3

Jesus denied being a spirit in Luke 24:39:

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you plainly see that I have.” (Luke 24:39 NASB)

Yet, God is spirit:

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NASB)

Based on conversations with unitarians (e.g. here), I know that they would very quickly connect the dots and claim "Aha! See? Jesus cannot be God because God is spirit and by definition cannot be a man of flesh and bones.".

In an attempt to be more formal, the argument, expressed in a deductive form, would look something like this:

  1. God is spirit (from John 4:24)
  2. Jesus has flesh and bones (from Luke 24:39)
  3. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (from Luke 24:39)
  4. Therefore, Jesus is not a spirit (deduced from 2 and 3, and also stated by Jesus himself in Luke 24:39)
  5. Therefore, Jesus is not God (deduced from 1 and 4).

Question: Would the unitarian be right in their final conclusion, or does the argument commit fallacies that invalidate it?

0

10 Answers 10

1

The argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account how the language is used and the overarching context.

Stating “God is spirit”, is correct. But God also lives inside the body of believers

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭

If God’s spirit dwells inside a person, does not God now have flesh and bones? In one sense, yes. And if the members of the body are given over to His control then He can use them as He pleases.

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!

But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one (εν, united, not monos singular) spirit with him.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:15, 17‬ ‭emphasis added

What therefore is a (carnal) body? A body is a housing, a housing for the spiritual.

“Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” ‭‭John‬ ‭14:23‬ ‭

The housing is not limited to one spirit, - the spirit of the man - for we see that many spirits can inhabit the same housing.

““When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12:43-45‬ ‭

So now we can see that spirits can exist inside a home/human body or outside a body. But in order to manifest and interact with the world a spirit must possess a body.

The body is a housing for the spirit. Jesus preexisted His birth in the human body, known as the incarnation.

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” ‭‭Jude‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭

“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭8:58‬ ‭

We know Jesus received a body prior to His incarnation

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5‬ ‭

When Jesus makes the claim

“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:39‬ ‭

Jesus is not saying that He (a spirit) is not a spirit but that He is not merely a spirit or a ghost. Spirits do not have flesh and bones if they are outside of a body, but Jesus who clearly entered the room through the walls had a special body, a spiritual body. For ghosts or spirits or bodiless persons do not have flesh and bones.

If someone appears in your room and all the doors and windows are locked, it’s not unreasonable to assume it’s a bodiless spirit that is in the room. Jesus was emphasizing that He had a body! What He was NOT saying, is that the body had no spirit in it. Because He clearly was present in that body. A body without a spirit by definition is a dead body, a lifeless body, a spiritless body.

If we did not have spirit inside of us, all that would be left is the housing, ONLY flesh and bones. The distinction is that we are spirits (immaterial) living inside a biological machine (material).

The expression

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭4:24‬ ‭

Says that God at His core is spirit, immaterial. That does not prevent God from inhabiting material bodies, for believers are temples to God’s spirit. This does nothing to prevent God from having His own separate body all His own. Jesus received such a body, prepared especially for Him.

  • Jesus is a spirit with flesh and bones.
  • God, Jesus is a spirit with flesh and bones.
  • God is a spirit with flesh and bones.

All of these are true.

We humans are persons, or spirits with bodies. Our biological bodies houses our spirit and hopefully the Trinity but sometimes, simultaneously other spirits too (known as demonization), or only other spirits.

1
  • I don't know where all the comments in the original post went, but this is basically what I was trying to say, except very well written and supported. Thanks for doing all the hard work. ^_^ I see that OP accepted it, good job. :) – msb Mar 4 at 23:48
2

Which premise (or step) of the argument is flawed” - Step 4, ‘Therefore, Jesus is not a spirit”.

Jesus did not say he was not a Spirit. He said, a spirit does not have flesh and bone. And that is absolutely correct, it doesn’t. They don’t.

You are making a deduction, but your ‘therefore’, your conclusion fails to consider the whole verse. Look at at that verse in Luke .... carefully

LUKE 24:39 * See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”*

Jesus is saying He has flesh and bone - He is not saying that He is flesh and bone. And, if ‘He’ has flesh, who is the ‘He’?

3
  • 1
    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying Jesus has a spirit and a body, or just one or the other? Or are you arguing that "He" refers to someone other than Jesus? – Hold To The Rod Mar 3 at 22:10
  • 1
    @Hold To The Rod ‘He’ refers to Jesus. And, in verse 39 Jesus is saying that ‘He’ has a body - So then, what is ‘He’? Spirit Realm Investigator is saying that because Jesus said spirit’s don’t have ‘flesh and bone’, which is true, (therefore) Jesus can’t be spirit, which is an erroneous conclusion. So why did Jesus say that about spirits? The disciples were not seeing a spirit (which they thought they were) - you can’t. Neither can you touch a spirit. That’s what Jesus was saying. If Jesus [spirit] was there without a body, then they wouldn’t be seeing him, neither be able to touch him. – Dave Mar 3 at 23:36
  • Thanks for clarifying! – Hold To The Rod Mar 4 at 0:15
2

People are reading far too much significance into this one verse.

Look earlier in the chapter, at verses 36 and 37:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

In verse 39, Jesus is simply trying to remove their natural, but unnecessary, fear. He assures them that he is not a ghost, but real flesh and bone, just like them.

There's really no need to think he meant anything more than that; certainly not a doctrine-challenging denial that he was incapable of having a spirit form, should he so choose.

1
  • 1
    Jesus it is said, is a man made just like us - he is not like us if he is somehow God. He just isn't. Heb 2:17 Yes, People are reading far too much significance - into a few verses that might suggest Jesus is God. All the others carry far more weight. – user48152 Mar 4 at 1:03
2

Valid vs Sound

I believe this argument is valid, but it is not sound. (terms defined here)

It is valid in that if the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. However, I suggest that it would be overplaying the evidence to claim that premises 1 & 4 are certain. If the premises are not true, the argument is not sound.

Here is an example of a valid argument that is not sound:

  1. All cats are reptiles
  2. My pet is a cat
  3. Therefore my pet is a reptile

It’s valid—the conclusion follows logically from the premises. But it is not sound because premise 1 is false.

Premise 1

God is spirit (from John 4:24)

The Greek here is “Pneuma ho Theos”, an idiomatic expression that does not readily translate into English. It is often translated “God is Spirit” or “God is a Spirit”, neither of which quite capture the Greek idiom. Another translation is “God is a spiritual being”, which is found in translations such as

The latter of which was specifically designed to remove idiomatic expressions (see page iv at link above).

A corollary is found in 1 John 4, verses 8 & 16. The idiom is not identical, but strikingly similar, “God is love.” If this is not taken idiomatically we are left with a very confusing literalistic statement. Love is an abstract concept, not an entity. A less idiomatic reading would be “God is a loving Being.” (and we could add to it that love is absolutely central to His character).

Idiomatic statements:

  • God is Spirit

  • God is love

Less idiomatic readings:

  • God is a spiritual being

  • God is a loving being

The ideas being conveyed:

  • The Spirit (or spiritual things, if you prefer) is absolutely central to God’s character
  • Love is absolutely central to God’s character

This reading is supported by the context of John 4. Jesus is explaining to the Samaritan woman that she does not need to go to Jerusalem to worship, that focus on the inner spiritual matters is more important than the focus on material things. (see also Matthew 15: 2, 11 about what goes into the mouth vs what comes out; see also 1 Samuel 16:7 looking on outward things vs the heart)

The nature of God is not the subject of the sermon and it is probable that too much theological superstructure has been built on this foundation.

Premise 1 is not sufficiently reliable to support the weight of the argument.

Premise 4

“Therefore, Jesus is not a spirit (deduced from 2 and 3, and also stated by Jesus himself in Luke 24:39)”

As NigelJ already pointed out, Jesus indicates that He is not a disembodied ghost. He neither indicates that no spirit resides in His body, nor that He is not a spiritual being (see discussion on premise 1). The purpose of the discussion is to make it clear to His disciples that He does indeed have a tangible, physical body.

This pericope from Luke has significant ramifications for our understanding of the resurrection, but tells us very little about the relationship between the spirit and the body.

Premise 4 is not supported by the context.

Conclusion

This is an interesting argument, but it is not sound.

3
  • 3
    Your rejection of premise #1 to support the argument (God is spirit (from John 4:24) is flawed. Just because the idiom “God is love” is similar, it is not sufficient to reject premise #1. Love is a characteristic of God (God is love), where Spirit is an identity (God is Spirit). – Jesus Saves Mar 4 at 0:23
  • @JesusSaves thanks for your thoughts. I'm sorry if you found the "God is love" discussion unhelpful. It was offered as an illustration (kind of like the cat argument); the claims of my argument would work without either illustration. The point of discussing another idiom was to note the danger in a literal translation of an idiom. I do believe "God is Spirit" over-simplifies in English what is being said in Greek. I don't mind if you disagree, but I believe the "God is a spiritual being" translation of the sources I cited better captures what is being said. Either way, thanks for the dialogue! – Hold To The Rod Mar 4 at 1:13
  • 2
    I think it’s simpler still. We humans are triads at a minimum (in general), body, soul and spirit. I cannot however say I am spirit because without the body or soul I am no longer me. I am more than just a spirit. God however is spirit, not requiring a body to house him. Jesus saying he was not a spirit merely meant that he was not ONLY a spirit because he had flesh and bones. That’s not to say He isn’t God incarnate, just that he is not merely a spirit. Not all spirits have bodies and not all bodiless spirits are God. – Nihil Sine Deo Mar 4 at 4:07
1

A Biblical Unitarian probably wouldn't make an argument like this, and the reason turns on the meaning of 'spirit' in the relevant passages, which is a word with multiple meanings in both the ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew.

This Biblical Unitarian commentary distinguishes 15 different senses of the Greek term 'pneuma' ('spirit' in English).

For John 4:24,

  1. Pneuma is used of an immaterial “substance.” John 4:24 says, “God is spirit.” God is an immaterial substance.

But Luke 24:39 is talking about a 'spirit being'. These are different things, although related.

"Luke 24:39 makes it clear that Jesus had flesh and bone and was not a spirit being like an angel. However, Jesus’ resurrected body was animated and empowered by spirit[.]"

So I don't think Biblical Unitarians typically would make the formal argument as you've outlined above, as it relies on a misunderstanding of 2 different uses of 'pneuma' - although they would agree 4. follows from 2. and 3., and hold to 5. for different reasons.

0
1

The logic is fallacious, for it does not regard the polysemy of the term "spirit" and thus creates a famous fallacy of ambiguity. The Scripture distinguishes uncreated Spirit - God, and created spirits, angels (Hebrews 1:14), demons (Mark 1:27), human souls (for sometimes also human souls are called "spirits" /Hebrews 12:23/).

Thus, when Jesus tells them that He "is not spirit", it is to say that He is not present as a spiritual apparition, like that of angel or a soul of a dead person (a la Samuel's apparition /1 Samuel 28:11–20/), but in His physical body. He is not, thus, referring to His divinity when He says that He is not "spirit" at all.

Actually, Jesus, while being in body, says that He is simultaneously in Heaven where the Father is ("No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" /John 3:13/). Now, what can be in heaven on the level of the Father? Only the Equal to the Father, and equal to the Father is Spirit, for the Father is Spirit. Thus, Logos is also Spirit. Jesus' words are "Sprit and Life" (6:63), thus they are giving a new birth and give new life; if His words are life-giving spirit, how much more He is Spirit who is the Source of those words? And that's why He calls Himself "a bread from Heaven" (John 6:35), meaning not His own body, which is not from heaven but from Mary, His physical mother, but His heavenly, altogether divine, spiritual and uncreated features.

Thus, when He says that "I am not spirit", He simply wants to calm down His disciples and dispel their wrong fear that they see some bodiless apparition; but He is not speaking here about His divine, spiritual essence. Had Samuel told Saul in the above-mentioned passage that "I am a spirit" /i.e. created soul of Samuel that has left his body/, would Samuel mean that he is God? Not of course. Neither, had Gabriel told Mary, "I am a spirit to annunciate you good news", which would be a true, he would assert his divinity by this assertion.

To sum it up, in saying "spirit does not have body, which I have" Jesus means bodiless created spirits, which can appear to humans in a visible manner, distinguishing Himself from them as having body; but He is not referring to His divine, uncreated, spiritual nature. Thus, the spirit He speaks about can be termed, for clarity's sake "spirit-apparition", which, in principle cannot have body and can represent angelic, demonic or dead-person's soul's visible apparition. Therefore, it does not refer to Spirit denoting divine nature, which can have body - for Logos who is altogether Spirit got incarnate - for Spirit in this divine sense does not belong to the discussed sentence "spirit (i.e. spirit-apparition) has no body".

1
  • Dear @Down-voter, my anonymous pal, first of all thanks for taking interest in my post. Second, as I see that you liked it not, I am sure this disliking comes not out of your irrational emotions, but out of well-thought rational disagreement as to concrete points of my arguments. I will be most thankful if you will share them with me. If you are lazy to do so, well, it is your right to be lazy, but would not it be better if you were more consistently lazy and not even bother to down-vote if you did not intend to substantiate your down voting? Just a suggestion, otherwise, have a good day! – Levan Gigineishvili Apr 21 at 18:03
1

Clearly looking at all the verses as a whole there is ‘conflict’ / ‘tension’ between the verses. But the strongest conclusion would be that Jesus was not a Spirit at the time he ascended to heaven.

The disciples though they have seen a Ghost – Jesus clearly confirms that he is not a Ghost (spirit) as he has flesh and bones

Luke 24:37-39 - 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

John 20:24-27 - showed Thomas his body / flesh & bone / body marks John 20:20 - 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

If Spirit why does Jesus need to eat

Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Luke 24:42 - ate fish & honeycomb Luke 24:30 – ate bread

Too many verses where Jesus confirmed that he is not God – the below few are clear that God & Jesus are not the same.

John 20:17, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

“...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

3
  • About John 20:17, you might find this interesting: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56140/… – Spirit Realm Investigator Apr 21 at 15:29
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - I don't really understand how J 20:17 can be made so complicated / imply trinity. To me its clear added a couple more, could add literally hundreds. Maybe if they relied on Hebrew 1:8-9 '..therefore God, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed..' albeit God anointing God? also God & HS are also different based on Matthew 12:31 “Therefore, I tell you that people will be forgiven for every sin and insult to God. But insulting the Holy Spirit won’t be forgiven." it appears HS is higher than God. I'm on & off on this site any Trinity Q with substance look forward to answering it. – another theory Apr 22 at 11:25
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator I have just asked a question which you may be interested in - hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59309/33268 – another theory Apr 22 at 13:46
1

"Spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" does not logically mean that He is not a spirit, but that He is not merely a spirit (humans being a body and spirit composite, not only a spirit like angels). This would be a logically fallacy, since no mere spirit has flesh and bones, but no one has claimed that Jesus is a mere spirit, but the Word (spiritual) made flesh (body).

2
  • with respect Jesus was clearly showing that he is not a spirit / ghost otherwise the statements do not make sense. If you wish to support your position you need to provide text to support the same. If you going down the Spiritual / holy spirit etc... route - that's another issue with its own complications. Maybe a new question with your position / evidence. – another theory Apr 23 at 10:04
  • I pointed out a logical point, not an opinion: "a spirit does not have flesh and bone" doesn't mean in the English language or any language that 'I am not a spirit,' since in context, "spirit" clearly refers to a bodiless spirit without flesh and bones, which has nothing to do with the language it's said in, but logic itself. Humans, like Jesus, have a body and spirit, not just a body, or just a spirit. So He is a spirit, but not a ghost (the kind of spirit they thought he was). Jesus literally said, "A ghost doesn't have flesh and bone." It's obvious what He meant. – Sola Gratia Apr 25 at 13:57
0

Is the logic and argument sound?

Let's pursue this answer from the scriptures. One verse or two does not a doctrine make - unless it can be supported by numerous others and eventually the whole bible can be seen to be in concert.

God is Spirit.

Jesus said, 'a spirit does not have flesh and bones a you see I have.'

Therefore, we must begin with, Jesus is NOT a spirit unless we are told otherwise.

Therefore God does not have - nor can have, flesh and bones. No one can see God and live Ex 33:20 God is invisible Col 1:15. God cannot become a man or be like a man. Num 23:19 God is not human. God can be represented by a pillar of cloud or a donkey - but these are not God. Whatever OT folks saw or encountered when God was in their midst was a representation or manifestation. Even Adam and Eve only heard God.

While there are many 'proof-texts' that can and are used for many things the bible does not intend, any supposed contradiction must be solved by bringing other scriptures to bear on the proposed truth.

While the OP logic is sound, it is also open to dispute as various ideas are formed by extrapolating the text to mean something extra of one's own making... like, 'God can be flesh and bones'.

What other texts can we use to confirm the proposed logic that Jesus is not a spirit, and therefore, cannot be God? If Jesus is not a spirit, but only has spirit as an addition to himself, then he is a man only. Jesus, like many figures before him may be a god - i.e. a ruler, a mighty person etc. but not the supreme God.

The list of verses showing Jesus has a God is very long. There is one popular verse used to 'prove' that Jesus IS God, Heb 1:8

But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, endures forever ...

Ok, but keep reading - the very next verse puts this in context. (context is what should be used to avoid making our own explanations for weird bits of scripture that seem ambiguous.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions with the oil of joy.” v9

So Jesus, the son, has a God and this God is not him, but over him, anointing him above all others. When did Jesus ever exalt himself, when did he take a place of authority that was not already given him? Never.

In fact he speaks of this in several ways. Being the son of God - holy pure etc., he didn't regard being equal with God something to grasp after, taking the role of a slave, a servant OF God - even to death on a cross.

Satan is the great usurper. Jesus the exact opposite, always choosing the humble path, knowing all the while he was destined for great glory being the one planned for from the beginning. Even though he was at times pushed to the limit, seeking the Father find another way (take this cup from me), he again humbly and obediently chose the Father's will. That Jesus has his own will, makes him not God. Heb 1:9 makes him not God.

V1 of Hebrews 8 is also important for context.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages (not world or universe).

So the son is not Yahweh of the OT. Now that the son is around, having been born of Mary, He speaks through Jesus.... who He made heir! If the pre-existing logos/son made everything (hence the 'world' bias end of v2) why is he now made heir? If he is 'made' heir, he wasn't the heir before. Jesus qualified to be heir after finishing his mission without error or blemish, becoming the perfect Lamb. The Lamb who would have died, regardless of the cross, if just once, he had put his will before the Father's. His total dependency through prayer ensured his success. Who was he praying to? The supposed eternal Son, who is God, is praying to Himself?

In the days of His humanity, He offered up both prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His devout behaviour. 8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him Heb 5:7-9

Having finished the course, he is now given a new life force - to have life as the Father does. John 5:26 a life he didn't have before - being mortal and subject to death. Rom 6:9

You have 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 do not yet see all things put under him. Heb 2:8

Again this Jesus, who is not God, is given rulership (by God) he didn't have before, and is still waiting on its grand fulfilment at the close of this fleshly age.

He who descended is the very One who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things. (that weren't filled before by the son)

We can understand 'descended' as the heavenly man he was being holy and without sin. This is not an 'earthly man' as all other men are. Jesus was 'sent' from heaven, just as the manna and all other Godly gifts come from heaven. As the 'heavenly man, God cannot be a man, so this makes perfect sense.

Now Jesus is at God's right hand. Not the Father's right hand. Jesus is the man, made just like us 'in every way' Heb 2:17, made Lord and Christ, made heir, exalted above all others, given life like the Father has, who was tempted just like us, died like us, raised like us in a new body that is not spirit but powered by spirit to have life eternal at last!

We could go on and on, but also notice in Heb 2:17, made like us in every respect... that, 'he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God'.

There are a zillion texts that in concert agree that Jesus is not God but His magnificent son. The fleshly man who IS God's logos - the word, the plan and purpose of God to be the Saviour of all through his humble and obedient life and sacrifice, foreknown and foretold.

The OP argument is therefore sound and accurate. Not only does it stand alone by logic, but it is well supported by myriad texts that speak the same truth.

Any random 'proof-texts' that some might offer to oppose this plain speaking God and His apostles is reading in more than intended or taking them out of context to make them say whatever they want and find way too many verses opposing.

-1

The entire premise of this question is flawed. Jesus did not deny being a God with this statement; in this fourth statement of comfort/consolation (in as many verses), Jesus is affirming that he is indeed flesh.

Compare this to the passage about Jesus walking on the water. There (in Mark and Matthew) the word fantasm is used instead of pneuma, but the form is the same.

Lastly, the rest of the chapter from which this silly argument comes - Luke 24:12ff - gives us a clear picture of the bodily functions of Jesus: walking, talking, reclining, eating, etc. He appeared like himself to the Emmaus fellas, once their eyes were opened.

3
  • I edited the question to present the argument in an explicit deductive form. Which premise (or step) of the argument is flawed in your opinion? – Spirit Realm Investigator Mar 3 at 17:13
  • 1
    While I might be able to find issue with #3 or 4, let's start with #1: God is spirit. What does that mean? Does a spirit have a location? Can it be seen? Why is God being a spirit incompatible with him having or using a body? Why isn't John 4:24 part of a belief that says "God can exist as just a spirit" rather than "God cannot exist in physical form?" Lastly, Why can't Jesus' fourth statement be understood to mean "I am not just a spirit?" – The Chaz 2.0 Mar 3 at 17:48
  • 1
    Of course, we could go on (and I will, just once more)... why does the Lord have a spirit (e.g. "where the spirit of the Lord is...") if He is spirit (in the limited sense I argue against). – The Chaz 2.0 Mar 3 at 17:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.