Thanks for narrowing your comments to John, because that’s precisely where the category issue becomes clear. The variation in the KJV—“Holy Ghost,” “Spirit,” and “wind”—doesn’t signal multiple pneuma‑types in John. It’s simply the translators shifting English renderings of one Greek word, pneuma. John himself never distinguishes a “Holy Ghost” from “the Spirit,” nor does he build any theology on the metaphorical use of “wind” in John 3. Those distinctions arise from English translation choices, not from Johannine vocabulary.
From my last post;
"Jesus'
body gave up his
holy ghost/spirit, to the Father, but it did not give up his
soul. According to JOHN.
JOH 20:22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive/lambano ye the Holy Ghost:"
I have a new 10x14" 600 page translation of the NT. It has more different Greek sources and supportive Greek scholars backing, than any translation I've ever seen. The author started studying Koine Greek with his father as a child, and continued his Koine Greek studies in college. He is in his 70's now. It's the "Expanded/Amplified/Multiple Renderings New Testament of Johathan Mitchell which was just finished in 2019. Here is verse 20 from his online presence.
JOH 20:22. And saying this, He suddenly blows on, and says to, them (or: He breathes within [them], so as to inflate them [note: same verb as used in Gen. 2:7, LXX], and is saying to them),
"Receive a set-apart spirit! (or: Get [the] Holy Spirit!; take the Sacred Breath!; or: Receive a sacred attitude),
I understand you probably won't agree, but it works for me. Other than his capitalization of Holy Spirit that is.
When John the Baptist says the Spirit will “remain on” Jesus, that is a messianic identification sign,
Being
Messianic has nothing to do with Jesus being the "
son of God". That is an error that the church is massively deceived, I believe. The term
Messianic has to do with the body of Jesus having physical roots back to the fathers of Israel Abraham, Issac and Jacob. That Genealogy then follows the lineage to his Israel and Jewish Fathers roots. Jesus was the "
son of David" after His soul , and Jesus was "
the son of man" after his flesh/body. And at his conception with a spirit from the Holy Spirit he became manifested "
the son of God".
not a pattern for a two‑stage Spirit experience in believers. John never extends “on Him” to “on us,” and he never uses that language to describe a sequence in which the Spirit rests on a person, their human spirit is reborn, and then a glorified “holy ghost” dwells within them. John 7:39 likewise does not describe the moment when the human spirit is reborn. His point is simply that the eschatological gift of the Spirit awaited Jesus’ glorification. He is not outlining the mechanics of regeneration or the transformation of a human spirit into a divine one.
"eschatological "is not
Johannine vocabulary either. Even the name
Johannine is even from the Greek. It's '
Latin' spelling for John's name which also wasn't J
ohn's vocabulary. And the very definition of
Eschatological (which
was derived from ancient Greek does not support your definition of Eschatological, per the Oxford English Bible's definition below.
"Eschatological" is an adjective that describes things relating to eschatology, the part of theology focused on death, judgment, and the final destiny of the
soul and humankind."
I read nothing about a '
soul' being the same as '
spirit' as you were defining 'both' as the "
inward thing" (singular).
This is why Johannine anthropology matters. John never teaches that the believer’s spirit becomes “the Holy Ghost,” nor does he divide the human person into soul‑life, spirit‑life, water‑spirit, wind‑spirit, or any similar internal components. His categories are consistent: sarx for natural human life, pneuma for Spirit‑given life, psyche for the interior life or self, and soma for the body.
I disagree with your definition, where does it come from?
SARX is not a "
human life" it is the word for "
FLESH" without life, and not
spirit or
soul. I do admit that the definition below does consider them as the same 'one' thing, with two different names. but that's not the definition, I'm understanding you to be talking about.
Strong's 4561 sarx:
flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e.(strictly)
the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extens.)
the body (
as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by impl.) human nature (with its frailties [phys. or mor.] and passions), or (spec.) a human being (as such)
And John also talked about another Greek word for body, which was "
SOMA".
4983
soma: the body (as
a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.
JOH 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body/SOMA.
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body/SOMA of Jesus had lain.
The first verse, to me, sounds like a living '
sound whole' body, and I believe it is talking about the many membered spiritual body of Christ, which we corporately are. We are all living stones and Jesus is the cornerstone.
The second verse in John speaks of his
dead body minus
the spirit which he sent to the Father from the cross.
`
1JO 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh /SARX is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
In this verse 'I believe' JOHN is saying that if the spirit you THOUGHT you received in some protocol of 40,000 different denominations, does not '
lead' you to confess you have the same spirit in you that Jesus had at birth then you just may have the impostor ANTICHRIST spirit instead. Anti doesn't mean AGAINST as much as it is defined to mean a replacement for the true thing. IOW a FALSE ANOINTING.
REV 18:13* And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves/SOMA, and souls of men.
This last verse in Revelation is just a bad 1x translation for SOMA IMO.
The “anointing” in 1 John 2:27 is simply the Holy Spirit, not a transformed human spirit. Likewise, the imagery of water and wind in Scripture is metaphorical, not a Johannine attempt to distinguish two different kinds of divine spirit.
Your opinion and my opinion differ, just reading all John verses.
John 19:30 (“gave up the ghost”) is an English idiom,
I don't see anywhere that John says "
English idiom"? It seems to me that your idioms are allowed but mine aren't?
not a doctrinal statement about Jesus’ “holy ghost” leaving His body while His soul remained. The Greek simply says He gave up His pneuma—He died. John is not teaching a separation of Jesus’ spirit and soul at death. And in John 20:22, the distinction between lambano and dechomai comes from classical Greek,
I don't see it defined by John as
not being a doctrinal statement either. And I simply agree with what you just said;
"The Greek simply says He gave up His pneuma-He died." And "
His pneuma" was the '
animating' life source for His body of flesh as well as the flesh of animals.
Whereas the soul is the '
motivating' life force of the soul (or functioning of the BRAIN e.g. mind will emotions, attitudes. All attributes of having a psyche. The root word for psychology, psychiatric, psycho. All are soul/psuche problems IMO.
Sorry for the length 'again', but I'm going to quit here
@Moonwood . I have gotten pretty busy dealing with human beings in the flesh. That's why it took so long to respond. But you did have me searching for holes in my opinion. And I do thank you for that. May talk again somewhere else. It doesn't look like this thread has much steam left anyway.
