "partakes in a spiritual nature"?

Q3 - On what basis in John 4:24 do you claim that "God is not restricted to being spiritual"? If this verse does not teach that, then what does?

[Gman]

Sargon, can you please explain Genesis 1:27? What do you think God's image is? Is it male or female?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

[Sargon]

Sargon wrote:
Turgonian wrote:
You have not given positive proof. All you have said is, 'God made the heavens and the earth.' How He did it is not mentioned in the text.

I have not attempted to. My duty here is only to point out that the philosophy you espouse is not taught in the bible.

Neither is yours, if you want to play that game.

This confession is all that I sought. Now if you would like to continue the conversation, let us do so politely, so that it is enjoyable. I also ask that we choose a direction, and not wander. That way we can make sure nothing is missed.

I do want quotes. I doubt that anyone of the Jews-turned-Christians saw God as a being of flesh.

Your link of the conversations with the mormon apologist look interesting, but forgive me for not being able to read it just yet. I intend to.

However here is a quote that I scrounged up.

"At this time the issue was stirred up as to whether God has a body like a man's; the greater part of the common people especially insisted that God has a physical body of human form. Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria led the movement against this belief, and was opposed by the ascetes of the desert…who anathemized the books of Origen" …Most of these Egyptian reformers were "naive souls, simple and plain of speech, the greater part of them being uneducated, while the Bishops were university men and followers of Origen." It was the "Origenists vs. the Anthropomorphists." (Socrat. CB, VI, 7; Mich. Syr. VIII, 1; Theodoret, CH, PG 82:1141; Soxom. CH VIII, 11.).

Sargon

[Sargon]

Because I am not verse in Greek, I am still trying to understand exactly what it is you are trying to tell me. Allow me to paste some of your remarks then tell you what I understand, and ask some questions.

The purpose of a predicate nominative is to place S in a larger category identified by PN. Your entire argument would require that the text say "God is spiritual" and "God is loving." However, the fourth example above clearly shows the differences in the usage of PN's vs PA's. "Elijah was a man" is very different from "Elijah was manly."

Identifying God as spirit places him in a larger category of other entities which are also spirit. I conclude this from your remarks about Elijah. If Elijah was a man, he is part of a larger category of beings who also are man. Surely it is not the same as saying that Ellijah is the only man, but that he is a man, as you have suggested. But is this the only defining characteristic of Elijah's nature? Can we not also say that Elijah is flesh? Or that Elijah is male? Or that Elijah is Israelite?
What about after Elijah resurrects. Is he still thought of as man, or is he now something else?
Comparitively, "God is Spirit" suggests that God is a spirit, and part of a larger category of others who also are spirits. This is what I understand you to say, based on your comparison to Elijah.

Is it not clear from the text in John that Jesus was not making a deep doctrinal declaration about the physical or metaphysical nature of God, but rather he was demonstrating the proper mode of worship? He was teaching that because God is spirit, we must worship in spirit. What does this mean to you? Shouldn't the use of the word "spirit" both times in this phrase carry the same meaning? Otherwise it would not have been an effective teaching example.

So what is meant by God is spirit? Does it exclude God from partaking in other qualities? If God is spirit, can he also be love? Yes of course, just as he can be light. If Elijah is man, can he also be spirit? Are we not spirits housed in temples of flesh? Is it not equally correct to say that Elijah is spirit?

Sargon

[Jac3510]

Identifying God as spirit places him in a larger category of other entities which are also spirit. I conclude this from your remarks about Elijah. If Elijah was a man, he is part of a larger category of beings who also are man.

Let me clarify a bit more what I mean by thinking in terms of categories:

Take the sentence "John is a football player." "John" is the subject (S) and "football player" is the predicate nominative (PN). The PN is a category to which the S belongs. This is important, because we are not describing John (i.e., "John is built like a football player!"), but we are actually identifying him. If something is necessarily true about football players, then it must necessarily be true about John.

Further, categories like this are usually subsets of other categories. "Football player" is a subset of "athlete." Thus, if John is a football player, he is also an athlete. The reverse may not be true . . . John may be an athlete, but that does not make him a football player!

OK, so that is really easy to get. Let's apply this to what I was saying. "Elijah was a man." Elijah=S, Man=PN. We are not DESCRIBING Elijah (Elijah was manly, or Elijah was like a man). We are speaking in terms of identification. "Man" would be a subset of "created being," and therefore, we can also say "Elijah is a created being."

Here is the important part, though: just because you exist in a category does not mean other items must also exist in that same category. The fact that Elijah was a man does not guarantee there were other men. In English, we make this distinction by providing (usually) the definite article. So, I might say, "John is the football player." While there are other things called football players, this sentence would fit nicely into a context of a group of people, John of which is the only one of whom is a football player.

So when we say, "God is spirit," while we CAN say "God is a (the) Spirit" that does not mean there are other spirits in His category. In other words, the S-PN construction cannot be taken to teach that God is one spirit among many.

Surely it is not the same as saying that Ellijah is the only man, but that he is a man, as you have suggested. But is this the only defining characteristic of Elijah's nature? Can we not also say that Elijah is flesh? Or that Elijah is male? Or that Elijah is Israelite?

Two things. I don't know that you are seeing the difference in a PN and a PA (predicate adjective). A PA describes S. It attributes to it a characteristic. So, in a S-PN construction, we aren't looking at "defining characteristics." And notice your sentence, "Elijah is male." "Male" here is a PA, not a PN.

Let's look at the other two constructions, which are good S-PN's, as they should help clarify the meaning of "God is Spirit."

Categories, by definition, are limiters. If I am a man, I am not a woman. If I am a human, I am not a dog. If I am an American, I am not a Japanese. If I am 25, I am not 24. Some categories are not exclusive: I can be a football player and also a baseball player. Further, no one category completely defines S. They are not designed to. An item may be a member of many categories; it cannot be a member of contradictory categories.

So, we say that Elijah was a man (notice I didn't use the adjective "male"). That excludes him from being a woman, dog, bear, alien, angel, or demon. We say Elijah was an Israelite. That excludes him from being an American or Canaanite.

So, the question: if Elijah was a man, could he also be a spirit? The answer is no. The categories are self-contradictory, as are male/female. We can say he was spiritual. We can say he "had a spirit." In fact, we could well say, "Elijah was a man with a spirit." This would differentiate him categorically from men without spirits (do such exist? No). But we cannot say that the being who we call Elijah was a spirit if we assert that he was a man.

The implication is clear: God is Spirit. He is a Spirit. He is the Spirit. He cannot be flesh (this, I think, is a good argument against Pentecostal Oneness). Consider the Word. He was clearly a spirit, but then He "became flesh." He is no longer a spirit.

So, categorically, which is what the S-PN construction does, God is excluded from being a man. He CAN be other things: He can be Love; He can be Light. One last example should make this crystal clear: take the phrase, "God is Love." It is clear that God cannot also be Hate. The terms are lexically exclusive (i.e., male/female). God is "Light," and therefore He cannot be "darkness." However, does the fact that God is Love exclude Him from being Light? No. Therefore, as God is Spirit, He is not excluded from being Love. He is excluded from being Man, because Spirit and Man are lexically exclusive.

Is it not clear from the text in John that Jesus was not making a deep doctrinal declaration about the physical or metaphysical nature of God, but rather he was demonstrating the proper mode of worship? He was teaching that because God is spirit, we must worship in spirit. What does this mean to you? Shouldn't the use of the word "spirit" both times in this phrase carry the same meaning? Otherwise it would not have been an effective teaching example.

Again, you have the text backwards. What is the basis on which Jesus tells us the MANNER in which we should worship? The basis is the metaphysical nature of God. It is true that the nature of God is not the emphatic idea, but that does not mean it is not an absolute statement. Here is another example:

"Because there is a city called Loganville in five states, just telling you I live in Loganville isn't enough information." Now, the important idea is that, for you, "Loganville" won't get you here. You have to have more info. The REASON that is true is that there is a Loganville in GA, WI, PN, OR, and CA. We have an absolute fact.

OK, last thing here:

Jesus is saying that BECAUSE God is Spirit (and thus, not a man), we have to worship Him in a certain manner - spiritually and truthfully.

Hopefully, you caught that I used to adverbs here (spiritually and truthfully) rather than two nouns. The actual verse says that we are to worship "in spirit and in truth." Here, they ARE nouns. Why do I use adverbs, when I made such a big deal above about not using adjectives/adverbs? The reason is that in language we have what are called cases. In English, we have three: Subjective (I), Objective (Me), and Possessive (My). In the sentence "I threw John my ball," "I" is sub., "John" and "ball" are obj., and "my" is pos. In Greek, there are four cases: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. To make a long story short, the dative can be used a lot of ways. One of the ways it can be used is to explain HOW an action is to take place. That is called a "dative of manner." In our verse, the words "in spirit and truth" are datives of manner. Thus, they describe HOW we are to worship. They are used adverbially.

That means that the function of "in spirit" is not the same as "is Spirit." The first tells us HOW we are to worship (adverbial usage). The second qualifies the subject (PN). So, while there are similarities that cannot be ignored, the fact that we are told to worship "in spirit" has NO GRAMMATICAL BEARING on the metaphysical statement, "God is Spirit."

CONCLUSION

I know this is a lot - I've tried to give a lot of examples to make this idea easier to get. If you are going to hold your position, what you have to do is argue that the words "Spirit" and "Man" are not lexically exclusive as are, say, "Man" and "Woman" or "Dog" and "Cat." I'm giving you an easy out here, in that you can adhere to all of the above grammar. I don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not Man and Spirit are lexically exclusive. As I said before, if you assert they are not, the then burden of proof is on you. Please note, again, I am not saying that a man cannot be spiritual. It is my belief, and it is the standard position of all lexicons that I know of, that a spirit cannot be a man. If you want to argue they can, that is your business. My whole point is that your original post, while well intended, is incorrect on a grammatical level.

I hope this helps.

God bless.

[Sargon]

It does help. And because I do not know greek, I am forced for now to accept your interpretation. I appreciate your insight, and I trust that you are well-intended person only seeking to do what you believe it correct. For my sake I hope you don't mind if I submit your analysis of this text to another greek scholar for scrutiny. This is not because I don't trust you, but it is for a second witness. I do not personally know a greek scholar, so I will have to find one.

Long before your conclusion I disagreed with this statement.

He is excluded from being Man, because Spirit and Man are lexically exclusive.

I read this and thought to myself, "ah ha! Therein lies the real debate!"
I do not agree. I believe that man is just as much spirit as God is.

Sargon

[bizzt]

I read this and thought to myself, "ah ha! Therein lies the real debate!"
I do not agree. I believe that man is just as much spirit as God is.

Sargon

How do you prove that?
What is your Definition of Man? What is then your Definition of Spirit.

[Turgonian]

Sargon, do you think God is human?