Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45 [Archive] - Page 2

UntoHim

07-16-2014, 10:27 AM

Just because we will not receive a spiritual body until the resurrection from the dead, does not negate the fact that Jesus, the Last Adam, became a life-giving spirit thru His resurrection in the new creation. Thus Paul is using the truths of the resurrection to contrast the old and new creations, with two unique progenitors, two unique births, two unique natures, two unique sources, and two unique bodies.

Good post. I do not think that anybody is trying to negate that the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (how could one negate something that is plainly stated in the Word?) but I do think that Witness Lee's teaching regarding this verse needs to be critically reexamined, and yes even negated, and that's one of the main functions of the forum in general and this thread specifically. (To be clear, I mean to say critically reexamined and, if necessary, negated or repudiated)

The VAST majority of biblical scholars indicate that "became a life-giving spirit" is a reference to the spiritual body received at the time of his resurrection, and is not referring to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, becoming the Holy Spirit.

There is one renown scholar, Richard Gaffin Jr., who produced a monumental paper entitled " 'LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT' PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL'S PNUEMATOLOGY ". I mentioned this comprehensive interpretive work at the beginning of this thread. Here are a couple on excerpts that will give you some idea of where Gaffin stands:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/41/41-4/41-4-pp573-589-JETS.pdf

Posing two questions will expedite our discussion of the last clause in v. 45: (1) What is the reference of the noun “spirit” (pneuma)? (2) Since life-giving pneuma is what (Christ as) the last Adam “became,” what is the time point of that becoming? A couple of interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations show, decisively it seems to me, that “spirit” in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.
and a little later:
As the adjective pneumatikovn in vv. 44 and 46 plainly refers to the activity of the Holy Spirit, so its correlative noun pneuma in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. (2) This conclusion is reinforced by the participial modifer Paul uses. The last Adam did not simply become pneuma but “life-giving” pneuma (pneuma zwopoioun). The “spirit” in view is not merely an existing entity but an acting subject. Paul’s use of this verb elsewhere proves decisive here, especially his sweeping assertion about the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6 “The Spirit gives life.” In the contrasting parallelism that stamps this passage too, few if any will dispute that “the Spirit” (to; pneuma) in v. 6 is “the Spirit of the living God” just mentioned in v. 3—in other words, the Holy Spirit. Again, Rom 8:11 attributes the “life-giving” activity of resurrection to the Spirit (cf. John 6:63). For these reasons, pneuma in 1 Cor 15:45 is definite and refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.

I am chomping at the bit to get to this commentary, but I wanted to hold off and save it for the last. There are a number of other commentaries on 1 Cor 15:45 I want to review first. The outstanding thing with Gaffin is that he is contemporary, and is still an active professor of theology as far as I know.

This is the very basis for our faith. Without the hope of the resurrection, I too would be of all men most miserable.
Amen and Amen!

zeek

07-16-2014, 02:49 PM

Seems to me we are in effect spiritual bodies now. The spirit is said to leave the body at death. So, until then spirit and body seem somehow joined. The significant difference between the body now and post-resurrection seems to be that the resurrected body is immortal. Consistent with Swinburne's definition of spirit as a person without a body, there is Kierkegaard's thesis in "Sickness Unto Death":
"The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates to itself, or that in the relation which is its relating to itself. The self is not the relation but the relation's relating to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity. In short a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two terms. Looked at in this way a human being is not yet a self."
The spirit is the self. How elegantly simple.

My head is going around on this spirit vs. Holy Spirit controversy in 15:45B like Linda Blair's in the Exorcist. The Trinity hadn't been fully conceived yet. Paul was a bitarian. The Father and Son are a Binity. The Son is the Spirit. The Father is the Spirit too. The Spirit is the the love between them. Re-enter the Trinity. That was my head going full circle again. :crazy:

zeek

07-16-2014, 07:26 PM

There is one renown scholar, Richard Gaffin Jr., who produced a monumental paper entitled " 'LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT' PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL'S PNUEMATOLOGY ". I mentioned this comprehensive interpretive work at the beginning of this thread. Here are a couple on excerpts that will give you some idea of where Gaffin stands...
But weren't you claiming that the life-giving spirit is not the Holy Spirit? Gaffin seems to be saying the opposite.

UntoHim

07-16-2014, 08:12 PM

But weren't you claiming that the life-giving spirit is not the Holy Spirit? Gaffin seems to be saying the opposite.
Of course, that's why I posted this at the beginning of this thread:
A number of years ago I ran into a huge (in length) polemic work entitled "LIFE GIVING SPIRIT - PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL'S PNUEMATOLOGY". The author is Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Gaffin is a professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. I think this paper was produced in 1998. The basic premise of Gaffin's arguments center around his contention that the title "spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45 should be rendered Spirit with a capitol S because it must, he claims, refer to The Holy Spirit. Gaffin spends a great deal of time and energy trying to prove his point. But unlike Witness Lee, who uses weak and even childish arguments (cf: "are there two sprit's that give life?"), Gaffin uses strong, biblical and logical arguments and shows a lot of theological prowess in the process. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but I do find this work fascinating, if nothing else. Too bad this was produced after Lee's death in 1997, he would have surely used this as a kind of confirmation, if not endorsement, of his teaching that Christ became the Life-Giving

UntoHim

07-16-2014, 08:50 PM

Seems to me we are in effect spiritual bodies now. The spirit is said to leave the body at death. So, until then spirit and body seem somehow joined. The significant difference between the body now and post-resurrection seems to be that the resurrected body is immortal. Consistent with Swinburne's definition of spirit as a person without a body, there is Kierkegaard's thesis in "Sickness Unto Death"
There you go again, my friend zeek, using extra-biblical sources to try and confirm or else deny facts that are clearly explained in the biblical text itself.

And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 1 Cor 15:37

What was "sown"? The text is extremely clear: the physical body of the first Adam. What was "raised"? Well that is what this part of 1 Cor 15 and this thread are all about! But we can't get to the what was raised part without acknowledging the what was sown part. Of course we can simply jump ahead and argue about the "became a life giving spirit", but what fun is that if we can't even agree on what is meant by "the first Adam became a living soul"?

awareness

07-16-2014, 09:28 PM

Posing two questions will expedite our discussion of the last clause in v. 45: (1) What is the reference of the noun “spirit” (pneuma)? (2) Since life-giving pneuma is what (Christ as) the last Adam “became,” what is the time point of that becoming? A couple of interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations show, decisively it seems to me, that “spirit” in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.
and a little later:
As the adjective pneumatikovn in vv. 44 and 46 plainly refers to the activity of the Holy Spirit, so its correlative noun pneuma in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. (2) This conclusion is reinforced by the participial modifer Paul uses. The last Adam did not simply become pneuma but “life-giving” pneuma (pneuma zwopoioun). The “spirit” in view is not merely an existing entity but an acting subject. Paul’s use of this verb elsewhere proves decisive here, especially his sweeping assertion about the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6 “The Spirit gives life.” In the contrasting parallelism that stamps this passage too, few if any will dispute that “the Spirit” (to; pneuma) in v. 6 is “the Spirit of the living God” just mentioned in v. 3—in other words, the Holy Spirit. Again, Rom 8:11 attributes the “life-giving” activity of resurrection to the Spirit (cf. John 6:63). For these reasons, pneuma in 1 Cor 15:45 is definite and refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.
Now I'm totally confused. Gaffin "proves," with other Paul verses that, the life-giving spirit is the Holy Spirit. He says : "(Christ as) the last Adam," but then concludes, the last Adam became the Holy Spirit.

If that's correct then Lee was right. If, that is, Paul meant to say, the last Adam was/is the resurrected Christ.

But sounds to me like Gaffin's logical conclusion, by default, is saying that the last Adam is the Holy Spirit.

So go on bro UntoHim, and present more commentary. Maybe it will clear up my confusion.

zeek

07-17-2014, 12:28 AM

Of course, that's why I posted this at the beginning of this thread:

Oh OK. I thought maybe you had changed your mind by the end of the thread where you said "The outstanding thing with Gaffin is that he is contemporary, and is still an active professor of theology as far as I know.
Quote:
This is the very basis for our faith. Without the hope of the resurrection, I too would be of all men most miserable.

Amen and Amen!"

zeek

07-17-2014, 12:40 AM

There you go again, my friend zeek, using extra-biblical sources to try and confirm or else deny facts that are clearly explained in the biblical text itself.

And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 1 Cor 15:37

What was "sown"? The text is extremely clear: the physical body of the first Adam. What was "raised"? Well that is what this part of 1 Cor 15 and this thread are all about! But we can't get to the what was raised part without acknowledging the what was sown part. Of course we can simply jump ahead and argue about the "became a life giving spirit", but what fun is that if we can't even agree on what is meant by "the first Adam became a living soul"?

Clearly I jumped the gun. But, I'm not so sure about your "clearly explained" claim. I can't seem to grasp what a spiritual body is. It seems like the kind of thing you can read about, but to really appreciate it you've got to be there to see it.

awareness

07-17-2014, 01:59 AM

if we can't even agree on what is meant by "the first Adam became a living soul"?
That would be "The first MAN Adam." Note that Paul doesn't say the last MAN Adam. He just says , the last Adam.

So Gaffin might be on to something to point out the last Adam is the Holy Spirit, otherwise he would have also stated the last man Adam.

OBW

07-17-2014, 12:10 PM

Seems to me we are in effect spiritual bodies now. The spirit is said to leave the body at death. So, until then spirit and body seem somehow joined.While I understand the confusion, you are caught in a bit of unintended equivocation.

"Spiritual body" has a meaning relating to the nature of the body. But having a spirit within us does not constitute our bodies as "spiritual.

I like the way someone much older and wiser than me put it. I will paraphrase. We are not three parts, or two parts. We are living humans. There may be truth to the idea that they can be split apart from each other in terms of identification (like a biology textbook), but within this life, they are inseparable and we are what we are in total. We are not "in" one part of our being at one time and then ""in" another part at another. We are always "in" our entire being.

But if you change the definition of "spirit" that you are talking about, this particular discussion becomes irrelevant and, depending on which one you change to, the one about "spiritual bodies" might become relevant. To simply morph the two together is to misunderstand the difference in the two words. It would be better if you try to imagine a different word for "spirit" when discussing the spiritual aspects of the human organism. A different word for the essence of God. A different word for the (generally) disembodied part of man that si often called a ghost (but that Paul joined back with the body in a way different from how it might have been understood to be connected prior to death).

zeek

07-17-2014, 12:13 PM

That would be "The first MAN Adam." Note that Paul doesn't say the last MAN Adam. He just says , the last Adam.

So Gaffin might be on to something to point out the last Adam is the Holy Spirit, otherwise he would have also stated the last man Adam.

If the spirit in 15:45 is the Holy Spirit and
the last Adam is a man i.e. a human being
Then, the Holy Spirit is a human being.

We have come full circle again.

awareness

07-17-2014, 12:40 PM

If the spirit in 15:45 is the Holy Spirit and
the last Adam is a man i.e. a human being
Then, the Holy Spirit is a human being.

We have come full circle again.

And the only man it could be is Jesus. So Jesus is the Holy Spirit (Lee was right), that becomes life-giving at the resurrection.

And we've discussed spirit, the last Adam, and life-giving, but we haven't even mentioned "became" or "was made." Sounds like a process; a changing progressive development in process.

Who knew a little verse could be so confounding?

zeek

07-17-2014, 12:50 PM

While I understand the confusion, you are caught in a bit of unintended equivocation.

I prefer to think of it as intended irony.

"Spiritual body" has a meaning relating to the nature of the body. But having a spirit within us does not constitute our bodies as "spiritual.

So you say.

I like the way someone much older and wiser than me put it. I will paraphrase. We are not three parts, or two parts. We are living humans. There may be truth to the idea that they can be split apart from each other in terms of identification (like a biology textbook), but within this life, they are inseparable and we are what we are in total. We are not "in" one part of our being at one time and then ""in" another part at another. We are always "in" our entire being.

I agree. Well said.

But if you change the definition of "spirit" that you are talking about, this particular discussion becomes irrelevant and, depending on which one you change to, the one about "spiritual bodies" might become relevant.
To simply morph the two together is to misunderstand the difference in the two words.
It would be better if you try to imagine a different word for "spirit" when discussing the spiritual aspects of the human organism.
A different word for the essence of God. A different word for the (generally) disembodied part of man that si often called a ghost (but that Paul joined back with the body in a way different from how it might have been understood to be connected prior to death).

Ha Ha OBW you caught me. I was riffing with words the way Charlie Parker does with notes. I let them take me where they would. I am a musician, you know. Thus, I demonstrated for you how when we leave the confines of Paul's statement the ambiguity of propositions about spirit and body can mean all kinds of things. I hope you will not hold it against me that I engaged in a thought experiment.I was testing limits. In the future, I will try harder to make it clear if I do that again. In this case it was a spontaneous going off the tracks to see where it led me. First Unto Him and then you quickly brought me back. Such fellowship!

But you have fallen into the ambiguity of words there. For " To simply morph the two together" which you deny, might be an apt description for "We are not three parts, or two parts. We are living humans. " which you advocated. What is needed is a kind of physical science of the spirit. But, we don't have that. There are many competing theologies and no way to decide between them. Oh yes, there are many Bible-based theologies and no way to decide between them. It is still a simple matter of the church of your choice. Or, as in my case, the not-church of my choice. In either case we are in a Pre-Lee life-space existential situation. Or, more precisely, our post-Lee epistemological situation is as indeterminate as our Pre-Lee epistemological situation was.

"Spiritual body" has a meaning relating to the nature of the body. But having a spirit within us does not constitute our bodies as "spiritual.

A well stated summary of what Paul seems to mean in I Cor. 15.

OBW

07-17-2014, 04:05 PM

But you have fallen into the ambiguity of words there. For " To simply morph the two together" which you deny, might be an apt description for "We are not three parts, or two parts. We are living humans. " which you advocated.That is not a fair assessment of what I said (or paraphrased from another). It only discusses the aspect of there being a "spirit" with man in this life. It does not address the "ghost" aspect of afterlife, the essence of God, or the manner in which we stand up and root for our favorite college sports team. Those are different meanings of the word "spirit." (Or at least I posit that as true.) How that one specific aspect/definition of spirit relates to the living body of a person in this life is a different question from how the word "spirit" or "spiritual" might relate to the word "body" when considering someone who has been raised from the dead and exhibits the characteristics that Jesus did after the resurrection.

OBW

07-17-2014, 04:07 PM

Oh yes, there are many Bible-based theologies and no way to decide between them. It is still a simple matter of the church of your choice. Or, as in my case, the not-church of my choice. In either case we are in a Pre-Lee life-space existential situation. Or, more precisely, our post-Lee epistemological situation is as indeterminate as our Pre-Lee epistemological situation was.Yep. There are many. And it is this aspect of theology that is most troubling. And the aspect of it that makes the popular intent in "systematic theology" so problematic to me. Every different group has their own slant on where the system leads to their set of "distinctives" and variation in doctrines and practices.

Sort of like the inerrancy of the Bible. Even if we insist on inerrancy only in "original autographs," those do not exist, therefore it is an empty statement. And every group that lays claim to "Biblical inerrancy" does so to identify themselves with all the other Christian groups. Of course, their version of the inerrant Bible leads them to believe differently on so many things. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in the inerrant Bible. Those who sprinkle and those who dunk (not talking about donuts). And on and on we go.

UntoHim

07-17-2014, 09:58 PM

How that one specific aspect/definition of spirit relates to the living body of a person in this life is a different question from how the word "spirit" or "spiritual" might relate to the word "body" when considering someone who has been raised from the dead and exhibits the characteristics that Jesus did after the resurrection.[/COLOR]

Yes. Very well said.

One thing to keep in mind...and I keep harping on this...these terms "spiritual body" and "life-giving spirit" are originally coined terms by the apostle Paul. We will NOT find clear and fast references from the Old Testament (or from the writings of the other New Testament writers) to these two terms. Did the apostle Paul just make these terms up out of thin air? Well, if we are to believe what he wrote to the Galatians - that he received some "visions and revelations" directly from God, then I think it is more than likely that the apostle Paul "learned" these originally coined terms from God himself.

zeek

07-17-2014, 11:32 PM

That is not a fair assessment of what I said (or paraphrased from another). It only discusses the aspect of there being a "spirit" with man in this life. It does not address the "ghost" aspect of afterlife, the essence of God, or the manner in which we stand up and root for our favorite college sports team. Those are different meanings of the word "spirit." (Or at least I posit that as true.) How that one specific aspect/definition of spirit relates to the living body of a person in this life is a different question from how the word "spirit" or "spiritual" might relate to the word "body" when considering someone who has been raised from the dead and exhibits the characteristics that Jesus did after the resurrection.

I know nothing certain about ghosts or resurrected bodies. And I suspect you don't either. Propositions about such things seem to be pure speculation. We suppose that Paul knew something about them because we come to the Bible with the assumption that it is an infallible factual source. I don't recall any instance of Jesus telling Paul, "I have a spiritual body." Paul claims to have been a Pharisee. He probably learned about the resurrection from them. From his vision of Jesus he inferred that Jesus was a spiritual body, the first resurrected human being. Otherwise, Jesus would have been a mere ghost. The conclusion that he had witnessed the resurrected Christ put him in the company of the Christian witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

zeek

07-17-2014, 11:35 PM

Yep. There are many. And it is this aspect of theology that is most troubling. And the aspect of it that makes the popular intent in "systematic theology" so problematic to me. Every different group has their own slant on where the system leads to their set of "distinctives" and variation in doctrines and practices.

Sort of like the inerrancy of the Bible. Even if we insist on inerrancy only in "original autographs," those do not exist, therefore it is an empty statement. And every group that lays claim to "Biblical inerrancy" does so to identify themselves with all the other Christian groups. Of course, their version of the inerrant Bible leads them to believe differently on so many things. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in the inerrant Bible. Those who sprinkle and those who dunk (not talking about donuts). And on and on we go.

Looks like there is nothing left to do but think for ourselves.

awareness

07-18-2014, 08:35 AM

Looks like there is nothing left to do but think for ourselves.
I think that's why we settle for off-the-shelf pre-packaged systems.

Cuz when we think for ourselves, seems to me, we end up in the land of uncertainty.

We can't think our way to God.

We can't even think our way thru 15:45.

So far, according to Gaffin, Lee was right. The life-giving spirit, according to Gaffin, is the Holy Spirit, and the last Adam, according to Gaffin, is Christ. So according to Gaffin, and Lee, Christ is the Holy Spirit.

Lee and Gaffin pre-packaged 15:45 for us. We didn't need all this thinking, wondering and asking ... that only leads us into the land of uncertainty.

zeek

07-18-2014, 12:18 PM

I think that's why we settle for off-the-shelf pre-packaged systems.

Cuz when we think for ourselves, seems to me, we end up in the land of uncertainty.

We can't think our way to God.

We can't even think our way thru 15:45.

So far, according to Gaffin, Lee was right. The life-giving spirit, according to Gaffin, is the Holy Spirit, and the last Adam, according to Gaffin, is Christ. So according to Gaffin, and Lee, Christ is the Holy Spirit.

Lee and Gaffin pre-packaged 15:45 for us. We didn't need all this thinking, wondering and asking ... that only leads us into the land of uncertainty.

As you implied in your featured post there is much to delight in a world where absolute truth cannot be known. "Peace in the valley" indeed. :rolleyes:

UntoHim

07-18-2014, 02:11 PM

I know nothing certain about ghosts or resurrected bodies.
Sure you do! You've been participating in this thread and following what has been posted, right? I assume you've actually read through 1 Cor 15, right? The apostle Paul has given us as close of a description as humanly possible. "There is a natural body"....he explains. "There is a spiritual body"...he explains by way of comparison. "if there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body". The man was living in the first century, working with a culture and a vocabulary of the first century. This is why he used the metaphor of the seed and the grown plant - he was living and teaching among an agrarian society. And guess what, almost 2,000 years later the metaphor still holds up....we still have seeds and we still have grown plants...isn't God wise!
Propositions about such things seem to be pure speculation. We suppose that Paul knew something about them because we come to the Bible with the assumption that it is an infallible factual source. I don't recall any instance of Jesus telling Paul, "I have a spiritual body."
Doing sound theology and exegesis is not pure speculation. Yes, we do come to the Bible with the assumption that it is an infallible factual source, glad you said it! Unfortunately for some, this matter is not up for debate on this forum. There are too many rabbit trails to get off track as it is without having to litigate whether every jot or tittle is the Word of God. There are TONS of forums out there where this kind of thing is the main fare. This forum is not one of them.
Paul claims to have been a Pharisee. He probably learned about the resurrection from them. From his vision of Jesus he inferred that Jesus was a spiritual body, the first resurrected human being. Otherwise, Jesus would have been a mere ghost. The conclusion that he had witnessed the resurrected Christ put him in the company of the Christian witnesses of the resurrected Christ.
I don't believe the resurrection was much of a subject among any of the Jews of the day, at least not bodily resurrection. Even the disciples, who had been at Jesus side for about 3 years, did not seem to understand much about the resurrection. Jesus boldly declared to the Jewish leaders seeking to kill him: "destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Jesus was not talking about his soul or his spirit, he was talking about his physical body. (his soul and spirit never died).

OBW

07-18-2014, 03:26 PM

Looks like there is nothing left to do but think for ourselves. That doesn't seem to be the trick either. The real answer is leaving the arguments to the theologians and taking the position that in non-essentials, it isn't that important. So the best position is love and unity.

And as much as possible, the theologians would do better to not argue s much as listen and consider.

awareness

07-18-2014, 03:33 PM

zeek

07-18-2014, 06:12 PM

Sure you do! You've been participating in this thread and following what has been posted, right? I assume you've actually read through 1 Cor 15, right? The apostle Paul has given us as close of a description as humanly possible. "There is a natural body"....he explains. "There is a spiritual body"...he explains by way of comparison. "if there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body". The man was living in the first century, working with a culture and a vocabulary of the first century. This is why he used the metaphor of the seed and the grown plant - he was living and teaching among an agrarian society. And guess what, almost 2,000 years later the metaphor still holds up....we still have seeds and we still have grown plants...isn't God wise!

Those are claims. I don't know how Paul knows. My understanding and belief in it I call faith not knowledge.

Doing sound theology and exegesis is not pure speculation. Yes, we do come to the Bible with the assumption that it is an infallible factual source, glad you said it! Unfortunately for some, this matter is not up for debate on this forum. There are too many rabbit trails to get off track as it is without having to litigate whether every jot or tittle is the Word of God. There are TONS of forums out there where this kind of thing is the main fare. This forum is not one of them.

Right. I'm not challenging your assumption. Just observing that you believe you have knowledge based on the assumption that the claims are true. That is circular logic. That does not mean that it necessarily isn't true, but it isn't justified by logic or evidence. Belief without evidence or logic is called faith. I'm not challenging it. Just trying to call it what it is.

I don't believe the resurrection was much of a subject among any of the Jews of the day, at least not bodily resurrection. Even the disciples, who had been at Jesus side for about 3 years, did not seem to understand much about the resurrection. Jesus boldly declared to the Jewish leaders seeking to kill him: "destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Jesus was not talking about his soul or his spirit, he was talking about his physical body. (his soul and spirit never died).

Acts 23 :6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

zeek

07-18-2014, 06:28 PM

That doesn't seem to be the trick either. The real answer is leaving the arguments to the theologians and taking the position that in non-essentials, it isn't that important. So the best position is love and unity.

And as much as possible, the theologians would do better to not argue as much as listen and consider.

Thinking for yourself is a skill not a trick. Anybody with average intelligence can learn to do it with some degree of success. Deferring to others is what got us into Witness Lee's movement. Theologians do not remove the necessity of doing one's own thinking from one's own unique point of view. Nobody else can do it for you. You've got to do it for yourself.

zeek

07-18-2014, 06:33 PM

He also says, just a little further down, that he's explaining a mystery:

1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery.

But in part B he was wrong:

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Because, they all did sleep, including Paul. And no one has changed yet.

That interpretation is possible but is not necessary grammatically, syntactically or contextually. Paul could be using the word "us" in a general sense to refer to the Christian community for all time.

awareness

07-18-2014, 07:40 PM

That interpretation is possible but is not necessary grammatically, syntactically or contextually. Paul could be using the word "us" in a general sense to refer to the Christian community for all time.
1Co 1:1-2 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth . . . .

Not to us, 2000 yrs later.

zeek

07-18-2014, 08:59 PM

1Co 1:1-2 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth . . . .

Not to us, 2000 yrs later.

By your logic only Paul and the Corinthians are going to resurrect. The rest of the Christian church is left out. Even in a letter written to one person, a writer can make universal generalizations that go beyond the reader to whom the letter is addressed. Paul even says we shall all be changed to emphasize general inclusiveness.

UntoHim

07-18-2014, 09:20 PM

Those are claims. I don't know how Paul knows. My understanding and belief in it I call faith not knowledge.

This is totally and absolutely unresponsive to what I posted. No, we do not have HD digital video of Paul's interactions with the Lord Jesus in those three years...but we have a record of what he related in writing to the Corinthians regarding some of those "visions and revelations". Some of those were relating to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus and the resurrection body we will receive. This is what this 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is all about. These writings are part of what was accepted as the New Testament canon back in the 4th century. And NO, we are not going to re-litigate and put the New Testament on trial again. At least NOT on this forum.

ME:Doing sound theology and exegesis is not pure speculation. Yes, we do come to the Bible with the assumption that it is an infallible factual source, glad you said it! Unfortunately for some, this matter is not up for debate on this forum. There are too many rabbit trails to get off track as it is without having to litigate whether every jot or tittle is the Word of God. There are TONS of forums out there where this kind of thing is the main fare. This forum is not one of them.

Right. I'm not challenging your assumption. Just observing that you believe you have knowledge based on the assumption that the claims are true. That is circular logic. That does not mean that it necessarily isn't true, but it isn't justified by logic or evidence. Belief without evidence or logic is called faith. I'm not challenging it. Just trying to call it what it is.

"believe you have knowledge"? I'll let you slide by with this one for now:xx:
Of course I believe...or assume...you pick which one you want to tie me to...that all the "claims" in the Bible are true. Especially when it comes to the resurrection because, like the apostle Paul said, And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain - And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

I can only surmise from what you have written here is that you think anybody who expresses his belief in, or his faith in that the Bible is the Word of God is engaging in circular logic. Sorry, zeek, this is not going to work here on this forum.

zeek

07-18-2014, 11:37 PM

Of course I believe...or assume...you pick which one you want to tie me to...that all the "claims" in the Bible are true. Especially when it comes to the resurrection because, like the apostle Paul said, And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain - And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
I can only surmise from what you have written here is that you think anybody who expresses his believe in, or his faith in that the Bible is the Word of God is engaging in circular logic. Sorry, zeek, this is not going to work here on this forum.

Of course you believe...or assume what Paul says there is true because you have already assumed that everything that the Bible claims is true. Your acceptance of Paul's claim follows logically from your presupposition. I'm not challenging your choice to do so. All I am asserting is that it is faith not knowledge. Why do you take exception to that observation? The Bible doesn't say the just shall live by knowledge. It says the just shall live by faith. I see nothing wrong with that as long as we acknowledge that is what we are doing. But to call faith knowledge or knowledge faith is an error. From what I have seen adherence to "The Faith" can only be accomplished by faith not knowledge. For every believer there is a point where individual experience, traditional valuation, and personal commitment decide the issue. Paul was predisposed to believe in resurrection because as he said in Acts 23 he was a pharisee and the son of a pharisee. The pharisees believed in resurrection. Thus, he was probably taught to believe in the resurrection at an early age possibly by his own father.

awareness

07-19-2014, 06:41 AM

By your logic only Paul and the Corinthians are going to resurrect. The rest of the Christian church is left out. Even in a letter written to one person, a writer can make universal generalizations that go beyond the reader to whom the letter is addressed. Paul even says we shall all be changed to emphasize general inclusiveness.
It not my logic. It's Paul's expectation that the resurrection/change was to happen in his/their lifetime. Then, you are right, it would happen to all living believers of Paul's generation, not just Paul and the Corinthians.

"We shall not all sleep," did not mean that 20 centuries, or more, of believers shall sleep. "WE, that is WE, shall not all sleep."

It is your logic, or lack thereof, that is stretching WE to mean 20 or more centuries of WE's sleeping. We were not the we Paul was speaking about. Clearly Paul expected the resurrection/change would happen in the lifetime of some he was writing to.

He was wrong.

UntoHim

07-19-2014, 12:41 PM

Ok, let's move on.

Barnes continues:
The word "spirit," here applied to Christ, is in contradistinction from "a living being," as applied to Adam, and seems to be used in the sense of spirit of life, as raising the bodies of his people from the dead, and imparting life to them. He was constituted not as having life merely, but as endowed with the power of imparting life; as endowed with that spiritual or vital energy which was needful to impart life. All life is the creation or production of "spirit" (Πνευμα Pneuma); as applied to God the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Spirit is the source of all vitality. God is a spirit, and God is the source of all life. And the idea here is, that Christ had such a spiritual existence such power as a spirit; that he was the source of all life to his people. The word "spirit" is applied to his exalted spiritual nature, in distinction from his human nature, in Romans 1:4; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18. The apostle does not here affirm that he had not a human nature, or a vital existence as a man; but that his main characteristic in contradistinction from Adam was, that he was endowed with an elevated spiritual nature, which was capable of imparting vital existence to the dead.

awareness

07-19-2014, 04:47 PM

Barnes continues:
The word "spirit," here applied to Christ, is in contradistinction from "a living being," as applied to Adam, and seems to be used in the sense of spirit of life, as raising the bodies of his people from the dead, and imparting life to them.
Okay, Paul grew up with the Pharisee belief in the resurrection. And the mystery Paul is explaining to the Corinthians is that Christ is the life giver in that resurrection, and the changer of the bodies of the living believers into incorruptible spiritual bodies.

All the rest is Paul's style and flourish. Which we know Paul is no stranger to by his : "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago ..." in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians.

So we shouldn't allow the details to hang us up. It's a mystery ... still ... even today ... just as it was back then.

Can we live with a mystery?

Or do we go with those like Lee? who claim they have the answer to Paul's mystery? with silly non-essential, worthless trivia, like: 15:45 means Christ is the Holy Spirit?

zeek

07-19-2014, 08:14 PM

It not my logic. It's Paul's expectation that the resurrection/change was to happen in his/their lifetime. Then, you are right, it would happen to all living believers of Paul's generation, not just Paul and the Corinthians.

"We shall not all sleep," did not mean that 20 centuries, or more, of believers shall sleep. "WE, that is WE, shall not all sleep."

It is your logic, or lack thereof, that is stretching WE to mean 20 or more centuries of WE's sleeping. We were not the we Paul was speaking about. Clearly Paul expected the resurrection/change would happen in the lifetime of some he was writing to.

He was wrong.

You are trying to make the word we say more than it does. There is ambiguity in the word that must be precluded to make your point. You wish we to mean only Paul and the Corinthians. But it can just as easily mean Paul and all Christians including the Corinthians. And, that can be the case regardless of the specific unstated span of time that may have been in Paul's mind. There is no scientific evidence that mind-reading without an fMRI is a real phenomenon. So, while the ambiguity of Paul's statement is such that your interpretation cannot be conclusively refuted, the same ambiguity leaves the statement open to the more inclusive traditional interpretation of the verse.

awareness

07-21-2014, 09:22 AM

There is no scientific evidence that mind-reading without an fMRI is a real phenomenon. So, while the ambiguity of Paul's statement is such that your interpretation cannot be conclusively refuted, the same ambiguity leaves the statement open to the more inclusive traditional interpretation of the verse.
There's no need for mind-reading Paul. That Paul expected the last Adam to become the life-giving spirit was imminent is revealed not only in the "not all shall sleep verse," but elsewhere:

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

zeek

07-21-2014, 11:59 AM

There's no need for mind-reading Paul. That Paul expected the last Adam to become the life-giving spirit was imminent is revealed not only in the "not all shall sleep verse," but elsewhere:

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

"The Greek word εγενετο commonly translated "was made" or "became" clearly shows that Paul believed that Jesus as the last Adam was already a life-giving spirit rather than that he "expected the last Adam to become the life-giving spirit was imminent"[sic] as you assert. Paul was mistaken about the time being so short that they needed to act as if they didn't have wives in I Cor 7:29. I Cor 10:11 and Galatians 1:4 do confirm that Paul believed he lived at the end of the eon. However, it doesn't follow from those statements that Paul's teaching that all would not die before the second coming of Christ was intended to apply only to the Corinthian receivers of his epistle. As long as there are living believers who are transfigured when Jesus returns, Paul's statement in I Cor 15:51 will still be logically and factually correct. To remove the ambiguity from the verse Paul could have said either "you and I" which would have made it clear that he was only referring only to himself and the Corinthians or "we Christians" which would have made it clear that it applied to all Christians. As it is, the verse could have either meaning.

Ohio

07-21-2014, 01:21 PM

It not my logic. It's Paul's expectation that the resurrection/change was to happen in his/their lifetime. Then, you are right, it would happen to all living believers of Paul's generation, not just Paul and the Corinthians.

"We shall not all sleep," did not mean that 20 centuries, or more, of believers shall sleep. "WE, that is WE, shall not all sleep."

It is your logic, or lack thereof, that is stretching WE to mean 20 or more centuries of WE's sleeping. We were not the we Paul was speaking about. Clearly Paul expected the resurrection/change would happen in the lifetime of some he was writing to.

He was wrong.

I have always taken Paul's comment here to simply mean that there will be some believers who are alive when Jesus returns bodily to this earth as He promised us, and as the angels also promised in Acts 1.9-11.

Neither Paul nor the other apostles knew when Jesus would come again. They were only warned to be always prepared for His return. None of us knows the time of His return, nor the number of our own days, that is when we too will "sleep." One reason we can trust God unreservedly is that He alone in the entire universe knows the future.

What we can be sure is that Paul's word will be fulfilled, "we shall not all sleep."

awareness

07-21-2014, 02:56 PM

However, it doesn't follow from those statements that Paul's teaching that all would not die before the second coming of Christ was intended to apply only to the Corinthian receivers of his epistle.
Just so we understand, I did not say that the resurrection and change would happen only to the Corinthians. That's very obvious when we talk the resurrection, which includes way more than the Corinthians (and would mean it's a good thing we'll have spiritual bodies - as the earth will be so crowded many of us will be forced to stand in the same place at the same time).

Beside that, the resurrection and change Paul was telling the Corinthians about is an event -- yet to happen at that time -- that applied to all believers.

But the WE, in that verse, I'm saying, applies to those living back then ; that generation, of Paul & the Corinthians.

awareness

07-21-2014, 03:18 PM

I have always taken Paul's comment here to simply mean that there will be some believers who are alive when Jesus returns bodily to this earth as He promised us, and as the angels also promised in Acts 1.9-11.

Neither Paul nor the other apostles knew when Jesus would come again. They were only warned to be always prepared for His return. None of us knows the time of His return, nor the number of our own days, that is when we too will "sleep." One reason we can trust God unreservedly is that He alone in the entire universe knows the future.

What we can be sure is that Paul's word will be fulfilled, "we shall not all sleep."
True, bro Ohio. But I'm not talking about knowing when Jesus would return, I'm talking about when Paul EXPECTED it to happen.

Which I claim, "not all shall sleep" means that generation that was living then.

zeek

07-21-2014, 04:28 PM

Just so we understand, I did not say that the resurrection and change would happen only to the Corinthians. That's very obvious when we talk the resurrection, which includes way more than the Corinthians (and would mean it's a good thing we'll have spiritual bodies - as the earth will be so crowded many of us will be forced to stand in the same place at the same time).

Beside that, the resurrection and change Paul was telling the Corinthians about is an event -- yet to happen at that time -- that applied to all believers.

But the WE, in that verse, I'm saying, applies to those living back then ; that generation, of Paul & the Corinthians.

Based on other verses, it does seem that Paul believed that transfiguration would occur in his lifetime or at least in the lifetime of some of his contemporaries. Yes. But he doesn't explicitly claim that in 15:51. No. Taken by itself as a proposition 15:51 doesn't entail a time frame. It merely asserts that for some of us including the Corinthians and Paul, the transfiguration will come before death arrives. It doesn't give a time frame. Consequently, what is stated in 15:51 could still happen. I think you are bringing a preterist hermeneutic assumption to the verse that is not justified by the text.

awareness

07-22-2014, 09:42 AM

Based on other verses, it does seem that Paul believed that transfiguration would occur in his lifetime or at least in the lifetime of some of his contemporaries. Yes.
They, just like the 50 or so generations of believers since, like believers in our generation, like even Witness Lee, believed the Lord was coming back in their/our generation.

Like my Pentecostal preacher friend tells me: "We're living in the last days."

That's what Paul though about when the last Adam would become the life-giving spirit. He thought it would happen before he, and others, slept.

They all sleep.

UntoHim

07-26-2014, 11:18 PM

awareness

07-27-2014, 08:45 AM

As I have previously noted, this term "life-giving spirit" appears to be an originally coined term (for any of you phraseology geeks out there - Neologism). Upon further review of this Greek word, ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō I think that "originally coined term" may very well not portray the best description of the term itself. The following four verses contain this Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, and all of them link, directly or indirectly, the Lord Jesus as a life giver, and this giving of life is inextricably linked with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sort of being my own devil's advocate here, but there will be a method to my madness if you will just follow me as close as you can. If this makes any sense at all, I think that Witness Lee was not as far off as I and so many others have tried to argue for. The best way I can try to explain is to say that Witness Lee was right for the wrong reasons, or maybe that he was half right and half wrong:xx:.

Let's take a look at the following four verses:
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
John 5:21

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
John 6:63

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

Interestingly enough, only one of these verses contain the Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, immediately followed by the Greek word πνεῦμα - pneuma, and it was not the apostle Paul, but the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) For obvious grammatical reasons, the translators chose to translate these two Greek words as "made alive in the spirit", but the more I review this particular phrase (by Peter), the more I think that my previous insistence that "live-giving spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 is not directly related to the Person and/or work of the Holy Spirit is at lease partially flawed.

Lots more to say, but enough for now.
Great bro UntoHim ... thanks for breaking it down. I read those verses in one of your references. (I try to read verse references in articles, as have found some to be far-fetched at times).

While reading them, I was wondering the same thing as you. But I AM the devils' advocate out here - branded with believing the Bible is fairy-tales and gibberish - and so, out of kindness, hold my tongue, until perchance another poster -- so many are crowding this thread -- jumps in ... and inspires me (inspire = theopneustos = 2 Tim 3:16 = not the same spirit as in 15:45 ... or is it?).

I already pointed out that Paul is "showing a mystery" 1Co 15:51. But hey, it's fun trying to figure it out.

We've already - thanks to Zeek - determined that we can't define "spirit" -- "spirit is not a physical body."

But we can look to the Bible to help us understand.

So, since we're jumping around in the Bible - John/Peter/other Paul references, for help, in understanding 15:45, please allow me to ask :

Are these references to spirit the same spirit as in 15:45 (hint: they are all life-giving)?

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

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost (pneuma).

If so, it would mean the Spirit animates the last Adam. Not the last Adam animating the Holy Spirit.

And Witness Lee got it wrong.

OBW

07-28-2014, 09:27 AM

The following is not to Unto:
Let's take a look at the following four verses:
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
John 5:21

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
John 6:63

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18
First, are getting lost relative to the purpose of the thread? But it is interesting, so I will not complain.

At some level, I wonder if the propensity for capitalizing or not capitalizing is causing us to take a stand on the meaning of the various words. And coupled with that, are the articles so precise that, for example, in John 6:63 is it clearly the "Spirit who," or possibly the "spirit that." The reason that I ask is that Jesus referred to the very being of God as "spirit" (not The Spirit), and in this verse, he follows shortly after the "S/spirit who/that" by referring to his words as "spirit and life." There seems to be an inconsistency in the meaning if we insist that Jesus has said the "Spirit" gives life juxtaposed so immediately to saying his words are "spirit" and life. That makes his words life without being "The Spirit" yet he has just said (or is thought by some translator to have said) that it is The Spirit that gives life.

I know that there is a lot about this that is over our heads. But it is just possible that the wording being used is more straightforward than we want to think? That neither Jesus nor Paul is trying to jam pack specially coded messages into single sentences, such as John 6:63, or 1 Cor 15:45? Might it be that rather than a passage to be dissected like an encrypted message, Paul, while writing about the nature of the body in resurrection (and using that of Jesus after his resurrection as the prime example) kind of gets beside himself as he juxtaposes the body of the common man — Adam — with the resurrected body of Jesus, the one who is not common, but gives life.

I think my comment above goes a little with the one I made to zeek shortly before going on vacation where I had no internet access. When I said that we may not be so able to just figure it out on our own (or by ourselves) I was not suggesting that we are unable to spot shoddy theology. Or think for ourselves. But without any anchoring to something solid (and I hate to say it, but my mind tied solely to the scripture is not so solid) we are now subject to only our own bias. We have no basis for critique. We put an Adam Savage (I think that name is right) and suggest that "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

For the most part, I do not make any declaration that the things that have been mentioned by anyone are definitely wrong. But I wonder if looking at them the way we do to get to them is actually beneficial. Does knowing something better than someone else change the reality that underpins it all? If I believe in Jesus and am not hiding my light or living a hypocritical life, does having the best understanding of whether it is The Spirit or the spirit (being the essence of God) that gives me life really matter if I know that it is the words that Jesus is speaking that brings it? If I am learning from those words and living them?

And that is the reason that I think that the nit picking should be left to the theologians. And sometimes it is probably better if we didn't hear all of the "deep theology" that the theologians think they know. They don't all agree on it and it is not helping with the oneness of the body.

And if they tell us too many of those details, we too often think of them as reasons that we are better than some other poor(er) Christian who doesn't have such deep theology. Miss how it should impact us (if at all) and instead note that "they" don't know this "important truth" and have too much ritual in their worship (as we complain that someone messed with the order of service, made the bread out of the wrong flour, broke it at the wrong point in the service (or called it a service), called the wrong song, etc.) (And I'm not just talking about the LRC.)

I wonder why we think that any particular "tradition" in worship is so inferior to the one we prefer. And I bet we disagree among ourselves as to what that tradition is or should be.

And back to the original question. Does getting the knowledge of whether it is The Spirit who gives life or the spirit that gives life really change anything? It would appear that it comes with the words of Jesus. So if we are focused on those, whether it is The Spirit or the spirit is not important because the life will come.

I will pull a Harold here. We are acting as if it is knowing which kind of reference to S/spirit it is that is important to gaining the life. But it is really the words of Jesus that are the key. We are a "cargo cult" that thinks getting the periphery right makes everything right as we miss the real message that is in the words of Christ. And that message was not really about figuring out the S/spirit, but in believing and obeying. Yes. It is in that order. You must first believe. But after that, if you don't obey, it doesn't matter how well you figure out the correct meaning of T/the S/spirit Who/that gives life. You will have that spark of salvation, but you will be busy missing the next step while thinking that your mental understanding makes it all better.

And we don't get to that better place by ourselves. And figuring out the meaning of that verse doesn't do it. So my version v Unto's version v Awareness' version v Ohio's version is not the key to anything. It does not give life. Even the best version (the one that is ultimately correct) does not give life. It is the S/spirit Who/that gives life. That is good enough.

And meeting with a prepared series of responsive readings that walk us through the gospel, our sin, our need of mercy (the Kyrie), the provision of Christ as we stand, sit, kneel, etc., is no better or worse than the most free-form Charismatic, lift your hands and do your own thing service (or anywhere in between) if we are focused upon the one who is the gospel and are participants with Him in all aspects of our lives (not just the religious ones).

Seems that knowing (or thinking we know) the real coded message in John 6:63 or 1 Cor 15:45 is a reason for despising each other rather than being one in Christ. We can be one with them all. Can we drive to our "house of worship" and as we pass by other houses we pray for their stand with Christ for the gospel? For the needs and hurts within the congregation? For their activities as an assembly and as individuals in loving their neighbors?

Or will we pray that the "real Christians" will "come out of her"? Or worse yet, just ignore them. Pretend they don't exist.

I know this seems somewhat contradictory to the whole point of the thread, but unlike so many of those other groups that we can imagine from my references, I honestly think that the teachings and practices of the LRC are harmful to the participants. It is not a healthy place. I would rather they drop their beliefs in Nee and Lee and their nonsense and join with a good Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/charismatic, Baptist, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Bible church, independent, traditional, emerging, etc., church and be part of the larger body of Christ in both fact and word. (They are only part of it in fact at this point. They have chosen to be separated from it in word and deed.)

Cal

07-28-2014, 09:54 AM

I will pull a Harold here. We are acting as if it is knowing which kind of reference to S/spirit it is that is important to gaining the life. But it is really the words of Jesus that are the key. We are a "cargo cult" that thinks getting the periphery right makes everything right as we miss the real message that is in the words of Christ. And that message was not really about figuring out the S/spirit, but in believing and obeying. Yes. It is in that order. You must first believe. But after that, if you don't obey, it doesn't matter how well you figure out the correct meaning of T/the S/spirit Who/that gives life. You will have that spark of salvation, but you will be busy missing the next step while thinking that your mental understanding makes it all better.

I agree 100%. But isn't the whole point of the discussion to see if Lee was wrong about something? And if that's the goal, then nailing down the meaning of these verses is necessary.

Cal

07-28-2014, 10:10 AM

Ohio

07-28-2014, 10:55 AM

Here's the best I can do:
The one God is three persons. On the one hand you must say the persons are distinct. On the other you must accept that on some level they are the same thing. The Son is not the Spirit, yet on some level he is.

I agree with this. I still feel that Lee leaned toward the side of "one-ness" just to be different and to counteract the prevailing Christian tendency to lean towards the side of "three-ness." Whichever side you lean towards, there are verses which will blast you out of the water.

I believe that the creating God never intended for man to really understand Him. Perhaps his earlier creation of the angelic race (think Lucifer, Michael and Gabriel) had a better understanding, but look where that ended up.

The New Covenant, enacted the very night our Savior Jesus was betrayed, and prophesied in Jeremiah just as Judah was about to be carried off into captivity, clearly states that "each can know Me," from the smallest to the greatest.

Is this not the greatest mystery -- that we can all know Him, whether or not we can ever truly understand Him? Like a young child who instinctively knows his own father, and is immediately drawn to the love and safety the father provides, calling him "daddy" and sheltering in his arms, yet it totally unable to truly understand him, such is our relationship with our heavenly Father.

awareness

07-28-2014, 11:09 AM

Let me just put in my 2 cents.

The Trinity is a deep mystery. No one is going to be able to define it perfectly in human language. Words fail here, so much so that over-relying on them leads to error. This is actually just the problem OBW brings out looked at from a different angle. The Trinity is a stark example of the gap between experience and mental definition. If you think you can define the Trinity perfectly, then that definition gets in the way of your experience. As soon as you think you've defined the Trinity, you've produced an error. Defining it perfectly is like trying to stuff a quart of Jello into a pint jar. It just doesn't work. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it, just that it constantly reminds us that something exists which we can experience but never quite define. And the reason is because God doesn't want us going around defining everything. He wants us experiencing things. Adam named the animals, he didn't define them.

Here's the best I can do:
The one God is three persons. On the one hand you must say the persons are distinct. On the other you must accept that on some level they are the same thing. The Son is not the Spirit, yet on some level he is.

So the Son didn't need to become the Spirit, and 1 Cor 15:45 doesn't say that anyway. What it says is the humanity of Christ became life-giving Spirit. In other words, the humanity of Christ is now included with the Trinity.

That's what it means to me. If I try to look any deeper than that I start to think I know things that I don't.
Sound thinking bro Igzy.

I think it's good that we're stumped concerning matters of Spirit. That way we have no choice but to live by faith in God.

To be honest, I've been involved in these matters all my life, and I'm still stumped as to how to follow the Spirit. Looking back, the Holy Spirit was involved in my life, while I was busy trying to follow it, but didn't know it at the time.

It's like the wind. Drop a box on a wind devil, to capture it, and it's gone when you look for it.

That's the Spirit we're dealing with, we're living with. Our minds can't keep up.

And of course the resurrection and 'change' don't make sense to us. It's beyond or rational thinking. And of course it requires divine life-giving spirit to pull it off. There's no other way.

Our minds can't figure it, but faith works.

UntoHim

07-28-2014, 02:15 PM

I agree 100%. But isn't the whole point of the discussion to see if Lee was wrong about something? And if that's the goal, then nailing down the meaning of these verses is necessary.

The actual goal is not necessarily to see if Lee is wrong, the goal (I think, I hope!) is to ascertain what might be the closest interpretation to the truth that is revealed in the Word, and in doing so I strongly believe we will see that Lee was wrong...very wrong. My intention from the beginning of the thread is that we might use every tool at our disposal - commentaries, word studies, language and historical experts. Of course the main thing would be to use these tools as a help for us to interpret the Word with the Word.

For those of you who do not want to get into "deep theology" then I think it might be a good thing if you sit this one out. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE is welcome to participate, but I don't think it's fair to anyone concerned to use the "nobody really understands the Trinity" card to sidetrack the conversation.

The one God is three persons. On the one hand you must say the persons are distinct. On the other you must accept that on some level they are the same thing. The Son is not the Spirit, yet on some level he is.

I know what you are trying to say here but I don't think it's good way to say it. :xx: The problem is there are some Unitarians and others who would use the very same kind of logic and say "The Son is not God, yet on some level he is". I guess what my real problem would be that I do not think we can discuss the very nature of God or the Trinity in expressions of "levels".

More to say, sorry out of time for now!

Ohio

07-28-2014, 02:57 PM

awareness

07-28-2014, 03:59 PM

If you want some "deep trinitarian theology" you probably came to the wrong place. :p
Yeah bro UntoHim, there's other places on the internet where you can discuss the trinity ... ;)

UntoHim

07-28-2014, 04:40 PM

Alllllrrrriiiiiigggghhhtttyyyy then.... so I have two takers already....anybody else?:p;):hysterical:

awareness

07-28-2014, 08:30 PM

Alllllrrrriiiiiigggghhhtttyyyy then.... so I have two takers already....anybody else?:p;):hysterical:
I'm just pullin' yer leg bro UntoHim.

Since it's popular, and maybe trendy -- provoked by Lee, to distinguish himself -- to accuse Lee of modalism, discussion of the Trinity is more than welcomed here.

15:45 doesn't mention the trinity in any way. However, how can we consider the Spirit without involving the trinity? All of it a mystery.

That's why I say, fall in love with the mystery. I'm bettin' most y'all have been in love. And I'll bet women (or men) are still a mystery to you. You fell in love with a mystery.

That's why I consider being stumped about the Spirit/trinity/15:45 is a good thing. And it's good to be honest about it.

It may not completely satisfy -- especially the mind -- but it's better than just makin' something up about it; a Lee kinda thing: just make something up; and call it reality; call it: what God is doing, or did, or will do; as long as he, Lee, got the credit, of being God's one and only oracle.

I can do without all that kind of make-believe. I'd rather be stumped.

As I see it -- as I pointed out with Gen 1:2, and Matt 1:18, the Holy Spirit has been at work from the beginning. And has brought heaven to earth all along.

Does Christ play a central role in this, and in 15:45? You read your Bible. What do you think?

UntoHim

07-28-2014, 09:26 PM

I agree with this. I still feel that Lee leaned toward the side of "one-ness" just to be different and to counteract the prevailing Christian tendency to lean towards the side of "three-ness." Whichever side you lean towards, there are verses which will blast you out of the water.
When it comes to the Trinity, the BIBLICAL Trinity, there really aren't "sides" at all. Only people like Witness Lee would have us believe there are sides to the Trinity. The very word itself - Trinity - or Triune - does a very good job of describing (or defining if you will) the nature of the God who has been revealed to us in the Bible. He is ONE - "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deu 6:4) But the Lord Jesus Christ, the proclaimed Son of Man and Son of God, revealed to the chosen people and gentiles alike, that such a holy Trinity existed. He clearly revealed that the Father God existed - "Our Father in heaven" (Mat 6:9), then he clearly proclaimed himself as the Son of our heavenly Father - "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise" (John 5:19), then he clearly stated the existence of and even the purpose or mission of the Holy Spirit - When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak (John 16:13)

This Bible does not reveal to us a modelistic God - a God who is our Father, then "becomes" the Son, then "becomes" the Spirit. This kind of teaching is foreign to, and actually antithetical, to the Trinity that is clearly revealed in the New Testament.

Ok, now let's get back to 1 Cor 15:45

OBW

07-28-2014, 10:02 PM

I agree 100%. But isn't the whole point of the discussion to see if Lee was wrong about something? And if that's the goal, then nailing down the meaning of these verses is necessary.Yes, you are correct that finding the flaws, if any, in Lee's thinking/teaching is the point of the discussion — this thread and all the others on the forum.

For me, I don't discount that there are problems (from the viewpoint that I have come to subscribe to) in various positions on many things by many groups. But so much of it is not something that the followers cling to as the reason that they are special to God at the expense of all others. They come to believe the way that they do but it is not something skewing them from their common life in Christ.

In the meantime, Nee, Lee, and now the BBs have been busy drawing lines in the sand for the purpose of creating distinction and separation so that they can denigrate the others as a part of building up the pride of their little sect. For that reason, I think it is important that we find the errors in the ways of Nee and Lee.

But sometimes it may be that the reality is that the precise meaning of a particular word is not the answer. Rather it is the fact of a less specific meaning that makes Lee's claim of precision the error that it is. Is parsing through the verse as if it is an isolated discussion of the nature of the trinity (the Son = Spirit) or is it part of the larger discussion describing the nature of the body that the believer will receive at the resurrection. Did Paul really have that "squirrel!" moment and make this statement that is not made anywhere else, or is he making a rather obvious statement of fact about the nature of Christ (life giving, and, by essence of God, spirit) as he uses the resurrected Christ as the example of what the Corinthians (and all of us) can expect in resurrection.

I would agree that understanding the words can be important to determining either the absolutely correct understanding, or even disproving a proposed alternative. But at the same time, I think that it is the pinning-down that may be the greater problem. Lee's "there is only one spirit that gives life" is not the answer. It is a misuse and over-narrowing of the meaning of "spirit." In fact, the Nee/Lee version of what words like spirit, Spirit, human spirit, etc., are is too narrow. It requires that you leave your brain out of the equation.

I have suggested that we (many of us) may not be so good at figuring it out by ourselves. But at the same time we need to be able to take what someone has provided as "the answer" and read back through the evidence provided and see it for ourselves. And it needs us to take words as they come, not as redefined by others (specifically Nee and Lee). And for Nee and Lee, the reasoning is often circular. True begging the question. They provide a conclusion and then the solution requires that the potential evidence be read and understood as if the conclusion already made.

We will never find a preacher/teacher that gets everything right as far as we are concerned. But what are the errors? Are they substantive errors about Christ, the Christian life, the unity of the church, the belief and obedience that is needed, or are they just differences of opinion about what is the best way to evangelize, to love your neighbor, to have communion (the Lord's table, the Eucharist, etc.) or other things that we can get wrong (or are functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) as we live lives together as Christians.

Now that is about as muddled a consent to keep on reading the words spoken/written and take them seriously as you will find — coupled with a warning not to simply do a Lee on Lee. And that is sometimes what seems to be coming when we get too deep into parsing the meaning of a word in a verse that is part of a conversation to which the very different purpose Lee finds in the verse seems totally foreign. I am not really being that flippant when I call Lee's reading a "squirrel!" moment. And at some level, I think that parsing through the words on Lee's terms sort of agrees that the "squirrel!" moment is really there. If it is not, then the verse reads too easily without any thought that Paul is trying to say Son = Spirit. Doesn't need such a tied-down definition of spirit. In other words, I think that the very disconnect of the ongoing discussion by Paul and Lee's statements about one verse ripped from that discussion is almost enough to disqualify it.

In other words, I think the answer doesn't always require the parsing of words in such a way. And maybe this is one of those places. (I did say "maybe.")

Carry on.

OBW

07-28-2014, 10:21 PM

Earlier today, Igzy wrote:
The one God is three persons. On the one hand you must say the persons are distinct. On the other you must accept that on some level they are the same thing. The Son is not the Spirit, yet on some level he is.I pretty much subscribe to this understanding.

At the same time, I wonder if we really understand what it means that God is One at the same time the He is Father, Son and Spirit. It very well could be that it would not be correct to say that at some level the Son is the Spirit because it could be that the way in which there are Three is not the way that they are one. Maybe, just maybe, that "essence is the way they are one" way of thinking is right. It is not the way I tend to thing about it. But I don't see anything that makes it simply wrong. Therefore I am not sure that the way that God is One in any way makes the Son into the Spirit. (Wow! I might actually agree with Justyn on something.) And Lee's certainty that it is so at such a level that everyone else becomes marginal as Christians (at best) is just not supportable.

I see Unto suggesting that it is important to understand the Trinity. I agree and disagree. I agree that being heretically off is problematic. (But what is that outside of something like Jesus is not God — Jehovah's Witnesses.)

But I disagree because at some level, despite very common-sounding descriptions within various doctrinal statements within just the evangelical branches, there are subtle differences that we manage to mostly overlook all the time. So there is some clarity to the idea that we only have it "pinned-down" in vague terms, not in specifics.

Ohio

07-29-2014, 02:14 AM

This Bible does not reveal to us a modelistic God - a God who is our Father, then "becomes" the Son, then "becomes" the Spirit. This kind of teaching is foreign to, and actually antithetical, to the Trinity that is clearly revealed in the New Testament.

Ok, now let's get back to 1 Cor 15:45

Ok I get it. So ... the last Adam did not become a life-giving spirit.

Cal

07-29-2014, 08:36 AM

The actual goal is not necessarily to see if Lee is wrong, the goal (I think, I hope!) is to ascertain what might be the closest interpretation to the truth that is revealed in the Word, and in doing so I strongly believe we will see that Lee was wrong...very wrong. My intention from the beginning of the thread is that we might use every tool at our disposal - commentaries, word studies, language and historical experts. Of course the main thing would be to use these tools as a help for us to interpret the Word with the Word.

My point was that if you venture to prove somebody wrong in their interpretation of the Trinity or Christology, you put yourself in the position of trying to define something that is in the end undefinable. The more subtle their error the more precise your definition of the undefinable needs to be. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, just that that's what you are venturing into.

OBW brought out the point that defining the meaning of 1 Cor 15:45 didn't necessarily do anything for your relationship with God. I just pointed out that I didn't see that as the point of this discussion anyway.

For those of you who do not want to get into "deep theology" then I think it might be a good thing if you sit this one out. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE is welcome to participate, but I don't think it's fair to anyone concerned to use the "nobody really understands the Trinity" card to sidetrack the conversation.

I don't think anyone is trying to sidetrack anything. I discussed 1 Cor 15:45. I said I thought it was speaking about how the humanity of Christ became a life-giving Spirit, i.e. became included with the Trinity, specifically the Holy Spirt.

I know what you are trying to say here but I don't think it's good way to say it. :xx: The problem is there are some Unitarians and others who would use the very same kind of logic and say "The Son is not God, yet on some level he is". I guess what my real problem would be that I do not think we can discuss the very nature of God or the Trinity in expressions of "levels".

Well, you just made my point. Words fail. What "levels" means to you means something different to me. I'm using the word to express an idea, you are taking the word at its most literal meaning. Words fail.

So you want some deep theology, eh? ;) Try this. The reason we cannot perfectly express the Trinity is because any perfect expression would have to be the Trinity itself. This is like the Son being the perfect expression of the Father. The Father has an idea, a definition of Himself. Because he is God, that idea or definition is perfect. But for it to be perfect it must be God. That is why the Father's perfect idea of himself, the Son, is God.

By necessity, none of our ideas about God can be perfect, because then we would worship the idea rather than the reality. For us, the reality is always and must be separate from the idea. But in God's case, his idea of himself is the reality. That's why his idea of Himself is God, the Son.

I believe our inability to perfectly define the Trinity is God's way of pointing us to the reality of the Trinity and away from our ideas of it. He doesn't want us worshiping our perfect idea of him. He wants us worshiping him.

An imperfect idea, I admit. But I hope you get the idea.

Cal

07-29-2014, 08:49 AM

Let me also say I do not believe you can discuss 1 Cor 15:45 without welcoming a full discussion of the Trinity along with it.

awareness

07-29-2014, 09:02 AM

For those of you who do not want to get into "deep theology" then I think it might be a good thing if you sit this one out. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE is welcome to participate, but I don't think it's fair to anyone concerned to use the "nobody really understands the Trinity" card to sidetrack the conversation.
Gosh, now I feel bad for resolving 15:45 to a mystery, and saying we're stumped. Sorry. Didn't realize I was sidetracking the conversation. Maximum Mea Culpa ...

Truth is I'm drawn to deep theology, and wish to swim in those waters. Seems I'm sabotaging myself, or at least the deep theology conversation of this thread.

What's wrong with me? I really need the last Adams' life-giving spirit.

UntoHim

07-29-2014, 09:18 AM

Let me also say I do not believe you can discuss 1 Cor 15:45 without welcoming a full discussion of the Trinity along with it.

Absolutely! We just need to keep our eye on the ball of what is being revealed to us in this particular chapter, that is one of my main concerns.

I am going to respond to your last post (a good one!) later.

UntoHim

07-29-2014, 09:21 AM

Ok I get it. So ... the last Adam did not become a life-giving spirit.

Who said that? I certainly didn't.

CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT.

Remember the verse that immediately proceeds verse 45?

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body". (vr 44 emphasis mine)

Remember the two verses that immediately follow verse 45?

But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
The first man was from earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. (vrs 46,47 emphasis mine)

The context is one of contrasting bodies. Adam received a natural body. The Lord Jesus, in his resurrection received a spiritual body. Earlier Paul contrasts the seed with the full-grown plant. The Greek language is precise. The apostle Paul was precise. The first MAN was from earth, a man of dust - why did Paul say such a thing? Surely the Corinthians already new such an elementary thing. The second MAN is from heaven. PAUL IS CLEARLY MAKING A CONTRAST. Earlier in the chapter - "it is sown...it is raised" and again, "it is sown it is raised". Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became (or was made) a man, a human being with a physical body, but in his resurrection, became - the context is clearly one of receiving - a life giving spirit.

As some of the commentators have pointed out, the Person of the Holy Spirit is certainly active in this becoming - of course he is, anything "spiritual" by very definition should involve the activity of the Holy Spirit. I like how Richard Gaffin describes this spiritual body - "it embodies the fullest outworking, the ultimate outcome, of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, along with the renewal to be experienced by the entire creation." (Gaffin - LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT)

Now, one more final contrast, and I will leave you all with this one for now:

Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (vr 49 emphasis mine)

How shall we "bear the image" of Jesus Christ. If Witness Lee is to be believed then we will all become the Holy Spirit :eek2:

awareness

07-29-2014, 10:48 AM

Let me also say I do not believe you can discuss 1 Cor 15:45 without welcoming a full discussion of the Trinity along with it.
And thus :
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Cal

07-29-2014, 10:57 AM

When it comes to the Trinity, the BIBLICAL Trinity, there really aren't "sides" at all. Only people like Witness Lee would have us believe there are sides to the Trinity.

Again, the problem is words. What is meant by the word "sides?" You object to its usage, but when trying to express ideas about the Trinity, people must use words, and they grasp for them. Are we going to define a list of words we cannot use when trying to describe our ideas and feelings about the Trinity or Christology? So "sides" or "levels" cannot be used, but "persons" or "essence" can? How about "hand" as in "on one hand" or "on the other hand"?

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck. I'm just saying that what adequately, accurately and properly defines the "BIBLICAL Trinity" is not cut-and-dried. It seems that disallowing certain words is contrary to the previous encouragement for us to wade into deep theology. Word meanings by necessity get stretched, even invented, when treading deep theological water.

Cal

07-29-2014, 11:22 AM

The context is one of contrasting bodies. Adam received a natural body. The Lord Jesus, in his resurrection received a spiritual body. Earlier Paul contrasts the seed with the full-grown plant. The Greek language is precise. The apostle Paul was precise. The first MAN was from earth, a man of dust - why did Paul say such a thing? Surely the Corinthians already new such an elementary thing. The second MAN is from heaven. PAUL IS CLEARLY MAKING A CONTRAST. Earlier in the chapter - "it is sown...it is raised" and again, "it is sown it is raised". Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became (or was made) a man, a human being with a physical body, but in his resurrection, became - the context is clearly one of receiving - a life giving spirit.

Oops, he didn't say "received" he said "became." The question is, why did he mention "life-giving" and who gets the life that is given?

If the idea had been about Christ receiving life, it would have said "life-given," not "life-giving," I would think.

Paul is contrasting "living soul" with "life-giving spirit?" The first phrase has an adjective ("living") so it seems Paul thought it was fitting to include an adjective in the second. If the first phrase had only said "the first man Adam became a soul" then perhaps Paul would have simply written "the last Adam became a spirit."

So why then didn't Paul simply say that the last Adam became a "living spirit." Apparently he did have a little "squirrel!" moment. He was talking about Christ become something heavenly and spiritual in resurrection, but he realized that this something was more than just living, it was life-giving. We can't give life, but he can. (Unless you want to argue that we all become life-giving spirits in resurrection.)

But there is nothing here about the divine Son becoming the divine Holy Spirit. This is about Christ's humanity (the last Adam), not his divinity.

Cal

07-29-2014, 12:21 PM

Orthodox trinitarianism says: The Son is God, not in part but in whole. It says, the Spirit is God, not in part but in whole. It also says, the Son is not the Spirit. This is a big part of traditional orthodox trinitarianism. They like to point out the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, to the point of saying one is NOT the other.

Now, the Bible never says that it is wrong to say one is the other. What it does is describes them in some way distinct and coexisting. Jesus calls the Spirit "another Comforter," meaning another other than him existing alongside.

Further, let's do some experimental math.
The Son is the whole God
The Spirit is the whole God
The Son is not the Spirit
Therefore, the whole God is not the whole God.
Whoops!

So I'm going to say something which may be controversial (I can only hope): Saying the Son is NOT the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact, is a much an error as saying the Son IS the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact. Both statements are misleading, which is why both should be avoided.

If the Son is God and the Spirit is God and there is only one God then in some way the Son is the Spirit. Saying otherwise can never make any sense in any dimension. I'm sorry, it can't. But if the Spirit is "another" than the Son, then in some way the Son is not the Spirit.

The question is what are the "ways." That we don't know. We can speculate. And some speculation makes more sense to me than others. But we don't know for sure.

What I do believe is that the old definition of the Trinity that flatly says "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit" is as bad as saying "the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit." Both should generally be avoided.

But, again, 1 Cor 15:45 is not about this. It is about the humanity of Christ in resurrection.

Ohio

07-29-2014, 12:30 PM

Oops, he didn't say "received" he said "became." The question is, why did he mention "life-giving" and who gets the life that is given?

If the idea had been about Christ receiving life, it would have said "life-given," not "life-giving," I would think.

Paul is contrasting "living soul" with "life-giving spirit?" The first phrase has an adjective ("living") so it seems Paul thought it was fitting to include an adjective in the second. If the first phrase had only said "the first man Adam became a soul" then perhaps Paul would have simply written "the last Adam became a spirit."

Reminds me of when I was first saved. My younger brother was going to the local Jehovah Witness meetings, and I was trying to "rescue" him from that heresy. He came home one night with this "brilliant" insight he was taught and challenged me, "do we have a soul, or are we a soul?" At the time I was clueless. "Huh?"

They were just playing with words, and my young brother's mind. There is no right answer, since the question was wrong. The answer is obviously both, since we have a soul and we are one.

For all the life in me I just can't get a grip on what is so wrong with believing that "the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit." I suppose my lack of penchant for the deeper side of theology could be construed by some a curse, and by others a blessing.

I understand that this raises fundamental modalistic fears in the minds of the faithful, but not for me. I seem to be perfectly fine with these two incongruous statements, "The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Spirit," and "The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinctly unique, each one being God Himself."

I see no need to reconcile these anomalies. Humanly, they are an unexplainable contradiction. But for some reason, I just don't bother me in the least. Perhaps part of the reason lies with the very first scripture that spoke to my heart, "the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God."

UntoHim

07-29-2014, 01:44 PM

I really hate using physical or mechanical illustrations to explain spiritual things, especially when it comes to God and the Trinity, but I'm going to put this one up anyway. It's limitations and flaws are obvious, but it does illustrate (I used this term advisedly) what the orthodox understanding/view of the Trinity.

The "Shield of the Trinity" was supposedly in use since the 13th century, probably as a tutorial prop used by Christian teachers and apologists, I would think as something of use when teaching people of limited vocabulary or biblical understanding.

and NO, I am not calling this the one illustration from the one illustrator of the age:o

http://i62.tinypic.com/24mcdjc.gif

awareness

07-29-2014, 01:49 PM

Reminds me of when I was first saved. My younger brother was going to the local Jehovah Witness meetings, and I was trying to "rescue" him from that heresy. He came home one night with this "brilliant" insight he was taught and challenged me, "do we have a soul, or are we a soul?" At the time I was clueless. "Huh?"

They were just playing with words, and my young brother's mind. There is no right answer, since the question was wrong. The answer is obviously both, since we have a soul and we are one.

For all the life in me I just can't get a grip on what is so wrong with believing that "the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit." I suppose my lack of penchant for the deeper side of theology could be construed by some a curse, and by others a blessing.

I understand that this raises fundamental modalistic fears in the minds of the faithful, but not for me. I seem to be perfectly fine with these two incongruous statements, "The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Spirit," and "The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinctly unique, each one being God Himself."

I see no need to reconcile these anomalies. Humanly, they are an unexplainable contradiction. But for some reason, I just don't bother me in the least. Perhaps part of the reason lies with the very first scripture that spoke to my heart, "the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God."
Yes, when we talk the Spirit world we're gonna run into incongruities and anomalies. It's a different world all together. And yes, looking from this material view, we'll never figure the Spirit world. It's not possible ... even for those that follow the Spirit. We don't ask questions, and ask for bio's, when the Spirit speaks ... or gives-life. Hey, at times the Spirit gives me goose-bumps. The Spirit is experience, not understanding.

Cal

07-29-2014, 02:28 PM

I still think this is more on target than anything I've every considered. For me, this argument is amazingly consistent and logical. It explains the origins and eternal nature of the Trinity. It explains why God must be exactly three Persons. It explains why each Person has the roles they do. It explains why the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, but the Bible never says either loves the Spirit. It explains why the Spirit does not call attention to himself, but points back to the Son and the Father. It explains how the Three are distinct, and yet how they are the same. It also explains, if you've ever wondered, how we can be perfectly in the image of a Three-One God.

http://bit.ly/1k5TS6u

Jonathan Edwards' Ontological Argument

In his "Essay on the Trinity" (and private notebooks and public sermons), Jonathan Edwards suggested a form of ontological argument for each of the three persons of the Trinity. Anselm's argument starts from a definition of a hypothetical God who perfects all excellences and proceeds to show God must actually exist since existence is an excellence that God must have perfected. Edwards argues along the same lines for each Person of the Trinity:

The Son perfects understanding

Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself and that in order to accomplish that, He must have an "image" or idea of Himself. The image must be distinct from the Father; it must be the object of God's affection. If the image is worthy of God's infinite enjoyment, it must also be perfect in representing God. Fundamentally, the Father's imagination is so powerful that He creates the Son. In fact, Proverbs 8 describes how God fathered Wisdom, which is just another way to represent the understanding of God, before the Creation.

The idea is not that different from what we mean by "a gleam in your father's eye". God contemplates Himself and the Son is that image. Unlike our imaginations, which remain safely in our minds without some sort of effort, God's understanding of Himself is made manifest. The Son existed before He was incarnated as Jesus because God has always been delighting in Himself. Edwards argues that a duplicity is necessary for God to be the object of His own delight.

The Spirit perfects action

Finally, the Spirit is the manifestation of God's own affection for Himself. Now it must be admitted that this is certainly a strange Person. But Edwards argues that this is exactly the sort of Person we see in the Bible. He concludes from 1 John 4:8, which states that God is love, that the embodiment of the love between the Father and the Son is the Spirit. We note, in passing, that Edwards affirms the filioque because the love, delight, honor, glory, and so on between the First and Second Persons is mutual.

According to Edwards, these are not feelings, but actions. The interaction between Father and Son is also perfect, so like God's understanding of Himself, it too is manifest as the Third Person. The essay notes that Paul passes on grace, peace, and mercy from the Father and Son, but never the Spirit. In addition, the Father and Son express their affection for each other, but never for the Spirit. One solution to these puzzles is to conclude that the Spirit is God's love.

Perichoresis

In order to explain why at least two Persons must exist, Edwards notes the (then) common notion that "God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself". From that idea, he deduces:

However, if God beholds Himself so as thence to have delight and joy in Himself He must become his own object. There must be a duplicity. There is God and the idea of God.

The argument is philosophical, by the way, not grammatical, as it marries the ontological argument with the conception of God's self-enjoyment. Edwards was not the first to extrapolate that the Spirit is the action of love between the Father and the Son:

If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.—St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs

Of course, these are mere illustrations of the intimacy (perichoresis) that the members of the Trinity enjoy. Going back to Paul himself, Christians have wrestled with this great mystery.

Conclusion

Jonathan Edwards was the first to point out that he did not propose to make the mystery of the Trinity unmysterious. The degree you accept that ideas perfected become "real" is the degree you are likely to accept this formulation. However, it does insist on exactly three Persons since it requires God to be object, subject, and verb of the sentence: God delights in Himself.

OBW

07-29-2014, 03:11 PM

Let me also say I do not believe you can discuss 1 Cor 15:45 without welcoming a full discussion of the Trinity along with it.(I will respond with what might be referred to as an ad hominem, but I honestly believe is not really so.) Only due to the apparent ignorance of some with respect to the content and scope of the passage and verse. The verse is not part of a discussion of the Trinity other than the fact that the "last Adam" is a member of the Trinity. (And, BTW, that is technically not an ad hominem because the purpose is not to discredit the position without actual evidence by diverting the discussion to the nature of the one(s) taking the position. It is an accurate description of the position. And it has been more than adequately disputed/refuted.)

The reference to "life-giving spirit" does not appear to be about the Holy Spirit. So we are still at only One out of Three, not the Trinity in general. For those that disagree with the latter, the question is not the nature of the Trinity, but the context of the verse.

A full discussion of the Trinity would only be relevant if it is determined that the verse is actually about the Trinity. And it is not. A full discussion of the Trinity is to go into things that are irrelevant to the discussion that the verse is part of. It is to overwhelm the actual discussion with things not present, but that now requires a detailed rebuttal of what should be passed off with little more than a "bah humbug."

It is similar to, but somewhat short of saying "the Bible generally supports the position" without providing any example(s), then requiring that those who disagree find "evidence" that it is not true. I think that it is important that a verse that can be understood as simply comparing the human, physical body of Adam and his progeny (us) to the tangible-yet-spiritual body of Christ (while including the "life-giving" aspect of the resurrected Christ) needs more than the word "life-giving spirit" in it to make it about the Trinity in such a way that it would require the welcoming of a full discussion of the Trinity.

Before that happens, I think you need to establish that there is even a discussion of the Trinity imbedded in it. And some lame statement like "there can only be one life-giving spirit, and that is the Spirit" (which was basically Lee's way to shoehorn he Trinity into the verse) just doesn't cut it. And you need more than the word "spirit," with or without an obvious reference to Christ.

And the fortune-cookie-like way that something that we have in more recent times called a verse can be made to discuss something that is, immediately before and after, otherwise irrelevant to the discussion in which it is imbedded makes the claim that it is actually there rather weak even with better support than an unsupported "there can only be one life-giving spirit." It makes the ongoing discussion seem ridiculous. And it makes this linguistic genious (Paul) look more like a buffoon with ADHD.

Cal

07-29-2014, 03:18 PM

A full discussion of the Trinity would only be relevant if it is determined that the verse is actually about the Trinity.

A full discussion of the Trinity would be necessary (in some circles anyway) to determine that the verse is actually not about the Trinity. Apparently this is one of those circles.

Before that happens, I think you need to establish that there is even a discussion of the Trinity imbedded in it.

In order to do that, I would have to define what the Trinity is (and isn't), which would mean I would already have to be discussing it, which would make the discussion necessary.

Cal

07-29-2014, 03:32 PM

I forgot how fun this forum can be. :D

OBW

07-29-2014, 04:10 PM

While no analysis is simply it. And no metaphorical explanation gets it all right, there are things to consider from them.

In Dallas, there is a police department. There are many persons who are part of the police department. If someone breaks into your house and you call 911, the police department comes to investigate (or at least take a report). And very often only one person arrives.

Within a Police department there is detective Jones who is not Sargent Smith, yet they are all police and part of the police department.

Not really a very satisfactory explanation of the Godhead/Trinity. But at the same time, what does it mean that God is "One" or "One God"? Does it absolutely mean that there could be seen a single "individual" that would be God, yet there could also be seen these three individuals — Father, Son, Spirit — that are also separately referred to as God? Does the Bible clearly support one position or the other. Or have we inferred one, and because it has some history, we stick to it like it was included in the scripture in that way?

Or could it mean that there are the Three — Father, Son, Spirit — that are by nature a unity yet by "sight" three? They cannot be at odds with each other yet they are not (within any realm) a single thing to see.

I know that some will immediately shout "heresy!" and relative to the standard definition of the Trinity, it would seem so. But is it just heresy because people have decided to describe what they don't really understand in a way that excludes other reasonable possibilities?

The somewhat different description of God as One might bother some because they do not see how we could, in human language, describe Jesus as being "one with the Father" (I and the Father are one) yet to me, he very idea that such a declaration would be excluded by it seems silly.

Now, before you (whoever) go off writing a long-winded post decrying all of my heresies, be assured that I do not propose that this is it and the other is not. But I honestly see that either could be true.

And I'm not sure that it makes any difference to how I read and understand the various verses about the Godhead — together and as three persons. And neither seems difficult to me to understand (as much as humanly pissible) a oneness among them that is manifested as Three.

The point is not that I am pushing a different view of the Trinity. Rather, I am suggesting something like the point Igzy made about the level of precision on something in which we have little true precision being required to refute every strange position. And the better approach is not to try to be so precise, but rather to see the ridiculous when it rears its head and call it for what it is.

There is much that is not specified in scripture about what we have labeled the Trinity. The problem is not that some think that the gaps in information might be one way or the other. It is that they insist that it is true. And too often, in such a way that the meaning of either One or Three becomes lost or irrelevant. And when that happens we lose. We either lose the meaning of passages that tell us of the attributes and connection we have with one or the other of the Three, or the aspect of the One.

Is it a Singular that is also a Plural? Or is it a Plural with aspects of Singular (what Lee almost seems to suggest)? Or is it a Plural that has something common that is more than absolute commitment of mind and will (that some like to call essence) that makes the Plural absolutely united and One in all ways (other than thefact that you might not be able to ever see simply something that looks like a single person).

Are any of us sure that it is precisely one of these? A whole lot of theologians who have tacked one onto another in support of one version without anything more than the influence of some significant person in the 3rd century (or something like that) that mashed it together as the Trinity as we now tend to know it does not make it the gold standard of understanding the Trinity. Just a decent way to look at it.

And that is why I tend to take the position that any notion that does not contradict the actual descriptions in the scripture is OK. It really does no matter if the classic position is simply right or the police department example turns out to be right. The words in scripture could support either. But they cannot support God is first the Father, then becomes the Son, then the Spirit and never do two or more of them exist at one time.

And Lee was not that far with it. My problem with Lee's position is that he seems to have little use for the Three of the Trinity other than to argue that it is there to prove that he is not a modalist. He liked the oneness side of things so strongly that he saw no purpose for the Three. They were just One to him. That was all that mattered.

(And when he came to 1 Cor 15:45, he had a position that needed to be supported, so he declared that there could be no life-giving spirit other than the Spirit, so, presto-chango, Christ becomes the Holy Spirit. I beleive that it was a foregone conclusion to Lee. He just needed a way to prove it. So he sees something he can "simply" to death and changes tha nature of he Godhead.)

And it does matter that they are One. But not entirely and exclusively. Otherwise the inspiration and ink spent on describing the Three in the scripture was a waste of time by God. And I don't think he was wasting his time.

UntoHim

07-29-2014, 04:45 PM

In order to do that, I would have to define what the Trinity is (and isn't), which would mean I would already have to be discussing it, which would make the discussion necessary. :crazy:

I forgot how fun this forum can be. :D

Yeah, what he say! :yep:

UntoHim

07-29-2014, 04:51 PM

(And when he came to 1 Cor 15:45, he had a position that needed to be supported, so he declared that there could be no life-giving spirit other than the Spirit, so, presto-chango, Christ becomes the Holy Spirit. I beleive that it was a foregone conclusion to Lee. He just needed a way to prove it. So he sees something he can "simply" to death and changes the nature of the Godhead.)

And it does matter that they are One. But not entirely and exclusively. Otherwise the inspiration and ink spent on describing the Three in the scripture was a waste of time by God. And I don't think he was wasting his time.

This pretty much sums up my current view of Witness Lee's teaching on the Trinity. There is a reason why many Christians shutter at hearing the term "Processed Triune God"....it is so far from anything we see in the biblical text that one wonders where the man actually came up with such a concept.

OBW

07-29-2014, 04:53 PM

A full discussion of the Trinity would be necessary (in some circles anyway) to determine that the verse is actually not about the Trinity. Apparently this is one of those circles.But the passage is talking about something else. It is not discussing the Trinity. Unto's recent post made that point rather well without discussing everything about the Trinity. Every verse before and after is talking about a comparison of bodies — natural/human, and spiritual. The reference to "spirit" in v. 45 is completely in keeping with the existing discussion. at that point, it becomes more important that those who think something else is there provide more than some linguistic shenanigans to exclude otherwise obviously true statements from consideration as true. That there can be no other life-giving spirit than the Holy Spirit is a patently false statement. It is a misuse of language. It is a form of equivocation.

And you don't need to discuss the Trinity to prove it. Just show that God is spirit, therefore all three of the Godhead are "spirit" yet only one of them is called "the Spirit." From that it is clear that a reference to spirit in connection with any one of the Three does not prove that they three are simply the Spirit. Time to get out the "bah humbugs." Time for the ones who think it is true to show how it is so — not for us to find he definitive verse proving that it is not so. The verses all over the NT show the Three. They do not comingle or obscure them. Let those with the other position show how their Godhead stew is the correct understanding.

In order to do that, I would have to define what the Trinity is (and isn't), which would mean I would already have to be discussing it, which would make the discussion necessary.That position would suggest that any word could be used to shoehorn the irrelevant into any discussion and require a lengthy discourse with people who obviously either have no grasp of the subject, or who have a desire to derail the subject — think Bilbo) and the regular participants are required to spend all of their time on a theoretically (yet minutely) possible but extremely implausible position. The context throws the discussion of the Trinity out without a discussion of the nature of the Trinity. Yet we have managed to do a pretty good job of discussing the Trinity anyway, and even in that pretty well refuted Lee's position. So that is a loss for that side on two fronts.

If this does not end pretty quickly, it is evident that "they" will not bow to reason and we won't bow to irrationality, therefore we are at an impasse. Time to stop the discussion unless you (generically) have something new to throw into the mix. At this point, we are now getting people (awareness) throwing out 1 Cor 2:10 without comment as if that makes it relevant to the discussion. If it is, it requires at least a decent comment showing the relevance. But verses with different contexts and different meanings are not relevant to this discussion unless established as so. Yet we put up with every nonsensical grenade tossed over the wall.

They are duds. Treat them as such. Make someone supporting Lee's position do more than repeat Lee's unsupported drivel about "life-giving spirit." (Hard to believe that it is possible to have drivel about "life-giving spirit. It seems Oxymoronic. But then there's Lee . . . .)

In short, I think that we are giving the nonsense of Lee's positions a status as something to disprove rather than something that needs proving. So far, there really hasn't been much other than some claims that we can't prove them wrong. Like I said in another post, it is hard to disprove such vague stuff other than to suggest that they show how it is worthy of being disproved. And I think the context shuts down almost all ability to shoehorn Lee's discussion of the Trinity into the passage.

OBW

07-29-2014, 05:00 PM

awareness

07-30-2014, 07:35 AM

I forgot how fun this forum can be. :D
Well I certainly thought Jonathan Edwards was a hoot. He had to write that stuff with at least a half a tongue in cheek.

"Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself ..."

Reminds me of Narcissus, falling in love with himself. Not an acceptable depiction of God.

Going on, Edwards claims to that end, God created an exact image of Himself, and His perfection, in the Son. In other words, God became a split personality ... but each was the same personality.

And the Holy Spirit, according to Edwards, is the love between them.

Cute Edwards, cute. Not a Great Wakening, surely. But entertaining and amusing. Two qualities that's important to a good preacher ... like Witness Lee.

Cal

07-30-2014, 07:58 AM

That position would suggest that any word could be used to shoehorn the irrelevant into any discussion and require a lengthy discourse with people who obviously either have no grasp of the subject, or who have a desire to derail the subject — think Bilbo) and the regular participants are required to spend all of their time on a theoretically (yet minutely) possible but extremely implausible position.

I'm assuming reasonable people are participating.

Look, all I was saying is that given the audience of people who have a background of believing 1 Cor 15:45 is somehow about the Trinity, it is not unreasonable to expect some of those people to begin to discuss the Trinity in an attempt to unwind their understanding of that verse from their legacy interpretation.

I wasn't trying to force the discussion into something about the Trinity. I was just saying that I understand why the subject might come up given the history of the verse amongst the participants.

I suppose arguing for "full discussion" was too much. What I meant was it's not unreasonable to expect some discussion.

We are still responding to the guy in class who continually asks irrelevant questions and wastes the professor's time as he discusses that and leaves the topic for the day languishing. (Probably means we need a new professor. One that is not distacted from his purpose.)

How about me?!!! :eek: ;)

Cal

07-30-2014, 08:05 AM

Well I certainly thought Jonathan Edwards was a hoot. He had to write that stuff with at least a half a tongue in cheek.

"Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself ..."

Reminds me of Narcissus, falling in love with himself. Not an acceptable depiction of God.

Going on, Edwards claims to that end, God created an exact image of Himself, and His perfection, in the Son. In other words, God became a split personality ... but each was the same personality.

And the Holy Spirit, according to Edwards, is the love between them.

Cute Edwards, cute. Not a Great Wakening, surely. But entertaining and amusing. Two qualities that's important to a good preacher ... like Witness Lee.

You don't think God loves himself? If God expects us to worship him, and makes his first commandment to love him with everything we have, then I have to believe he unapologetically thinks he is perfectly lovable.

God expects us to acts as if everything is about him. He is the center of everything. That could be construed as vainly self-centered as well, so I don't know why you would be bothered by the idea that God is an object of his own love. Healthy souls love themselves in healthy ways. God's love is totally healthy, reasonable and warranted. Self-centeredness as a vice just doesn't apply in his case.

Perhaps a new thread?

Cal

07-30-2014, 08:23 AM

Cal

07-30-2014, 08:45 AM

And Lee was not that far with it. My problem with Lee's position is that he seems to have little use for the Three of the Trinity other than to argue that it is there to prove that he is not a modalist. He liked the oneness side of things so strongly that he saw no purpose for the Three. They were just One to him. That was all that mattered.

(And when he came to 1 Cor 15:45, he had a position that needed to be supported, so he declared that there could be no life-giving spirit other than the Spirit, so, presto-chango, Christ becomes the Holy Spirit. I beleive that it was a foregone conclusion to Lee. He just needed a way to prove it. So he sees something he can "simply" to death and changes tha nature of he Godhead.)

And it does matter that they are One. But not entirely and exclusively. Otherwise the inspiration and ink spent on describing the Three in the scripture was a waste of time by God. And I don't think he was wasting his time.

That's my conclusion. That God being Three means something and communicates something to us that is important, and Lee neglected that something.

I've made the argument in the past that Lee discounted relationships and diversity (calling them soulish and natural, etc). He isolated people from each other and was suspicious of differences. One way he could lean that way was to more or less discount the relationship and diversity of the Father and the Son. The idea of loving the other was foreign to him. The Trinity to him was totally about process, not about relationship. Lee's theology and practical teaching totally stems from his view of God. It lauded oneness and cursed diversity.

1 Cor 15:45 was just one more instance where he saw fit to push the oneness side of God. I think he truly believed that the experience of Christ was made easier by seeing the connection between Christ and the Spirit--since the Spirit is our immediate experience, Christ would be so as well (and I agree). But he made that point too much and too hard, to the neglect and expense of the diversity/relationship side of the Trinity, and all other diversity and relationship as well.

awareness

07-30-2014, 08:49 AM

You don't think God loves himself? If God expects us to worship him, and makes his first commandment to love him with everything we have, then I have to believe he apologetically thinks he is perfectly lovable.

God expects us to acts as if everything is about him. He is the center of everything. That could be construed as vainly self-centered as well, so I don't know why you would be bothered by the idea that God is an object of his own love. Healthy souls love themselves in healthy ways. God's love is totally healthy, reasonable and warranted. Self-centeredness as a vice just doesn't apply in his case.

Perhaps a new thread?
Perhaps I have a bias. I prefer the last Adam, the life-giver, the call no man good, but God, that came as a lowly humble servant.

UntoHim

07-30-2014, 08:50 AM

Never got much feedback about the above.

Oh you better just hang on to your hat dar cowboy, I've been on the road and should be back home today....then you're going to get all the feedback you can handle:eek: Seriouly though, there have been lots of great posts lately and I hope to respond to many of them shortly

Cal

07-30-2014, 09:08 AM

Perhaps I have a bias. I prefer the last Adam, the life-giver, the call no man good, but God, that came as a lowly humble servant.

Right, but that was Christ as a man. Christ as God is well aware of his worthiness for total love and receives it.

Again to me these are the real mysteries of the Trinity. Not how one can be three or three can be one. The numbers game is not really that interesting and Edward's analogy shows, faintly anyway, how it can be.

What's really interesting is how God's love for himself (God loving God) gets expressed as love for another (the Father loving the Son). And how when the Son became human his love for the Father is perfectly compatible with humility and selflessness.

The Mystery is how what would be self-centered love in a fallen person, is in God selfless love. God's love for himself is selfless. Hey, that's why he's God and we're not.

It's all about selflessly loving the other, even when the other is yourself.

awareness

07-30-2014, 10:08 AM

Right, but that was Christ as a man. Christ as God is well aware of his worthiness for total love and receives it.

Again to me these are the real mysteries of the Trinity. Not how one can be three or three can be one. The numbers game is not really that interesting and Edward's analogy shows, faintly anyway, how it can be.

What's really interesting is how God's love for himself (God loving God) gets expressed as love for another (the Father loving the Son). And how when the Son became human his love for the Father is perfectly compatible with humility and selflessness.

The Mystery is how what would be self-centered love in a fallen person, is in God selfless love. God's love for himself is selfless. Hey, that's why he's God and we're not.

It's all about selflessly loving the other, even when the other is yourself.
I'd like to see Bible verses that support Edwards' theory, of God loving himself, and the Son and Spirit playing a central role to accomplish it???

I also would like to see a psychological profile on such a theory?

This is dealing with my relationship with my God. And getting it wrong, or improperly depicting God, concerns me.

Cal

07-30-2014, 11:00 AM

I'd like to see Bibles verses that support Edwards' theory, of God loving himself, and the Son and Spirit playing a central role to accomplish it???

I think the real question is what part of the theory is incompatible with what the Bible teaches. How is it incompatible with one God being three persons?

God is not physical. So his image of himself starts with an idea, a thought. About what? Himself, of course. The Son is the perfect image of God. That means he looks just like God. How was the Son "begotten?" He was begotten, to start with, by God thinking about himself. The Son is God's perfect thought about himself made real. Are you uncomfortable with the idea of God loving the Son being a manifestation of God loving himself? How could it not be so if the Son is exactly like the Father in every way?!

Likewise, the Spirit is there. What's his purpose? Why does the Bible reveal this loving relationship between the Father and the Son, but never shows a relationship between either and the Spirit? Why is the Spirit always a little hidden? Why is the Spirit always tied to fellowship, exchange, experience and action? Could it be that the Spirit is the relationship of active love between the Father and the Son?

Now think about yourself. You are in the image of God. But did you ever wonder how you are in the image of the Triune God? This theory gives an answer. With any self-conscious person, there are always two. There is the self, and the self image. There is what you are, and what you think you are. These two have a relationship. The relationship is the third thing. Each of these--the self, the self image, and the relationship between the two--are you, yet each is distinct. Three-one.

Now in our case our self-image is imperfect and incomplete, and because of that our relationship with our self is iffy, cloudy and rocky. But with God his self-knowledge is perfect and complete. He has no problem with himself. His self-image is as perfect and complete as it can be. So much so that it is another Person, the Son. These two have a perfect relationship of sharing love, life and light. That relationship is a third Person, the Spirit. Each is God, yet each is distinct. Further, none can be said to just be part of God. They are each the whole God. And they co-exist from eternity to eternity. The Father begets the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

God lets us in on this relationship. How? By letting us in on the fellowship of the Spirit.

This analogy fits so well and answers so many questions that I have to think there is something to it.

Read Edward's essay. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html) It's a tough read, but worth it.

zeek

07-30-2014, 12:08 PM

Has anybody done a gut check lately to ascertain how the Spirit feels about our discussion? Or don't we care about that sort of thing anymore?

UntoHim

07-30-2014, 12:45 PM

I'd like to see Bible verses that support Edwards' theory, of God loving himself, and the Son and Spirit playing a central role to accomplish it???

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing John 5:20

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. John 15:9

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come John 16:13

Here are just a few verses for you. There are many more, but this is a topic for another thread.

I also would like to see a psychological profile on such a theory?
Way, WAY off topic.

This is dealing with my relationship with my God. And getting it wrong, or improperly depicting God, concerns me

Good Harold, I'm glad that this concerns you. This is part of what this forum is all about.

Cal

07-30-2014, 01:02 PM

Has anybody done a gut check lately to ascertain how the Spirit feels about our discussion? Or don't we care about that sort of thing anymore?

Uncalled for jab, zeek. Yes, I do follow the Spirit, Mr. Snarky.

Cal

07-30-2014, 01:20 PM

This is dealing with my relationship with my God. And getting it wrong, or improperly depicting God, concerns me.

You should feel that way about everything that is shared here.

awareness

07-30-2014, 01:35 PM

You should feel that way about everything that is shared here.
I am .... but have to also stay on topic ... or at least try.

zeek

07-30-2014, 01:46 PM

Uncalled for jab, zeek. Yes, I do follow the Spirit, Mr. Snarky.

How odd that you took my post personally when I addressed it to "anybody". And how self righteous your response. How dare anyone question your spirituality. Well I wasn't, specifically. I was questioning anybody's spiritually. After being in the local church how would you blame anyone if they didn't chuck out the validity of any kind of spirituality whatsoever? That isn't me however. But, I haven't been sure of God's presence for years. Except recently I was and that prompted the question. Christians haven't agree on these matters for 20 centuries. What kind of pride would make us suppose we on LCD would be any different? Reason hasn't united Christians on these issues. If we have only the scripture and the opinions of the theologians to go by, on what basis do we decide between them? Ultimately, the decision will be based on our individual experiences, right? So, it seems to me, our experiences must be front and center in this discussion. Otherwise, we will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine without understanding what our decisions are grounded upon.

Cal

07-30-2014, 02:22 PM

How odd that you took my post personally when I addressed it to "anybody". And how self righteous your response.

Let me reword. Yes, I have done a gut-check lately, zeek. But thanks for the reminder.

awareness

07-30-2014, 02:33 PM

So, it seems to me, our experiences must be front and center in this discussion.
Then a important question to ask is: Does the outcome of our understanding of 15:45, however it turns out, have any affect on our present experiences of God?

Cal

07-30-2014, 02:48 PM

Then a important question to ask is: Does the outcome of our understanding of 15:45, however it turns out, have any affect on our present experiences of God?

Well, yes and no. If the interpretation hinders a valid way God is to experienced, maybe. But you may be looking for an otherwise valid truth in a verse that really doesn't teach it. I believe the Son and the Spirit are so closely related that sometimes it is hard (and pointless) to try and tell them apart (Roman 8:9-11 supports this.) However, just because Christ and the Spirit seem in some cases interchangeable, that doesn't mean that interpreting 15:45 to be about that is correct, even though the general idea is.

Cal

07-30-2014, 03:02 PM

I'd like to see Bible verses that support Edwards' theory, of God loving himself, and the Son and Spirit playing a central role to accomplish it???

If God does everything for his own glory isn't that another way of saying he does everything because he loves himself?

zeek

07-30-2014, 03:50 PM

Then a important question to ask is: Does the outcome of our understanding of 15:45, however it turns out, have any affect on our present experiences of God?

It isn't only our present experience that is relevant is it? Why wouldn't any professed experience of zoe life and/or pneuma be relevant to a zoe-life giving pneuma? Has anybody concluded that 15:45 is purely eschatological? Anybody?

zeek

07-30-2014, 03:55 PM

Not sure that I buy this argument. But it is not bad. I could surely have fellowship with someone who held it. If they believe in Christ and his work on the Cross on our behalf, it is acceptable.

But none of this puts the Trinity into the passage/discussion that includes 1 Cor 15:45. We are still responding to the guy in class who continually asks irrelevant questions and wastes the professor's time as he discusses that and leaves the topic for the day languishing. (Probably means we need a new professor. One that is not distracted from his purpose.)

Am I correct in concluding from this statement that you have dismissed Richard Gaffin Jr.'s, thesis that 15:45 is about the Holy Spirit and if so why?

OBW

07-30-2014, 04:28 PM

I'm assuming reasonable people are participating.And for the most part that would be true. But it has been clear at times that this is not always a good assumption.

We have not had the kind of rote repetition of Lee the way Albert and others did in the past, or the crazy near-to-actual trolling that Bilbo was fond of. But there are times that even the sane seem to get a little insane.

Look, all I was saying is that given the audience of people who have a background of believing 1 Cor 15:45 is somehow about the Trinity, it is not unreasonable to expect some of those people to begin to discuss the Trinity in an attempt to unwind their understanding of that verse from their legacy interpretation.Oh, there is no way to eliminate having the discussion go there — at least at first. But, as I keep pointing out in a different way, the problem is that they are assuming that it is a relevant issue and are skipping past the evidence that it really isn't part of the discussion. Once they back up and raise up their Lee-colored glasses a little, they can begin to see that the Trinity really isn't part of the discussion. Of course, a knee-jerk reaction for some would be to assert that if it is about any of the Three, it is about the Trinity. But that is like saying that the mention of a road-trip vacation means that the discussion is about cubic inches (or centimeters now), torque, gear ratios, compression ratios, diesel v gas, automatic v standard, 2-door v 4-door v SUVs v trucks etc., etc., etc.

How about me?!!! :eek: ;)What about you? And what about Bob? (Gone? He's not gone! He's never gone!);)

OBW

07-30-2014, 04:33 PM

Well I certainly thought Jonathan Edwards was a hoot. He had to write that stuff with at least a half a tongue in cheek.

"Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself ..."

Reminds me of Narcissus, falling in love with himself. Not an acceptable depiction of God.

Going on, Edwards claims to that end, God created an exact image of Himself, and His perfection, in the Son. In other words, God became a split personality ... but each was the same personality.

And the Holy Spirit, according to Edwards, is the love between them.

Cute Edwards, cute. Not a Great Wakening, surely. But entertaining and amusing. Two qualities that's important to a good preacher ... like Witness Lee.H,

I think Igzy said it right when he asked "what part of the theory is incompatible with what the Bible teaches. How is it incompatible with one God being three persons?" I might not particularly think it is the best way to think about it. But it is not out of bounds relative to what we have that is important to hold as true. It does not stand opposed to the scripture on the Trinity, the gospel, the truth, etc. It just isn't analyzing the things we just can't get our arms around in the same way as has been done before.

OBW

07-30-2014, 04:42 PM

Has anybody done a gut check lately to ascertain how the Spirit feels about our discussion? Or don't we care about that sort of thing anymore?I won't say your question is snarky. But I think that to some extent God is OK with our discussions and considerations. Even our doubts and questions.

And every time I think I have some feeling from the Spirit, I remind myself that I once thought I was, but lately I realize I may have been mistaken. On one hand I like the process of challenging the status quo on scripture meaning by asking why we think things say what they do not actually say. But even that gets me chopped down to size occasionally. And you think the Spirit would be all about reading that "pure word of God." Even that is not so simple as to go by my gut.

Besides, when my gut says something to me, it is usually "why did you eat that," or "why did you eat that much." ;)

OBW

07-30-2014, 05:21 PM

Then a important question to ask is: Does the outcome of our understanding of 15:45, however it turns out, have any affect on our present experiences of God?While I understand the idea of the "present experience of God," I often wonder if we are often talking about getting a feeling due to following a particular practice rather than trying to be the image bearers of God exercising Godly love and righteousness in all of our living.

In other words, we have become conditioned to think of experiencing God as an activity in and for itself when I'm not sure that is what it is about. I'm not saying that there is no experience of God. But much of what people point to as the "experiencing" stuff seems to be stated as facts that we should be appreciating and that should be encouraging us to live as we are commanded rather than feeling like we have been "touched by an angel" or something like that.

So, at some level, the outcome of our analysis of 1 Cor 15:45 should have no real effect on us. Just on the elimination of a distraction from the task of living rather than just thinking about and claiming to know it all.

Besides, even if we accept that the verse is in the middle of a discussion about the nature of the body we will receive in resurrection, how much better do you understand it after reading it all? In my case, not much. In fact, there are still a lot of questions — if I thought they were important to raise. I think Paul is just saying enough to focus the Corinthians on the truth of the resurrection and that there is an example of what is to come (even if we really don't have a complete understanding of what that example tells us). Then get back to something more important. I wouldn't call the Corinthians' question irrelevant or unimportant. The resurrection is important. But whether we can do a Star Trek-like transport from one place to another, or fly like an angel with wings, or carry harps, or there are actual streets of gold just isn't really something to expend a lot of time and brain-power on. It is a promise of something much better and it will be what it will be. Appreciate it in its vagueness.

OBW

07-30-2014, 05:30 PM

Am I correct in concluding from this statement that you have dismissed Richard Gaffin Jr.'s, thesis that 15:45 is about the Holy Spirit and if so why?For the most part, yes. Just reading the verse as it is, in context, it is too coherent with the core of the larger discussion and easy to understand as clearly part of that discussion to give much credence to that kind of idea that is so out of sync with the thrust of Pau's larger discussion. Is it definitely wrong? Can't quite say that. But it is close enough to definitely wrong that I do not find rejecting it to be out of bounds.

It is, to me, like concluding that the broken window in my car and the missing CD (that used to be on the passenger seat) is the result of a very small microburst. It hurled a large rock against the window and then sucked out the only unattached thing inside.

Possible? Remotely.

Plausible? No.

And that it my take on "the life-givign spirit must be the Holy Spirit."

Are Edwards' comments on the Trinity pausible? Maybe not hugely, but much more than Lee's version of 15:45.

zeek

07-30-2014, 06:39 PM

I won't say your question is snarky. But I think that to some extent God is OK with our discussions and considerations. Even our doubts and questions.

And every time I think I have some feeling from the Spirit, I remind myself that I once thought I was, but lately I realize I may have been mistaken. On one hand I like the process of challenging the status quo on scripture meaning by asking why we think things say what they do not actually say. But even that gets me chopped down to size occasionally. And you think the Spirit would be all about reading that "pure word of God." Even that is not so simple as to go by my gut.

Besides, when my gut says something to me, it is usually "why did you eat that," or "why did you eat that much." ;)

Then all you have with which to search is your ability to reason. You already know from experience that can go wrong too. Think of all those who by their powers of reason have gone astray throughout history. And what about now, look how many by the power of reason are lost to the truth now. And what of Nee and Lee, relatively brilliant thinkers able to reason persuasively. Given so many failures, what makes you so confident that you can do better? You, who deny that you have a sense of spiritual reality other than your stomach. In all four gospels Jesus exemplifies and advocates following the Spirit. So if we are going to follow Jesus we probably shouldn't give up on the Spirit whatever it is Or, perhaps you're having a little fun with me. Are you joking?

zeek

07-30-2014, 07:00 PM

For the most part, yes. Just reading the verse as it is, in context, it is too coherent with the core of the larger discussion and easy to understand as clearly part of that discussion to give much credence to that kind of idea that is so out of sync with the thrust of Pau's larger discussion. Is it definitely wrong? Can't quite say that. But it is close enough to definitely wrong that I do not find rejecting it to be out of bounds.

It is, to me, like concluding that the broken window in my car and the missing CD (that used to be on the passenger seat) is the result of a very small microburst. It hurled a large rock against the window and then sucked out the only unattached thing inside.

Possible? Remotely.

Plausible? No.

And that it my take on "the life-giving spirit must be the Holy Spirit."

Are Edwards' comments on the Trinity plausible? Maybe not hugely, but much more than Lee's version of 15:45.

Can you summarize Gaffin's arguments for me so I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that they are close enough to definitely wrong. Having thrown out a sense of the spirit's leading for your stomach as you indicated, it seems all you have to go by is your reasoning alone, and the only reason you have given so far is your vaguely supported judgment that the Holy Spirit is out of context in I Corinthians 15. If as Gaffin supposes, Paul's teaching on the Spirit is tethered to the center/core of his theology, then it would not be surprising if he were to tie all the points of his preaching to the Spirit including those concerning Christ and the resurrection. So, if you would be so kind, present your counter arguments to Gaffin's. I didn't find him easy to refute like you did and I don't want him to lead me astray.

awareness

07-30-2014, 11:28 PM

While I understand the idea of the "present experience of God," I often wonder if we are often talking about getting a feeling due to following a particular practice rather than trying to be the image bearers of God exercising Godly love and righteousness in all of our living.

In other words, we have become conditioned to think of experiencing God as an activity in and for itself when I'm not sure that is what it is about.
Abiding in God, and practicing the presence, are real experiences to me. Is it a delusion, or wishful thinking, on my part? I suppose it could be, but it's important to me. I'm flawed and need it.

Not the it makes me a spiritual giant, in any way. I don't think it sets me apart. It actually humbles me, and makes me feel small, in the grandeur of it all.

I had what I thought to be at the time, while in the local church, high peak spiritual experiences. Now I don't know what to make of it/them.

I have spiritual experiences still today ... but mostly of a cosmic sort ... oceanic (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060726073423AAXyqcO), some call it. of omnipresence ... a sense of the unbounded limitlessness, or the eternal, perhaps. It's refreshing and energizing, and sometimes has helped me solve some seemingly impossible problems in life.

I don't really know what to make of it. Cuz there's no sense of being able to follow it, like what we imagine following the Holy Spirit would be like. But it can clear the mind, in times of turmoil and trouble, which can be a needed help.

But then, on the other hand, I haven't seen good results from those that claim to follow the Holy Spirit either. I'm close to a Christian now, that's been obsessed with following the Holy Spirit for decades. Her life is a serious mess, that she feels trapped in .. full of disappointment & dread ... with serious consequences for her and her family.

So I don't know. I need help; not just with understanding 15:45 ... but with the Spirit in general, whatever it is.

I really like Edwards' theory that the Holy Spirit is the love within the godhead.

I need love. Is the last Adam really, as Edwards might say, the life-giving LOVE?

OBW

07-31-2014, 06:25 AM

Then all you have with which to search is your ability to reason. You already know from experience that can go wrong too. Think of all those who by their powers of reason have gone astray throughout history. And what about now, look how many by the power of reason are lost to the truth now. And what of Nee and Lee, relatively brilliant thinkers able to reason persuasively. Given so many failures, what makes you so confident that you can do better? You, who deny that you have a sense of spiritual reality other than your stomach. In all four gospels Jesus exemplifies and advocates following the Spirit. So if we are going to follow Jesus we probably shouldn't give up on the Spirit whatever it is Or, perhaps you're having a little fun with me. Are you joking?It seems to me that most who go astray have abandoned their reason and substituted a feeling (that they attribute to the Spirit) that their nonsensical misreading of scripture is sound.

I have plenty of sense of the Spirit. He confirms my feelings of my own error by reminding me of the words of the Bible (in my case, usually in paraphrase as precise memorization has not been my forte). He is closely tied to my life. I know when I go astray and when I am on track.

But it is always a sense that confirms, not creates chaos out of, the words of scripture.

Lee claimed a leading from the Spirit to turn scripture on its head. To take a few words and insist they meant what they could not even be talking about if returned to their natural habitat (the context). He was following a spirit. I'm just not sure which one.

The Spirit leads to the unity of the body, not to the denigration of 99.99% of it for not following new and novel ways of reading the Bible. So I would suggest that the meaning of the "leading of the Spirit" has been altered in our minds. We may have rejected Lee, but we have a buried propensity to continue to want things the way we learned it from him.

And I am including me. I find it way too often in my natural thinking. I start with some nonsense that I eventually realize is a relic of my LRC past. That does not condemn it. But it makes it subject to serious scrutiny.

And trusting your feelings (and calling it the Spirit) to go with what you like rather than what scripture actually says is a recurring problem for me. The nonsense sounds reasonable until you make yourself stand it up against scripture. Suddenly the feeling goes sour when you realize the error.

OBW

07-31-2014, 07:14 AM

Can you summarize Gaffin's arguments for me so I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that they are close enough to definitely wrong. Having thrown out a sense of the spirit's leading for your stomach as you indicated, it seems all you have to go by is your reasoning alone, and the only reason you have given so far is your vaguely supported judgment that the Holy Spirit is out of context in I Corinthians 15. If as Gaffin supposes, Paul's teaching on the Spirit is tethered to the center/core of his theology, then it would not be surprising if he were to tie all the points of his preaching to the Spirit including those concerning Christ and the resurrection. So, if you would be so kind, present your counter arguments to Gaffin's. I didn't find him easy to refute like you did and I don't want him to lead me astray.I think that the problem with so many discussions of things like "sense of the Spirit" is that we want it to stand alone and direct without any grounding in what we objectively know.

I am not saying there is no sense of the Spirit. I am chastised by my feelings often related to my going astray of the path of life. I don't need a scripture verse to tell me. I know it within. And sometimes I know when I have done right by my feelings within. But in no case are the feelings the thing I seek.

I am more impressed with the realization of my failings and the need to repent. I believe it is more important to acknowledge our failings and repent than to gush over our feelings as we get our worship higher and higher. We need a little (maybe a lot of) what the older traditions call the Kyrie. We need to ask for mercy. Pray for it as we give it to others. But instead we sing songs about how it impacts us. How we feel about it.

It doesn't matter how we feel about it. It matters what is right, true, honest, just, trustworthy . . . . the things you think on.

As for detailing what I disagree with in Gaffin's arguments, all I will say is that when I scanned through it previously, I saw nothing that gave me a footing to even bring it into the conversation. It might all be reasonable and sound on its own, without reference to 1 Cor 15:45, but I saw nothing that put it into that discussion. I'm not wasting my time dissecting something that starts with a premise that is just not sound and tends to lead to Lee's (and some other wackos') favorite place — the obliteration of the purpose of Three in favor of "they're just all the same." Maybe Gaffin does not go that far with it. But when the starting point is a kind of equivocation — whether intentional to shoehorn in a ridiculous premise, or by honest error due to lack of clarity — I am not bound to waste my time on the rest of the points.

You think Gaffin has made a valid argument for discussing the Trinity because of this one phrase in one verse in the middle of a different discussion, then lay it out. Unless it is a really good argument, I can only see a decoder-ring effort to find a dog's tail in a box of marbles and then wag the dog and say that it is the thing that they box of marbles is about.

I am not obligated to dissect anyone's discussion of the Spirit. It may be a good discussion. But its connection to 1 Cor 15:45 is tenuous, at best. More like a dog's tail in a box of marbles. If you want to change my mind, you show me how it is connected.

I don't recall Gaffin's arguments at this point. But what I have seen in most who think they are finding something not actually there reminds me a little of throwing gold into a fire and declaring that "out came this calf." So now we all have to worship it. We try hard to refute it.

The golden calf did not just appear. It was fashioned. Someone(s) took some time and effort to make it. And just as Aaron did not have an evil intent, there may have been no intent to twist as "the Son is now the Spirit" was fashioned from 1 Cor 15:45. But 1 Cor 15:45 does not go to that conclusion without contortions and harm.

OBW

07-31-2014, 07:27 AM

From another thread:

In Witness Lee's church, we presumed ourselves beyond all of that. Fallen humankind's social arrangements never touched us! So we never questioned, and never considered, even when things got weirder and weirder, as gaps between individual perception and social consensus widened themselves.And in the same way, when only one out of 10 non-LRC scholars actually takes a position similar to Lee (even if only slightly similar) I believe that it is sufficient to generally dismiss the one because those who disagree have established themselves as sound, reasoned, and solid Christians.

No, numbers, or a majority, do not define God or scripture. But it is the counsel, not the individual, that seems to ultimately be able to really get a feeling from the Spirit. It started with that counsel in Jerusalem. Neither Paul nor the Judaisers simply got their way. It was the combined sense of the group that ruled. I am not discounting the Spirit's participation. Rather noting that it was in the participation with many, and not just one, that the conclusion arose. That tends to put the outliers in question.

Does that mean that I do not have any questions relating to where the mainstream of Christianity is going? Not at all. But the errors I think I see are not related to core of the faith. Rather to the emphasis in the meaning of "calling" for the "average" Christian. And that is a different topic.

Cal

07-31-2014, 08:07 AM

And in the same way, when only one out of 10 non-LRC scholars actually takes a position similar to Lee (even if only slightly similar) I believe that it is sufficient to generally dismiss the one because those who disagree have established themselves as sound, reasoned, and solid Christians.

I was in California this summer enjoying a small town's warm early evening ambiance, when three Mormon young men approached me. They were fine, wholesome guys, just great kids. I took the opportunity to talk to them. We wrangled a bit and I'm not sure what good I did, but I did manage to get out one question which I wished later I had more focused on, and will do so in the future in similar encounters. And that is this:

"You guys consider yourselves Christians, right? So why do you go against 98% of the rest of the Christian community in your view of Christ's divinity? Why, really, do you believe that your little minority is right about this central doctrine, and everyone else is wrong? Isn't the real reason because that's your culture and that's what you've always done? Isn't it more about your cultural identity and being expected to believe it, than any really objective, independent thought about it? If you want to be Christians, why fight the rest of the Church on such a central idea?"

The same goes for the LC, or any other tiny minority that thinks it has special revelation.

Cal

07-31-2014, 08:37 AM

To me being in the Spirit is indicated by two things, life and peace (Romans 8:6). And if I had to pick between the two, I'd pick peace. Jesus's gift to us is peace that passes understanding, not as the world gives (Phil 4:7; Jn 14:27). That means this peace cannot be faked. You can fake love, goodness, even "life" in a way. But you can't fake peace. You either have it or you don't. When I'm losing peace I know my mind and emotions are going some place they shouldn't.

Usually it starts with worry. First I'll start being bothered about something. Then, I'll begin to think of how I can remedy the "problem." But because I've left peace, my approach to the problem is going to be off, if any approach is even needed.

All kinds of things can set this off. Worries about money, my kids, my reputation, how I feel in the morning, boredom, what some other poster said. But the point is, remain in peace and there is a very good chance you are remaining in the Spirit.

One thing that sets worry off is wanting "God and." God and a good life, God and money, God and popularity, etc. The more we want just God, and what he wants, the more peace we will experience.

Cal

07-31-2014, 09:00 AM

Let me add that by peace I don't mean having no concerns, or playing dumb. We all have concerns. Lack of peace starts with not trusting and following the Lord in your reaction to those concerns. Jesus had all kinds of concerns. But he never lost his peace because he always looked to the Father about them.

zeek

07-31-2014, 10:59 AM

It seems to me that most who go astray have abandoned their reason and substituted a feeling (that they attribute to the Spirit) that their nonsensical misreading of scripture is sound.

I have plenty of sense of the Spirit. He confirms my feelings of my own error by reminding me of the words of the Bible (in my case, usually in paraphrase as precise memorization has not been my forte). He is closely tied to my life. I know when I go astray and when I am on track.

But it is always a sense that confirms, not creates chaos out of, the words of scripture.

Lee claimed a leading from the Spirit to turn scripture on its head. To take a few words and insist they meant what they could not even be talking about if returned to their natural habitat (the context). He was following a spirit. I'm just not sure which one.

The Spirit leads to the unity of the body, not to the denigration of 99.99% of it for not following new and novel ways of reading the Bible. So I would suggest that the meaning of the "leading of the Spirit" has been altered in our minds. We may have rejected Lee, but we have a buried propensity to continue to want things the way we learned it from him.

And I am including me. I find it way too often in my natural thinking. I start with some nonsense that I eventually realize is a relic of my LRC past. That does not condemn it. But it makes it subject to serious scrutiny.

And trusting your feelings (and calling it the Spirit) to go with what you like rather than what scripture actually says is a recurring problem for me. The nonsense sounds reasonable until you make yourself stand it up against scripture. Suddenly the feeling goes sour when you realize the error.

OBW--Thank you for explaining yourself. I think I understand you a little better. Your view of this issue is complex. You try to balance reason, intuition and skepticism based on experience. What else can we do? between you and I the differences are specific. In general, I seem to be dealing with the similar elements of experience in a somewhat similar way. Or at least I think I understand where you are coming from i.e. your point of view. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Are you familiar with the "theory of mind" concept?

zeek

07-31-2014, 11:19 AM

You think Gaffin has made a valid argument for discussing the Trinity because of this one phrase in one verse in the middle of a different discussion, then lay it out.

Before I respond, please clarify what you are saying here. What one phrase? What different discussion? I am referring to the paper entitled “LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT”: PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL’S PNEUMATOLOGY which UntoHim submitted in post #255.

awareness

07-31-2014, 01:17 PM

OBW

07-31-2014, 02:07 PM

Before I respond, please clarify what you are saying here. What one phrase? What different discussion? I am referring to the paper entitled “LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT”: PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL’S PNEUMATOLOGY which UntoHim submitted in post #255.As I said, I recall reading it some time back (maybe only some days back, but I have slept a lot since then, and been on vacation). So my memory (failing?) was that it was introduced as somenone finding the Holy Spirit in the "life giving spirit" of 1 Cor 15:45. That is the phrase/verse. If I have recalled some detail in error, or should be referring to someone else's writings on the subject, then I sit corrected.

But if it does — at least in part — spring from that verse, then if there is something in his work that better links the verse to The Spirit than Lee did (and is worthy of consideration) I would be happy to hear it. But I do not intend to otherwise read through it since my stated bias is that the context rejects the general premise as off-topic. If that is true, then there is no reason for a point-by-point critique. It is simply in left field.

And if you manage to skip the "it's off topic" aspect and the rest fits together, it does nothing for me because lots of things fit together well if you accept the first premise without question. But question the start and no matter how nice it sounds, it is no longer cohesive. It falls due to lack of support.

OBW

07-31-2014, 02:30 PM

This I think this is Zeek's concern with Gaffin:

Quote:
Posing two questions will expedite our discussion of the last clause in v. 45: What is the reference of the noun “spirit” (pneuma)? Since life-giving pneuma is what (Christ as) the last Adam “became,” what is the time point of that becoming? A couple of interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations show, decisively it seems to me, that “spirit” in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.You essentially have to brush aside what Paul is talking about to arrive at that conclusion. He has made more than one clear statement that it is a comparison of the body of birth (human) and the body of resurrection (spiritual). And he is essentially promising the same kind of body to believers in resurrection. Do we therefore conclude that in resurrection we "become" the Holy Spirit?

It is those "interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations" that are the problem. It would appear that Gaffin is saying is a lot like what Lee says more clearly. He is taking the word "spirit" that is juxtaposed to "life-giving" and then looking elsewhere for some kind of evidence that the Holy Spirit is referred to as giving life, then interlocking them. But the interlocking is not insisted upon by the words used despite the fact that both Lee and Gaffin suggest that they do. There is nothing magical in the words that insists upon the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives life. So does the Father, as does the Spirit. And they are all spirit in essence. And they are all holy. That makes them all holy spirit. But the capitalized version is a name, not just a fact. It is the name of one of the Three of the Trinity. So there are three holy spirits, yet only one Holy Spirit.

And in some way, the Three are One. Igzy suggested some kind of heavenly math. Maybe. Who knows. And why do we care? What is wrong with just acknowledging the specific things that are taught about each of the Three and appreciating those rather than trying to build a more complex Trinity that is described beyond the evidence?

And let a discussion about natural bodies and resurrection bodies remain as simply that discussion. What is the benefit of trying to mine for secret discussion #2 inside of open discussion #1? It is, at best, speculation. It cannot be a certainty. And if it is that much of a speculation, what can it really do for you?

I suggest nothing.

And that is where it should end. It is the people trying to take things beyond what is written that cause the problems. That create the exclusivist sects. Like the LRC.

Gaffin is evidently caught in the same kind of blindered focus that Lee was. And it is beyond what is written. There is no decoder ring. The scripture is much more straightforward than that. Otherwise, there is no way to even suggest inerrancy in scripture at any level because no one will know what it is actually saying, therefore be totally unable to determine error or lack thereof.

awareness

07-31-2014, 02:46 PM

Gaffin states: "45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit is a person? Where in the Bible is it stated the Holy Spirit is a person? 15:45 is the only place I know of where the Spirit is close to even being a person. Am I wrong here? Is the last Adam a life-giving person?

Here's one opinion:
The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person.
For example, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a gift (Acts:10:45; 1 Timothy:4:14). We are told that it can be quenched (1 Thessalonians:5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts:2:17; 10:45), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew:3:11). It must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy:1:6), and it also renews us (Titus:3:5). These are certainly not attributes of a person.
This Spirit is also called "the holy Spirit of promise . . . the guarantee of our inheritance . . . the spirit of wisdom and revelation" (Ephesians:1:13-14, 17).

Cal

07-31-2014, 02:55 PM

Cal

07-31-2014, 03:07 PM

And in some way, the Three are One. Igzy suggested some kind of heavenly math. Maybe. Who knows. And why do we care? What is wrong with just acknowledging the specific things that are taught about each of the Three and appreciating those rather than trying to build a more complex Trinity that is described beyond the evidence?

The problem with the "just accept it" strategy is that what one just accepts might be a misconception of the actual reality. Just accepting it, I think, has caused many Christians to have unconsciously a concept of three Gods. On the other hand, I feel my ruminations and studying about the Trinity have brought me some very helpful insights into the nature of God which I wouldn't have if I just accepted the basics at face value. I wouldn't see things this way, and I believe they are correct, if I didn't reflect on the Trinity.

I'll pick on Harold at bit. (Sorry). He recoiled at the idea of God loving himself. He was more comfortable with the idea of the selfless Jesus who put himself last. But my assertion is that a God who fully loves himself is not at all incompatible with that same God expressing that same love from the standpoint of being human. As I said, it's all about selflessly loving the other, even if the other is yourself. God's love for himself is not "selfish" in the way we might think of self-love. It's pure, holy and totally justified, and it overflows to others. And we are to reflect that love in our own way, as in "love your neighbor as yourself."

My point is the Trinity teaches us some fundamental things about the nature of reality. I remember when I first read years ago "the Trinity teaches us that at its core existence is relational." That made me jump out of my chair, because Lee never taught anything like that, and it opened my eyes.

awareness

07-31-2014, 03:49 PM

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever--the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17
Interesting. Thanks.

Linguistic device ... to avoid using "it" ... possibly?

Same reason we use "He" when speaking of God?

In fact, why we think of them as persons in the first place. We have no other references, but to this earthly realm. We relate the spiritual realm to the only reference we know: human references.

zeek

07-31-2014, 05:48 PM

As I said, I recall reading it some time back (maybe only some days back, but I have slept a lot since then, and been on vacation). So my memory (failing?) was that it was introduced as someone finding the Holy Spirit in the "life giving spirit" of 1 Cor 15:45. That is the phrase/verse. If I have recalled some detail in error, or should be referring to someone else's writings on the subject, then I sit corrected.

But if it does — at least in part — spring from that verse, then if there is something in his work that better links the verse to The Spirit than Lee did (and is worthy of consideration) I would be happy to hear it. But I do not intend to otherwise read through it since my stated bias is that the context rejects the general premise as off-topic. If that is true, then there is no reason for a point-by-point critique. It is simply in left field.

And if you manage to skip the "it's off topic" aspect and the rest fits together, it does nothing for me because lots of things fit together well if you accept the first premise without question. But question the start and no matter how nice it sounds, it is no longer cohesive. It falls due to lack of support.

I appreciate your candor. You admit Gaffin was in this discussion and could be relevant to the issue at hand and that you don't recall what his arguments were. But, you won't even bother to read it because your mind is made up. Furthermore, if you were to read it and found the arguments coherent you still wouldn't accept it because of the first premise.

Your intellectual complacency is remarkable. Since you couldn't be bothered to read what Gaffin wrote you got his argument backwards. That pneuma in 15:45 is the person of the Holy Spirit is Gaffin's conclusion, not his first premise.

But, I'll stop here. I'm not going to carry Gaffin's water to you. You have amply demonstrated that your mind is closed on the matter. New information might disturb your cognitive tranquility. For the record though, you dismissed the apparently well-framed argument without bothering to read it. How can I help but recall your willingness to judge arguments without reading them when I read your opinions about other matters in the future?

OBW

08-01-2014, 07:03 AM

I appreciate your candor. You admit Gaffin was in this discussion and could be relevant to the issue at hand and that you don't recall what his arguments were. But, you won't even bother to read it because your mind is made up. Furthermore, if you were to read it and found the arguments coherent you still wouldn't accept it because of the first premise.Not a very fair assessment of my comments — or the truth. I said I had read it sometime earlier and that the content had made an impression that remained, but that I could not recall specific details and did not have the desire to approach it from the angle you desired.

The impression was of an alternate Lee. Someone who was overly stuck on the idea that "life giving" associated with "spirit" had to mean Holy Spirit when the context said "altered body" or "body of a different kind." As I recall, the only one of the Three with an image was the Son. And his image was somewhat altered in resurrection. And Paul is talking to the Corinthians about the body they will have in resurrection. It is described in a manner that is both physical and spiritual (sort of ghost-like). And that is what was seen with Jesus after his resurrection. He was there, then not there. He didn't need to ascend into heaven — only to disappear once more without reappearing. But he ascended for the sake of the followers to make it clear that the appearances would be ending.

Yet, as he said, he was always with them.

Gaffin, like Lee, has forced onto the scripture his overly-narrow view of words. Awareness reposted a portion. And there it was, just as I had said I remembered.

So dismissing my position as lazy scholarship is rather shoddy on your part. Do you disagree that I have addressed Gaffin reasonably according to what he said even if I did not bother to do it by dissection? I have read it. It was not impressive as having (finally) provided a reason to accept the insertion of a partial-sentence declaration on the Trinity that had no bearing on the larger discussion in which it is claimed to exist. A declaration that would seem as ridiculous as that dog with the speaking collar in Up! that would suddenly look off to one side an shout "squirrel!" then return to the conversation at hand.

Your statement that you will not "carry my water" shows that you cannot be bothered to make a point that you think is there. And that I did not see when I read through it some time back.

The passage is clear and complete, and includes the challenged phrase without reference to the Holy Spirit. It stands as coherent and cohesive. If you want to join Lee to shoehorn the Holy Spirit into the conversation, then you need to provide something that is better than another outlier opinion. One that provides a reason to reconsider. I saw nothing. And you want me to dissect why I saw nothing to make me reconsider. You want the portions that I did not think worthy of reconsidering? Try the whole thing.

He unites the earlier discussion of Christ's resurrection with the following discussion (in response to the question "But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?") as if it is still a discussion of Christ. When he says "In all of Paul, as far as I can see, there is no assertion about the Spirit’s activity as pivotal, even momentous, as this" he has ignored that there has been no mention of the Holy Spirit for some period of verses, possibly even for the entire chapter, before or after. Unless you have to read "life-giving spirit" as meaning the Holy Spirit.

In other words, Gaffin has declared it as so, but not provided a reason that it is so. I read on and find Gaffin to be consistently doing what Lee did. Insisting that because a word, or words, that have multiple meaning, are found in some other places to have the meaning of the Holy Spirit, then they must here as well. Yet, accepting the multiple meanings, it should not be so easy to completely ignore the context that screams for one of the alternate meanings.

In short, I have reread most of his little tome and found that he keeps inferring that it must be there because it has to be. He is clearly the kid with a new hammer. And everything looks like a nail. And the marks all over the walls, furniture, etc., prove it.

If you think Gaffin has made a point that is worthy of reconsideration, then you pull it out and demonstrate how it is not just another "I just see nails" presumption. Otherwise, your claims of my "intellectual complacency" are appearing to be a cheap shot intended to undermine my position without anything but insults. In other words, a strawman.

OBW

08-01-2014, 07:23 AM

The problem with the "just accept it" strategy is that what one just accepts might be a misconception of the actual reality. Just accepting it, I think, has caused many Christians to have unconsciously a concept of three Gods. On the other hand, I feel my ruminations and studying about the Trinity have brought me some very helpful insights into the nature of God which I wouldn't have if I just accepted the basics at face value. I wouldn't see things this way, and I believe they are correct, if I didn't reflect on the Trinity.I think you have misread what I said.

I did not say that we just accept it. Rather I have said that the Bible says certain things that we do accept. But we make more statements that are not there, based on forcing the actual statements together into something we call the Trinity doctrine. And that is not necessarily a bad thing — until we start to insist upon "facts" and "doctrines" that are not part of the biblical narrative, but spin off of our extra-biblical creation in the Trinity doctrine.

Again, I am not dissing the doctrine of the Trinity. But it should be limited to providing an understanding of God as a whole. The actual passages in scripture provide the meaningful details as to how the Trinity — as One and as "persons" — relates and affects us. I see no reason to create doctrines off of non-scriptural analyses and declarations that are then wrapped back into the scriptural doctrines as if already there. I believe that scripture has done a sufficient job of providing what we need.

Do not misunderstand what follows. The Trinity is sort of a Frankenstein. It is a collection of facts that are taken and fashioned into a holistic theory designed to make the mystery of God a little less mysterious. Or at least provide a way to bring all aspects of the mystery into one place while leaving its full reality a mystery. From that perspective, I find it useful and at least somewhat instructive to have a Trinity doctrine. But since it is a patchwork of incomplete information, there are still many holes in our ability to even describe what we cannot understand. And surely not enough to fill in the gaps and claim to know God better than what he did actually describe in the scripture.

When I said to accept (in so many words) I was talking about having a clear appreciation of what the scripture actually says. That is in contrast to becoming so engrossed in detailing the composite we call Trinity — something that scripture itself avoided almost completely. There are at least a couple of times where the Three are found in one place. The two I think of are Jesus' baptism, and the other is one of Paul's benedictions. Maybe there are one or two more. And none of them provide much structure for the Trinity. Just evidence that there are Three and that when coupled with other declarations of scripture, those Three are One.

That is worthy of accepting. And living with. The full Trinity doctrine is worthy of acknowledging. It is strictly part of the head knowledge. It does not provide anything. Only the actual interaction with the Godhead — Father, Son, and Spirit, are meaningful to our lives. The Trinity is a sort of an image. It can easily become an idol. Most churches have it as part of their doctrinal statement. Yet the core of the Christian faith does not include it. Why? Because it is not central to our Christian experience. It is only central to our Christian identity relative to others who claim to be Christian.

awareness

08-01-2014, 07:51 AM

Gaffin, like Lee, has forced onto the scripture his overly-narrow view of words. . . .
. . . I read on and find Gaffin to be consistently doing what Lee did.
The Gaffin pdf is dated Dec. 1998.

Is there a possibility of Lee cross-pollination?

Maybe UntoHim knows???

awareness

08-01-2014, 11:07 AM

zeek

08-01-2014, 12:18 PM

Not a very fair assessment of my comments — or the truth. I said I had read it sometime earlier and that the content had made an impression that remained, but that I could not recall specific details and did not have the desire to approach it from the angle you desired.

The impression was of an alternate Lee. Someone who was overly stuck on the idea that "life giving" associated with "spirit" had to mean Holy Spirit when the context said "altered body" or "body of a different kind." As I recall, the only one of the Three with an image was the Son. And his image was somewhat altered in resurrection. And Paul is talking to the Corinthians about the body they will have in resurrection. It is described in a manner that is both physical and spiritual (sort of ghost-like). And that is what was seen with Jesus after his resurrection. He was there, then not there. He didn't need to ascend into heaven — only to disappear once more without reappearing. But he ascended for the sake of the followers to make it clear that the appearances would be ending.

Yet, as he said, he was always with them.

Gaffin, like Lee, has forced onto the scripture his overly-narrow view of words. Awareness reposted a portion. And there it was, just as I had said I remembered.

So dismissing my position as lazy scholarship is rather shoddy on your part. Do you disagree that I have addressed Gaffin reasonably according to what he said even if I did not bother to do it by dissection? I have read it. It was not impressive as having (finally) provided a reason to accept the insertion of a partial-sentence declaration on the Trinity that had no bearing on the larger discussion in which it is claimed to exist. A declaration that would seem as ridiculous as that dog with the speaking collar in Up! that would suddenly look off to one side an shout "squirrel!" then return to the conversation at hand.

Your statement that you will not "carry my water" shows that you cannot be bothered to make a point that you think is there. And that I did not see when I read through it some time back.

The passage is clear and complete, and includes the challenged phrase without reference to the Holy Spirit. It stands as coherent and cohesive. If you want to join Lee to shoehorn the Holy Spirit into the conversation, then you need to provide something that is better than another outlier opinion. One that provides a reason to reconsider. I saw nothing. And you want me to dissect why I saw nothing to make me reconsider. You want the portions that I did not think worthy of reconsidering? Try the whole thing.

He unites the earlier discussion of Christ's resurrection with the following discussion (in response to the question "But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" as if it is still a discussion of Christ. When he says "In all of Paul, as far as I can see, there is no assertion about the Spirit’s activity as pivotal, even momentous, as this" he has ignored that there has been no mention of the Holy Spirit for some period of verses, possibly even for the entire chapter, before or after. Unless you have to read "life-giving spirit" as meaning the Holy Spirit.

In other words, Gaffin has declared it as so, but not provided a reason that it is so. I read on and find Gaffin to be consistently doing what Lee did. Insisting that because a word, or words, that have multiple meaning, are found in some other places to have the meaning of the Holy Spirit, then they must here as well. Yet, accepting the multiple meanings, it should not be so easy to completely ignore the context that screams for one of the alternate meanings.

In short, I have reread most of his little tome and found that he keeps inferring that it must be there because it has to be. He is clearly the kid with a new hammer. And everything looks like a nail. And the marks all over the walls, furniture, etc., prove it.

If you think Gaffin has made a point that is worthy of reconsideration, then you pull it out and demonstrate how it is not just another "I just see nails" presumption. Otherwise, your claims of my "intellectual complacency" are appearing to be a cheap shot intended to undermine my position without anything but insults. In other words, a strawman.

Galatians 4:6 states "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Why can't the Life-Giving Spirit is 15:45 be the same as the Spirit of the Son in Galatians?

OBW

08-01-2014, 12:27 PM

In 15:45 Paul used Pneuma (πνεῦμα) for spirit, which is neuter gender, neither male or female. Except, he ties spirit to the last Adam -- Jesus -- who we know was male.

Is it off topic, for 15:45, to go into a Bible basis for the gender of spirit? to maybe help us define spirit, like has been asked earlier in this thread?

What say ye UntoHim ... are you doing okay ... is everything okay?I'd avoid it. If the word is without gender, what do you gain by trying to give it gender? That Jesus was male is a given. The first person of the Trinity is designated as "Father" therefore would also be male. But God in general is described as being "spirit." Are you suggesting a gender crisis within the Godhead? I think the issue is that a gender-neutral word just means that it is what it is. It cannot be used to drive the discussion because it provides no specificity. Therefore is of no help.

So what do we gain by doing a gender analysis? Are you unsure that Jesus is male?

Since this is (was) my thread, I suggest that without a good reason for the discussion, it is not relevant to the topic and should be seen as clutter to the existing discussion.

OBW

08-01-2014, 01:03 PM

Galatians 4:6 states "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Why can't the Life-Giving Spirit is 15:45 be the same as the Spirit of the Son in Galatians?And what does that mean? Are you positive that because someone printing a Bible that capitalized "Spirit" that God has not sent forth the essence of his Son into your hearts? Or even if it is accurately the Holy Spirit, does it deny a life-giving aspect of the Son without reference to the Holy Spirit? He who has the Son has life. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit in that one — unless you have insisted upon an overlay that requires it. But the scripture has not said that the Holy Spirit is the exclusive giver of life.

If there is anything clear in the scripture, it is that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all give life. There are statements to the effect scattered about. Does that mean that they are really just One? Or that they are suddenly all the Holy Spirit? Or does it mean that God in his interaction with man is life-giving in all aspects? Taking any one of those could give a completely different spin on 1 Cor 15:45 if we change the focus of the "pneumatology." If we insist that since the Father is stated as giving life, then everything that gives life is the Father. But then there is the verse that says the those with the Son have life. So any reference to giving life is only about the Son.

In short, it is clear that, once again, trying to pin down God into a single formula that is a more robust Trinity doctrine than we started with is an exercise in what you choose to put in focus and what you choose to put out of focus. That means that if you want to take it all "in focus," then you have to accept that it is more complicated than a simple "giving life is the work of the Spirit" declaration. Therefore any reference to giving life is unique because it is talking about a specific subset of the Godhead as it makes the statement. That statement is both specific and general. It is specific because it is the statement that it is and not a replacement of any other statements about giving life. It is general because it does not declare that no other of the Three gives life.

And if the purpose of the Three is experience — and they are also One — then what benefit do we gain by creating more precise doctrines of the Godhead than the scripture actually makes? If we experience God, we experience God. Do we know for sure which of the Godhead is involved at all times? Probably not. But we still have the experience. God does not reject us because we start a prayer with "Lord" v "Our Father in Heaven." Jesus did instruct to use the latter, so if I have a preference, I think it would be toward that one. And that would make Lee's sort of "who cares which one" statements to be somewhat off.

Of course that argument brings us back to why it is not important to understand who is being talked about in 1 Cor 15:45. So how about this one. The discussion is about the coming resurrection of the human body. Paul has slowly narrowed it to a comparison of the natural body with that of the resurrected Christ. He has also made reference to the original body being sown into the earth (in death) as a seed to bring forth something different — this spiritual body. Using the resurrection of Christ provides a parallel. Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected — and look at the nature of that body. In parallel, you will die and be buried. But you will also be resurrected in a similar way, with a similar body.

If that is the discussion, then what would Paul be saying if he said, "Oh, by the way, the comparison is that he became the Holy Spirit." Then what does that mean for our resurrected body? That we become the Holy Spirit? Since we have to reject that, then it would seem that to make the comparison useful, that could not be what Paul is saying.

And, as I have said repeatedly, understanding Christ as spirit (in essence) that gives life is completely accurate. Of course Christ gives life. And Paul did step a little outside of the necessary rhetoric to make that statement. It was not necessary to say that Christ gives life to make the point about his body. But even with it, the resurrected body is describable sufficiently to make Paul's parallel work. Now the naysayers concerning the resurrection have something to chew on.

What in the construct of the sentence requires that we understand that Christ became the Holy Spirit? No one has provided that. Not Lee, not Gaffin. Not anyone. Just an insistence that it must be so. Because of a word/phrase.

awareness

08-01-2014, 01:26 PM

I'd avoid it. If the word is without gender, what do you gain by trying to give it gender? That Jesus was male is a given. The first person of the Trinity is designated as "Father" therefore would also be male. But God in general is described as being "spirit." Are you suggesting a gender crisis within the Godhead? I think the issue is that a gender-neutral word just means that it is what it is. It cannot be used to drive the discussion because it provides no specificity. Therefore is of no help.

So what do we gain by doing a gender analysis? Are you unsure that Jesus is male?

Since this is (was) my thread, I suggest that without a good reason for the discussion, it is not relevant to the topic and should be seen as clutter to the existing discussion.
That's why I asked. Thanks for your reply.

OBW

08-01-2014, 01:54 PM

The Gaffin pdf is dated Dec. 1998.

Is there a possibility of Lee cross-pollination?

Maybe UntoHim knows???My gut reaction is to doubt it. Since Gaffin has pretty thoroughly footnoted his work, I would think that he would have at least acknowledged Lee's influence if not some specific writing if there was cross-pollination.

awareness

08-01-2014, 02:20 PM

My gut reaction is to doubt it. Since Gaffin has pretty thoroughly footnoted his work, I would think that he would have at least acknowledged Lee's influence if not some specific writing if there was cross-pollination.
But, if so, wouldn't Gaffin be disinclined to cite a non-scholar, such as Lee? Lee wasn't a scholar of anything. If anything he was a pretend scholar ... like he was a pretend oracle/apostle/MOTA of God. And a pretend expert on 15:45.

But I agree , there's no evidence of cross-pollination between Gaffin & Lee.

UntoHim

08-01-2014, 03:56 PM

In general, I would never recommend the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) method when it comes to biblical interpretation (even though there are some of us who should have no business going beyond this method...moi included) Even though the apostle Paul was the original and supreme Christian theologian, and though even the apostle Peter called Paul's writings "hard to understand", I would appeal once again for us to try and keep this term "life-giving spirit" in the simple context of: firstly, the immediately surrounding verses, secondly, the wider context of Paul's answering of the question " But someone will ask, 'how are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' ".(vr 35) and lastly, to the distinct probability the this was an originally coined term that is best to interpret within the context of this particular chapter (1 Cor 15)

There are MANY other surrounding concerns, and they have been discussed in great depth and detail by lots of very qualified and absolutely well-meaning theologians (including Gaffin and the others I have referenced), and I would hope we could take our time and maybe go over some of these commentaries one by one. We already know what Witness Lee taught regarding this matter. As far as I know, only Gaffin comes close to Lee's interpretation, but this comes with some very important caveats. I plan on addressing these in due time (I know, I know it's past due time, but I'm working on it!)

Finally, and something that has been on my heart regarding our discussions about this matter, we would all be missing something of ultimate importance if we forget about "keeping the main thing the main thing"....This is all about THE GOSPEL. Please read the opening few verses of this chapter - "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, in which you received, in which you stand"....and even the K.I.S.S. method works for the Gospel.

zeek

08-01-2014, 07:27 PM

But, if so, wouldn't Gaffin be disinclined to cite a non-scholar, such as Lee? Lee wasn't a scholar of anything. If anything he was a pretend scholar ... like he was a pretend oracle/apostle/MOTA of God. And a pretend expert on 15:45.

But I agree , there's no evidence of cross-pollination between Gaffin & Lee.

It makes no difference in terms of the truth or falsity of Gaffin's claim whether he got it from Lee or not. He might have found it in a box of Cracker Jacks. The proposition that it matters where he got his claim is a genetic fallacy i.e. a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence that discredits it. What count's are the merits of his arguments and supporting evidence.

zeek

08-01-2014, 07:46 PM

And what does that mean? Are you positive that because someone printing a Bible that capitalized "Spirit" that God has not sent forth the essence of his Son into your hearts? Or even if it is accurately the Holy Spirit, does it deny a life-giving aspect of the Son without reference to the Holy Spirit? He who has the Son has life. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit in that one — unless you have insisted upon an overlay that requires it. But the scripture has not said that the Holy Spirit is the exclusive giver of life.

Whether the words are capitalized or not is insignificant. Compare Matthew 10:20 "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." and Galatians 4:6 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Why, according to your theology, can't the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father be the Holy Spirit? On the other hand, I find the translation "the last Adam became a life-giving essence" true and without controversy and related to John 12:24 which also suggests that Jesus must be transfigured to become life-giving.

awareness

08-01-2014, 10:45 PM

It makes no difference in terms of the truth or falsity of Gaffin's claim whether he got it from Lee or not. He might have found it in a box of Cracker Jacks.
I guess I need to start eating Cracker Jacks again.

And I think it would be very important to know if, and I say if, Lee influenced Gaffin. It was a wild thought, brought on by you, if I'm not mistaken. We'll let it go. It's a moot point now.

What count's are the merits of his arguments and supporting evidence.
Just to point it out. Gaffin references Galatians three times in his journal:

Gal
2:20. (resurrection)
4:4. "work of restoring the entire creation, begun in sending his Son “in the fullness of time”
5:22-23. "The truly enduring work of the Spirit is the resurrection renewal already experienced by every believer. And that renewal manifests itself in what Paul calls “fruit”—like faith, hope and love, joy and peace (to mention just some, . . ."

But, oddly I think, doesn't use the verse you thought supported 15:45:
Gal 4:6 - "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

The "merits of his [Gaffin] arguments and supporting evidence" will be in the eye of the beholder.

First of all Gaffin claims:
"it seems fair to say, across a broad front a substantial majority of commentators and other interpreters who address the issue recognize a reference to the Holy Spirit in v. 45."

I haven't fact-checked this claim so can't speak to its merit.

Gaffin, also, seeking merit for his claim, states:
"virtually all the standard English translations, for whatever reasons, continue to render “spirit” in v. 45 with a small “s.” The most notable exceptions are the Living Bible (and now the New Living Translation) and Today’s English Version. They—correctly, I believe—capitalize “Spirit.”

As to life-giving spirit, Gaffin points to:
Acts 2:32–33 (“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted therefore to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear”). As “the life-giving Spirit,” (the resurrected and ascended) Christ is the one who baptizes with the Spirit.

And to:
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

To Gaffin the "became" in 15:45 has now, in Paul's 2nd to the Corinthians, become "is" : "the Lord is that Spirit."

And also to:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

And for my last example (and there are more):
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

You decide the merits. What say ye, or others?

zeek

08-02-2014, 02:23 AM

The spirit problem gets reiterated over and over. Take for instance the simpler matter of the spirit of God. Is the spirit of God God? I would say yes. So then when we say "spirit of god" is there one entity or two? If we say one then why not say simply God? If we say two, spirit and God, then the two must be distinct in some way. In some sense the Spirit must not be identical with God. Then in what way are the two distinct? If we say that the spirit is the essence of God then is the spirit an aspect of God? Then what of the remainder of God? Isn't the remainder also spirit? Then why talk of spirit at all.It is impossible to overestimate incomprehensibility of God. The Spirit of God is no less incomprehensible. The Triune God is more impossible still. When I think I have grasped it, it slides through my fingers. I think those that claim they understand God are deluded. Sometimes Witness Lee would call the Triune God a mystery, but then he would go on to claim that others were wrong about it and he was right. If Lee or Gaffin or Edwards admitted they didn't know who would follow them? I don't want followers so I can admit it.

KSA

08-02-2014, 03:31 AM

The matter is quite simple ) Can God change? Can anything be added to Him? If something can be added to God, then it musta existed outside of God :)

OBW

08-02-2014, 06:43 AM

Whether the words are capitalized or not is insignificant. Compare Matthew 10:20 "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." and Galatians 4:6 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Why, according to your theology, can't the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father be the Holy Spirit? On the other hand, I find the translation "the last Adam became a life-giving essence" true and without controversy and related to John 12:24 which also suggests that Jesus must be transfigured to become life-giving. And that is essentially what I said. The capitalization is not what makes it one way or the other since the underlying text generally has none (at all). We add it as we think is proper according to the formulas of the day for capitalizing deity, or even major nouns in general. And some only capitalize where it is a name.

And even when we have a formulation, it is not patently obvious that "Spirit" in either verse is definitely the Holy Spirit, although it is a definite possibility and no stretch to say it. But neither is it a stretch to say that it is a reference to the very being of the Father and the Son. whose essence is spirit, rather than the third of the Trinity.

But the problem with running to so many other scriptures is that each has a context and a meaning. For these two, it is clear that the S/spirit of the Father and the Son are involved. Whether it is similarly or differently in either place a reference to the essence of the one mentioned coming to/into (or as a fact of being in) the believer or of the Holy Spirit should have no real impact on what it is that is stated in these verses.

And your question as to why it cannot be the Holy Spirit when the S/spirit of the Father and the Son are mentioned is a kind of strawman because I did not ever say that those cannot be. But in so many places the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned without being an aspect of the Father or the Son, therefore some question as to the meaning of these verses is naturally present.

When Jesus promised "another comforter" he did not say it was his Spirit that was coming. Yet in the same discourse he mentions also coming himself. Is this a form of parallel in which the two are/will be the same? Or is it a reference to the coming fact that God — all Three — will at that time be within the believer? (And yet the God that created it all only seems to give us heartburn or other unsure feelings. Quite a lot of self control being exercised.)

But none of this drives 1 Cor 15:45 since the very use of the word in the context (whether spiritual or spirit) is much more clearly not a reference to the essence of God or the Holy Spirit, but to the nature of the body that springs forth in resurrection. It is the parallel with the body we will receive that is the point of the passage (many verses, not just a 1/2-verse fortune cookie). So, in the middle of a passage, even the whole chapter (artificial as it is) in which Paul makes no other reference to the Holy Spirit, it is odd that he would suddenly make this obscure one and then fail to enhance it and dwell upon it. Instead he sticks to the discussion of the sowing of the perishable body in death and the resurrection of the imperishable, spiritual body (for any man) in resurrection. It makes the very idea of a statement about the change of the Son into the Spirit so far fetched as to be about as plausible as the very small microburst breaking my car window and sucking the CD 'Days of Future Past" off the passenger seat while leaving everything else in the vicinity alone v the very likelihood that someone simply stole it. (A fictional story borrowed from a book on logic.)

Every time you run to another verse and say "what about here?" I can only deal separately with those passages. Many of them have contexts which would allow for the much more plausible and possible reading that your suggest. But none of those create a pattern of use that is so consistent that we can only read the word "sprit," especially when juxtaposed to "life-giving" as the Holy Spirit. Especially when the context argues that the word is talking about something else. It would take Paul really moving from the spiritual body discussion to the nature of God for more than a three-word phrase to yank this reference from the existing context and start a new one. But that is the end of it. The very next words are back on the original discussion without reference to the Holy Spirit in any way.

This is getting old. For every verse you mention that either could, or does, reference the Holy Spirit, there are others that do not. And there are some that do not reference anything about God at all, but about man, whether the human spirit, or in reference to something like a dynamic, such as a spirit of sonship. There is nothing that forces "spirit" to be read differently than what its context provides. And in some places the context includes the modifier "holy" which we pretty rightly understand to mean that together they designate the Holy Spirit.

What makes this one jump its context? Pointing to a different verse with a different context is not instructive. Try again.

KSA

08-02-2014, 08:00 AM

LC is so proud of their "last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" revelation. It is like one of the main stones for their theology. A simple question remains though: does it really matter? We can cut and paste lots of verses and arguments, but the bottom line is whether knowing that Jesus is a Spirit changes my life significantly or it is just a cute teaching that makes me feel special?

Another thing is that all our concepts about God are at best pointers to the Truth, but not the Truth itself. When we really stick to a concept, we are that proverbial fool who looks at the finger, not at the Moon. :)

UntoHim

08-02-2014, 08:42 AM

The matter is quite simple ) Can God change? Can anything be added to Him? If something can be added to God, then it musta existed outside of God :)

So good to hear from you KSA!

Interesting theological question..."Can God change?". Has God actually limited himself in such a way? I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this, just wondering out loud here.

Let's take a quick look at Philippians 2:6-8

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

"being born in the likeness of men"..."being found in human form"..."death on a cross". Remember the words to the hymn.."Without reluctance, flesh and blood His substance"...and also "tis mystery all, the immortal dies". Witness Lee claimed that humanity was added to the Spirit (as part of his processed God teaching), which would naturally mean that something was "added" to God himself. Orthodox teachings have usually resisted such a thought or concept. Now we clearly see Richard Gaffin is at least dancing around this idea of the Lord Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit. Is becoming synonymous with changing? I think it very well could be in this instance.

We have lots more to review in this thread.

awareness

08-02-2014, 10:49 AM

Okay we can't really pin down life-giving spirit.

But still, we haven't addressed "became," or "was made," (ginomai)

"the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

Yet Paul says the last Adam became.

Somebody enlighten me. Please & thank you.

Is this another aspect of 15:45 that can't be pinned down?

Since Paul visited the church in Corinth, and spoke with them personally, prolly teaching and instructing, it's likely that the Corinthians understood what Paul was writing to them based upon previous speakings/teachings.

And that, perchance, is why we're having such trouble understanding 15:45.

We aren't privy to Paul's personal speakings & teachings -- we weren't there -- that would more than likely lend to our understanding.

Zeek brought up: "I don't want followers so I can admit it."

Zeek has no personal agenda so he can admit that he doesn't understand 15:45.

Lee had an agenda, so he was forced to come up with novel interpretations of scripture, to make it look like God was speaking special message to only Witness Lee ... like Lee had a dog-whistle hearing of God.

15:45 was a tool of Lee, supporting his pretense to be more than he was.

zeek

08-02-2014, 12:53 PM

The capitalization is not what makes it one way or the other since the underlying text generally has none (at all). I never claimed it was. You projected that proposition onto what I posted.

Whether it is similarly or differently in either place a reference to the essence of the one mentioned coming to/into (or as a fact of being in) the believer or of the Holy Spirit should have no real impact on what it is that is stated in these verses.

It seems that the essence of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. [John 4: 24] Otherwise, God would have three different substances? The translation of Greek hypostasis to Latin substantia resulted in Tritheistic heretical conclusions. Do you really want to go there?

And your question as to why it cannot be the Holy Spirit when the S/spirit of the Father and the Son are mentioned is a kind of strawman because I did not ever say that those cannot be.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. I am merely trying to define the boundaries of your position via questions. Does that make sense to you?

This is getting old. for every verse you mention that either could, or does, reference the Holy Spirit, there are others that do not.

Your thoughts are going circles largely of your own imagining. You went right past my concession to you that "The last Adam became a life-giving essence' seems the best translation I have yet read. You are interpreting every question as an argument when I am actually asking these things because I don't know.

We got off to a bad start because I accused you of equivocation which is what you accused Witness Lee. You then accused me of it. If the word spirit has a different meaning every time it is used depending on the context, then how can we NOT equivocate? As you have charitably granted me at least once, our equivocation may be "unintentional." That has happened and likely will happen again. It seems the best we can do is humbly admit our ignorance of this most important matter. I don't think that spirit can be understood intellectually. Spirit could be defined as that essence of life that cannot be understood intellectually but is present everywhere in everything and nothing.

awareness

08-02-2014, 02:22 PM

My goodness I just noticed. The title of this thread is : "Become" or "Not Become"

Yet we ignore "became" in 15:45, jump right over it, and go straight to, life-giving spirit.

Do we do this because Lee didn't remark about "became/was made?"

Or do we shy away cuz we can't possibly explain it?

I know Paul is showing a mystery, as he states a few verses down. So why do we dig into the mystery of the life-giving spirit, with answers like, Holy Spirit(Graffin/Lee), "no body"(Zeek), essence (Zeek), person (Igzy), & love (Edwards).

But we just accept that "became" in 15:45 is a unsearchable mystery?

Curiouser and curiouser!

UntoHim

08-02-2014, 02:45 PM

Harold,
Thanks for noticing "become" instead of "became". I went ahead and changed the title of the thread. (all previous posts will still show "become" in the title)

Another thing is that all our concepts about God are at best pointers to the Truth, but not the Truth itself. When we really stick to a concept, we are that proverbial fool who looks at the finger, not at the Moon. :)
Yes, even all the concepts about God that are based in the Word are simply pointers to the truth. Only the Word, the precious Word, the living and abiding Word of God is Truth. "Your Word is Truth". "Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path". In the end the Lord Jesus himself will be called "The Word of God".

And since only the Word is Truth, how very important it is for us as Christians, whom the Lord Jesus has sent out and commissioned to be the light of the world, to teach, preach and proclaim the Word in the most accurate manner possible.

zeek

08-02-2014, 03:25 PM

OBW

08-02-2014, 05:58 PM

Okay we can't really pin down life-giving spirit.

But still, we haven't addressed "became," or "was made," (ginomai)

"the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."First, "became" is only implied in the part about the last Adam, but clearly so.

Actually, that is what we have been talking about. The mortal body is sown in death and what it "becomes" is resurrected immortal and spiritual. That has been what Paul was talking about the whole time. While he did not use the word "became" in the earlier verses, it is the same thing. Nothing new. Here in 15:45 he says "became."

For three verses (as the later scribes inserted years after the originals) Paul has said "raised" over and over. Then in v 45 he gets more specific and says that Adam "became a living being (soul)." That is the fact that Adam was created as such by God. And immediately, it says, "the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." And this is a parallel to "raised in the earlier parts of the passage. "Became" is parallel to "raised," and the "becames" (actually only one stated, but the other implied) are parallel to what is sown v what is raised in resurrection. And the thought is to give this observation of a resurrected body as an example of the one that the rest of us will receive. And since we are not going to become the Holy Spirit, that is out of bounds of what Paul is discussing. Therefore highly implausible as a meaning of this particular snippet within the discussion.

In fact, prior to this one verse, Paul has ben saying that this sown-raised "process" is the way it is, but has not provided evidence that it is so. And now in v 45 he finally does it by noting that the natural body that Jesus began with was what is provided by God to Adam and passed down (by biology) to each of us. Then, in death, that body was buried. Then when it was resurrected, it "became" something different. It was spiritual. And the only example to date of the resurrection was Jesus. And Jesus received this spiritual body. And, BTW, he is life-giving. At some level, the reference to life-giving was not necessary to make the point. That may be the reason that some think it just has to mean more. But since Christ is life-giving, Paul is often prone to being somewhat superlative in his descriptions of God/Christ. That does not naturally raise a specter of reference to the Holy Spirit, especially since he did not reinforce it, but immediately went back to the "natural/spiritual" comparisons.

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.Does this help?

OBW

08-02-2014, 07:47 PM

P1 Jesus is God.
P2 God is unchangeable.
P3 To become something is to change
C: Jesus cannot become anything.

How is this syllogism wrong?It presumes that the unchangeableness of God is absolute in all ways. It would appear that God decided on creating man. But unless he was always planning it and then finally did it, then he probably changed in that he decided at some point to do it.

But the nature by which he operates is consistent and constant.

Yet he has a righteousness that demands purity, holiness, etc. at the same time that he has love that allows us to be outside of those standards without being immediately obliterated. I think we went through this kind of thinking a couple of years ago when discussing Job and someone said that there was a God of righteousness, a God of justice, a God of love, etc., and treated them as if they were different beings that were, by definition at odds with each other.

This is one of the realms in which we struggle to understand God. It is like the juxtaposition of omniscience, holiness, and the free will of man. What we do with free will must create a situation in which the love of God is strong to keep his righteousness and justice in check. Otherwise we would be consumed.

But even without all of that, just like 1 Cor 15:45, the unchangeability of God is mentioned in a context. And while I do not claim omniscience, I expect that the context would suggest that the character and nature of God us unchangeable. And the promises of God will be kept. But just like the record of God being argued out of simply destroying the Israelites and starting over, he has an unchangeable side that demands righteousness and purity and it is being held in check by his promise and love.

Besides, do we declare that when circumstances cause someone to change their mind on something that it is simply them changing? Or do we properly understand that, assuming nothing else changing, the expectation is that God would also not change? I think it is the latter. Once a covenant is broken by one party, the other is not held by it and is not seen as in violation (or as being the one to cause the change) if they choose to set it aside. That is not the change of God because what he agreed to is not able to be continued without a change on the part of the other party (the Israelites). (And when I say "the Israelites, I suddenly thing of a song from probably the late 60s in which almost every line in either the verses of chorus — or both — ended with the phrase "Ah . . . . the Israelites.")

But all things being equal, God, by his nature, will not simply change his mind. That is the reason that the guy on the other forum seems so foolish because he follows a reading of scripture that makes God whimsical and changing. At one point he says one thing, then at another, he declares something different and partly contradictory. (Sort of like reading the Koran. Are alcoholic beverages bad? Depends on whether you are reading the early parts or the later parts. Mohammed's prophecies kept changing.)

Do I think this is the only way to consider it? Absolutely not. But it is reasonable to me and is consistent with how I see the references to his constancy and faithfulness and to the situations where he either did, or considered to take a different course of action than previously declared/promised. And it does not cause me to consider God a liar to have said their is not changing in him. As with other discussions, context is part of the equation. Context provides an understanding of "changing" actions that make them not the result of fault in God, but in his created beings who have overwhelmingly rejected his ways and broken covenant with him. Much worse than the iron skillet calling the copper kettle black. More like the iron skillet calling the porcelain sink black. (Well, we actually have a black porcelain sink, so that may not be the best example. ;))

Anyway, that is my initial take on it.

Ohio

08-03-2014, 04:52 AM

Okay ...

Since Paul visited the church in Corinth, and spoke with them personally, prolly teaching and instructing, it's likely that the Corinthians understood what Paul was writing to them based upon previous speakings/teachings.

And that, perchance, is why we're having such trouble understanding 15:45.

We aren't privy to Paul's personal speakings & teachings -- we weren't there -- that would more than likely lend to our understanding.

And this is why a friend of mine would say, "You should not be reading someone else's mail."

awareness

08-03-2014, 08:27 AM

And this is why a friend of mine would say, "You should not be reading someone else's mail."
LOL Ha Ha Ha ... call the PostMaster ....

awareness

08-03-2014, 09:55 AM

First, "became" is only implied in the part about the last Adam, but clearly so.
Why do you say this Mike? You can look up the Greek word for became, or, was made (KJV). Please explain.

Actually, that is what we have been talking about. The mortal body is sown in death and what it "becomes" is resurrected immortal and spiritual. That has been what Paul was talking about the whole time. While he did not use the word "became" in the earlier verses, it is the same thing. Nothing new. Here in 15:45 he says "became."
So Paul, when he writes "became (ginomai)" is referring back to the resurrection of the last Adam?

If so, it doesn't leave doubt undisturbed, but I can except that, for now.

Let's move on to another part of the verse:

"And so it is written ..."

Where was it written? Was it lost to us? Did there exist back then what Paul considered to be scripture, where "it was written," that is lost to us?

And since he's referencing this to the Corinthians, like they would know of it, was it considered scripture to the Corinthians?

Is this another case where the Corinthians had an inside track, that we're not privy to?

Or maybe someone out here knows "where it was written?" I'm itchin' to know it.

But I may be out in left field here, "it is written" may only apply to the first Adam becoming a living soul.

But it doesn't read that way. It's written by Paul like the whole statement was written.

To be honest, Paul in this verse just isn't clear. So we're force to read into it, what we think he meant.

And that's such a wildcard that it allows Witness Lee to claim the last Adam, Christ, is the Holy Spirit.

But not just Lee, but Gaffin, who claims "it seems fair to say, across a broad front a substantial majority of commentators and other interpreters who address the issue recognize a reference to the Holy Spirit in v. 45."

Which means Lee prolly was cross-pollination by these commentators, and didn't get it as a revelation from God ... that he was pretending to have.

UntoHim

08-03-2014, 10:13 AM

awareness

08-03-2014, 01:47 PM

Please see attached PDF:

The Last Adam as Life-Giving-Spirit Revisted
by Benjamin Gladd.

Very interesting, and may clear up some muddled thoughts we might be having regarding an accurate interpretation of "life-giving spirit".
Thanks. I'm enjoying it immensely.

Here's a quote that jumped out at me:

Asher has cogently and persuasively argued that Paul uses a type of deliberative and didactic rhetoric that would have been familiar in Corinth.This is what I've been saying : Ohio's crack that we're reading someone else's mail is a valid point. The Corinthians had an inside track, based upon past personal encounters with Paul, that's absent to us. They had a special understanding of Paul, that we're (obviously) missing. That even Gladd, Lee, and all the other commentates are missing as well.

That's why we have so many contrivances on 15:45. Cuz none of us were there to get Pauls' mail. We're all getting it secondhand, at best.

More on Ben Gladd to come ; God willing and the creek don't rise.

OBW

08-04-2014, 06:14 AM

Let's move on to another part of the verse:

"And so it is written ..."

Where was it written? Was it lost to us?Not really. Genesis 2:7

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. God formed man and gave him His breath, making him (man) a living being/soul. Of course, the discussion is not really about the contents of the body, but the body itself. It is not about the soul that dwells in the body, but the body itself. Then as a result of death and resurrection, that body rises differently, consistent with what was seen in Jesus. The raised body is spiritual. That is the only comment Paul makes on the change in the body. You then have to consider what it is that the written accounts tell us about the resurrected body. Solid (at least at times) since Jesus had to tell Mary not to cling to him, and he later told Thomas to reach out and touch the scars. But also like what we classify as a ghost or specter. It could not be there, then just be there. The once again disappear. And it simply rose from the ground into the heavens. It was not obedient to the laws of physics that we humans are stuck with in this life.

Were there more descriptions of the body of the resurrected Jesus than were recorded in the scriptures we now have? Probably. Did the Corinthians hear some of this? Unknown. But they heard some of it. And probably at least what we now have. And Paul drew upon that to answer the question “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” (v 35). Yes, this little discussion is quite long. It starts in v 35 and is still going when Paul says "He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" in verse 57. Then the chapter ends with v 58 in which Paul turns them from speculations about the future to the present as the grounds for the future when he says "stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."

And this is the reason that an eight word, half-verse declaration about the nature of the Trinity (Christ became the Holy Spirit) seems so out of place.

BTW. I say that "became" is implied because, thought I did not consult the Greek, it is seldom that the translators leave out a word. But they sometimes fill-in words that are implied. Here, the word "became" is stated with respect to Adam becoming a living soul/being. But it is not stated with respect to the last Adam. It says "the last Adam, a life-giving (or quickening) spirit." But "became" is fully implied by the parallelism of the two fragments. There is really no other way to understand it. So it might as well have been stated because that is clearly what is meant.

awareness

08-04-2014, 07:32 AM

And we await the sound of the trumpet, when the life-giving spirit, Christ, will kick into action, raise the dead, and change our body into His image. And perhaps we'll become life-giving spirits too, or something like it, at least.

Cal

08-04-2014, 09:27 AM

I admire the effort being put into figuring out what 15:45 means. But could it be that since it is hard to come to any real conclusions and consensus about its meaning (not only among us but among theologians) there isn't much more meaning than its face value?

Didn't God know we would have trouble with this verse? I mean, it is 2000 years after it was written and we still have little clue what it precisely means. It seems awfully odd, then, that this verse could contain some deep, hidden truth that is crucial to our vision or experience.

Witness Lee loved to take obscure verses, claim that dumb moo-cow Christianity had missed them, and then build whole theologies around them to show that he was the one and only visionary of the age. This was one of his favorites. Very few other theologians seem too concerned about it, or think that it holds deep and church-shaking truths, which, by the way, we have somehow managed to muddle along without.

Look at it this way. Does anyone doubt that Jesus Christ is now, in some way, a spirit? Does anyone doubt that he gives life? So if he's a spirit and he gives life then it is not improper to say he's a life-giving spirit, is it?

So even if 1 Cor 15:45 did not exist, would any of you say that Jesus Christ was NOT a life-giving spirit? And if you would agree that he is, think about what you would mean by that. That's probably what this verse means, too.

Don't let me stop you from wrangling with it, though. Carry on.

OBW

08-04-2014, 01:45 PM

I admire the effort being put into figuring out what 15:45 means. But could it be that since it is hard to come to any real conclusions and consensus about its meaning (not only among us but among theologians) there isn't much more meaning than its face value?

Didn't God know we would have trouble with this verse? I mean, it is 2000 years after it was written and we still have little clue what it precisely means. It seems awfully odd, then, that this verse could contain some deep, hidden truth that is crucial to our vision or experience.And that is the reason that my general take on the whole passage (v 35 to the end of the chapter) is that Paul is giving them just enough to accept that there is a resurrection, and there is something more than just the same old body in resurrection. Not sure that Paul knew more than that. And we still don't.

And once it is all just a discussion of a "50,000 foot view" of the body in resurrection, you almost wonder how it could take so many verses to cover. And how such a strangely-phrased verse in the middle of it could be thought to house a phrase that needs one of those WWII encryption machines to figure out.

And once that is accepted as a reasonable way to address this verse, the thread is over. Lee is grasping at straws. Gaffin as well.

zeek

08-04-2014, 02:56 PM

Therefore, in 1:26-28 Adam and Eve are created in the image of God and
commanded to build a community of image bearers that will eventually rule and
subdue the created order. God, in 2:7, ‘‘breathes’’ into Adam the ‘‘breath of life.’’
The act of God issuing forth the ‘‘breath of life’’ (2:7), as we have seen, parallels
being created in the image of God (1:27-28). Though the fall obviously hampers
and brings serious dilemmas to humanity’s mandate, Adam and Eve begin to
fulfill Gen 1:28 and continue to produce other legitimate image bearers, albeit
imperfectly. God’s blessing does not flow through the line of Cain (4:1-24) but
Seth (4:25–5:32) who has replaced Abel (4:25). Adam passes on his unique image
to Seth and ultimately Noah (5:28-32), who functions as a second Adamic figure
(cf. 9:1-17). Hamilton agrees: ‘‘That Adam reproduces himself through Seth,
and Seth through Enosh, etc., demonstrates that God’s blessing has become
effective. They are not only created by God but blessed by God. Such blessing is
manifested in multiplication.’’28 [Benjamin L. Gladd, Adjunct Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill]

Is he proposing that God's image is more effaced in Cain than in Seth's line? And is he saying that the blessing is revealed by the relative numbers? But, Cain's progeny multiplied as well and achieved even greater numbers, didn't they?

OBW

08-04-2014, 03:06 PM

Is he proposing that God's image is more effaced in Cain than in Seth's line? And is he saying that the blessing is revealed by the relative numbers? But, Cain's progeny multiplied as well and achieved even greater numbers, didn't they?
I think you are trying to read too much into the theological musings of someone trying to make more out of things than ought to be made. It will drive you crazy (if we don't do it first).:xx:

awareness

08-04-2014, 03:39 PM

Lee is grasping at straws. Gaffin as well.
Add to that Ben Gladd ...

UntoHim

08-04-2014, 03:50 PM

Is he proposing that God's image is more effaced in Cain than in Seth's line? And is he saying that the blessing is revealed by the relative numbers? But, Cain's progeny multiplied as well and achieved even greater numbers, didn't they?

Very interesting observation! I think your questions/concerns are addressed in God's history of offering salvation to all of fallen mankind. Needless to say, this offering became fuller and clearer at the appearing of our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And, as a matter of fact, full salvation, "even the redemption our bodies", is what this chapter in 1 Cor 15 is all about!

According to the apostle Paul, every human being is created as "a seed" of sorts. For those who belong to Christ at his coming, this seed will "become" something that God has desired all along - a being in the full image and likeness of God - in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. Right now, this is all very mysterious and "we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor 13:12)

To be sure, to be clear, we are to take on this "spiritual body" in the same way that we are "sons of God", (in as much as Christ is the unique forerunner, "the firstfruits") and that even all of creation will be "longing for the revealing" (Rom 8:19) of the fully redeemed and glorified sons of God. To me, this is what is so wonderful about 1 Cor 15, the apostle Paul has given us a glimpse into our destiny!

awareness

08-04-2014, 04:11 PM

Is he proposing that God's image is more effaced in Cain than in Seth's line?
From Seth's line comes Noah. All of Cain's line drowned ... along with the Watchers, and progeny from the sons of god and daughters of men.

Cal

08-04-2014, 06:45 PM

From Seth's line comes Noah. All of Cain's line drowned ... along with the Watchers, and progeny from the sons of god and daughters of men.

Don't forget the rock giants!

zeek

08-04-2014, 07:37 PM

Very interesting observation! I think your questions/concerns are addressed in God's history of offering salvation to all of fallen mankind. Needless to say, this offering became fuller and clearer at the appearing of our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And, as a matter of fact, full salvation, "even the redemption our bodies", is what this chapter in 1 Cor 15 is all about!

According to the apostle Paul, every human being is created as "a seed" of sorts. For those who belong to Christ at his coming, this seed will "become" something that God has desired all along - a being in the full image and likeness of God - in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. Right now, this is all very mysterious and "we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor 13:12)

To be sure, to be clear, we are to take on this "spiritual body" in the same way that we are "sons of God", (in as much as Christ is the unique forerunner, "the firstfruits") and that even all of creation will be "longing for the revealing" (Rom 8:19) of the fully redeemed and glorified sons of God. To me, this is what is so wonderful about 1 Cor 15, the apostle Paul has given us a glimpse into our destiny!

Thank you, UntoHim. Is the resurrection based on some fundamental ontological principle? Personally I usually look for a minimal metaphysical basis that I can support logically and empirically. In other words, I want my metaphysics to be grounded in that which can be verified or falsified in this life. I am familiar with the practice of basing eschatology on the promises of God. I get that. But, I wonder if there is a discernible ontological basis in the being of God underlying the promises that is predictive of the envisioned eschatological outcomes e.g. resurrected spiritual-bodies. I think there is and it issues from the dialectical tension between the problem of evil and God's perfect nature.

zeek

08-04-2014, 07:55 PM

From Seth's line comes Noah. All of Cain's line drowned ... along with the Watchers, and progeny from the sons of god and daughters of men.

So then we are all progeny of Seth bearing the less effaced image of God and commissioned with ruling and subduing the created order? Yet we seem to have gone horribly wrong again. Biologists present us with evidence that we are in the sixth great extinction. Talk about a calamity of biblical proportions! Who wants to live on an earth without the abundant beauty and diversity of the flora and fauna? What are we going to do, fly to a fresh planet in our shiny new spiritual bodies? Or is God going to bring back the planet when he grants us our permanent new bodies? Is that what the restoration eschatological images are all about? There is geological evidence of five previous mass extinctions so it wouldn't be the first time. But , the geologic evidence shows that the restorations took millions of years and I haven't seen credible evidence that there were earlier humanoids when those occurred let alone a literal resurrection in the distant past. So, it seems a resurrection such as we are contemplating would be unprecedented.

zeek

08-04-2014, 07:56 PM

Don't forget the rock giants!

I haven't seen it yet...no more spoilers! :lol:

awareness

08-04-2014, 09:48 PM

So then we are all progeny of Seth bearing the less effaced image of God
That's seems to be Gladd's take. He doesn't clearly explain this prejudice. I'm guessing it's prolly cuz Seth's line was saved, and Cain's line obliterated.

As he points out, the scriptures say Adam passed his likeness and image to Seth. It doesn't say that about Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, so what likeness and image did Cain have? We're not told. We're left with only conclusions based upon a leap of faith. Like trying to explain where Cain got his wife.

Yet we seem to have gone horribly wrong again.
Yeah, Noah didn't fix the the human condition. So eventually the world went on just like before the antediluvian period, minus the the giants, Nephilim, and all other progeny of the sons of god and the fine daughters of men.

Biologists present us with evidence that we are in the sixth great extinction. Talk about a calamity of biblical proportions! Who wants to live on an earth without the abundant beauty and diversity of the flora and fauna?
Forget the beauty, a 6th extinction will be an Armageddon to humanity.

What are we going to do, fly to a fresh planet in our shiny new spiritual bodies? Or is God going to bring back the planet when he grants us our permanent new bodies?
May be our only hope. Seth's likeness and image may have passed down to us thru Noah, but methinks somehow, it more than appears, Cain's likeness and image leaked thru.

Is that what the restoration eschatological images are all about? There is geological evidence of five previous mass extinctions so it wouldn't be the first time. But , the geologic evidence shows that the restorations took millions of years and I haven't seen credible evidence that there were earlier humanoids when those occurred let alone a literal resurrection in the distant past. So, it seems a resurrection such as we are contemplating would be unprecedented.
Can't blame anyone for wanting to escape this crazy world, filled with so much pain, suffering, and premature death and killing, not only of the human species, but all the other species as well.

The first Adam may have been told to keep the garden, but seems that that likeness and image wasn't passed down to us.

OBW

08-05-2014, 05:45 AM

Seems that in the realm of on-topic discussion, everyone is out of words. Maybe we've said all we have to say. Some may have a different consideration. But seems there is nothing more to say.

So we wander off into Nephilim and the daughters of man, rock monsters and extraterrestrial travel.

Has this thread jumped the shark?

Ohio

08-05-2014, 06:10 AM

Look at it this way. Does anyone doubt that Jesus Christ is now, in some way, a spirit? Does anyone doubt that he gives life? So if he's a spirit and he gives life then it is not improper to say he's a life-giving spirit, is it?

So even if 1 Cor 15:45 did not exist, would any of you say that Jesus Christ was NOT a life-giving spirit? And if you would agree that he is, think about what you would mean by that. That's probably what this verse means, too.

Don't let me stop you from wrangling with it, though. Carry on.

Great insight brother Igz!

Didn't Paul also admonish these same Corinthians to remain in the simplicity which is in Christ? At some point child-like faith in the plain words of scripture has to be a great blessing.

awareness

08-05-2014, 06:56 AM

So we wander off into Nephilim and the daughters of man, rock monsters and extraterrestrial travel.

Has this thread jumped the shark?
If so, I blame Ben Gladd ... the movie Noah ... and The book of Enoch ...

awareness

08-05-2014, 11:19 AM

So we'll perchance understand 15:45 when the trumpet sounds.

In the sweet by and by.

zeek

08-06-2014, 12:13 AM

I know Glad's article was supposed to clear up our muddled thinking, but Glad says, " Paul therefore alludes to Gen 5:3 in order to assert that Christ functions typologically as an Adamic figure (vv. 45-47) by passing on his image to believers or ‘‘sons’’ (vv. 49-52; cf. Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 4:6-7)." Isn't that backwards? According to Paul's typology, events, persons or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. So Glad should have said that Adam functions typologically as a Christ figure. Christ is the antitype not the type. This is confirmed in Romans 5:14 where Paul calls Adam "a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come", i.e. a type of Christ.

aron

08-06-2014, 07:39 AM

So we'll perchance understand 15:45 when the trumpet sounds.

In the sweet by and by.

Well, it seems that the Scylla and Charybdis here, the two sides on which we can founder, are to say, "It is so clear to me", as WL did, or to say "nobody can understand this; it's unknowable", as we might be tempted to do.

Obviously we don't know all the oral discussion that surrounded this epistle. But we have the commentary of those who were only a few generations removed, at most, and were still privy to some of the accompanying oral discussions, i.e., "What the apostle meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, was this..." And it seems WL deliberately ignored this, and the accompanying humility of only having your logic and the text at hand. How little we know, and understand, even with the ancients to guide us! And how much less when we spurn them as guides!

But I would rather like to interpose another interpretive grid, here, and that is the idea of literary antecedent. If Paul was going to introduce such a notion, that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit in resurrection, don't you think he would point to scriptural precedent for it? This was, after all, "the people of the book"; all the time you got, "as the scripture says", or "that the scriptures might be fulfilled"... don't you think the prophets would have intimated the incarnated Messiah becoming the Holy Spirit, more than just the spices mixed with oil in Exodus 25, the significance of which anointing ointment, apparently, Paul never picked up on?

So what, if anything did Paul, use as a reference for this revelation of the processed Jesus Christ? Jesus had publicly taught, "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Everybody knew of the breath of God bringing life, from Genesis onward. Surely Paul was aware of the failure of the flesh and the hope of life in the Spirit! After Corinthians, probably, Paul wrote Romans, with its great passages on the law of the Spirit giving life... (if I remember my chronology correctly).

Instead, it seems that WL argued that Paul had these oracular "squirrel!" moments which were embedded in the accompanying text, and missed by everyone, including Paul (!) and then 2,000 years later along comes the "last apostle" and puts the jigsaw puzzle together. And voila, God is processed, before our very eyes. And on sale, too, for merely twelve dollars. Step right up, folks, get your revelation, while it lasts. Only at the Living Stream Ministry book room.

aron

08-06-2014, 08:09 AM

As a contrast to the absence of Paul using literary precedence for Jesus Christ becoming the one Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45(b), I would like to present my idea of John's use of literary precedence for his images of seven spirits burning before the throne in Revelations.

Now we all know John repeatedly saw visions of seven spirits in Revelation, starting right at chapter one with the scene of God on the throne. So it is important. But did John just cook this up out of nowhere? Or did he have any precedence which he would expect his readers to be familiar with? I argue the latter. There were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne as far back as Exodus, with the fabrication of the Menorah candlestick, and in subsequent literature, e.g. the prophets as well.

And there were seven "first created spirits" as well, in contemporary literature such as Tobit. And the apostle John, in Revelation 8:2, also mentioned seven angels that stand before God (cf Luke 1:19). The meaning of this was discussed in commentary as far back as the second century AD with writers such as Clement and Origen.

Now, my point is not to offer an interpretation, but simply to mention that John isn't dredging up something completely new and without precedence, in seven spirits before the throne. His readers might have been challenged, as they surely were by his "apocalyptic vision", but John was not being inscrutable and indecipherable - John was writing with purpose; he expected understanding. And, importantly, John's "revelation" was not without literary precedent; John's vision was tied to preceding visions. By contrast, where is precedence for Paul's supposed vision of the last Adam becoming the life-giving Spirit?

Additionally, where does WL's "God who became man who became one life-giving Spirit" need to be intensified sevenfold, anyway? Because of the degradation of the churches? There were seven lamps burning before the throne as far back as Exodus, and there they were, burning in the Holiest place, in the temple period. Suddenly, WL thinks that John is saying that the life-giving Spirit needs to be intensified sevenfold, to overcome the degradation of the church... ??? I don't buy it. God was, is, and always will be "intense" enough for whatever He sets at hand. If anything, we need the intensification, not the Spirit of God.

And if the one Holy Spirit could not give life to those in the Asian churches without becoming intensified, then where's evidence of a sevenfold intensified work of the Holy Spirit subsequently? Or was this also waiting for "the last apostle" to come and put the jigsaw puzzle together and sell us the pamphlets? And even if so, where's the evidence of a sevenfold intensified Spirit operating in the Local Churches of WL? All I remember is shouting and jumping up and down, but today it seems more like soulish enthusiasm masquerading as spirituality. Is that the extent of the "seven-fold intensified" Spirit's operation -- few scattered outbreaks of charismatic Pentecostalism over the years?

All this may seem off the thread of 1 Cor 15:45(b), but I'm trying to show that the NT writers were careful to couch their ideas in the authority of preceding scriptures. The apostle John referenced the OT over 400 times, easily, in his Apocalypse. There was no need for the Holy Spirit to "become" something it had not already been, all along. So my question here is: what precedence, if any, does Paul reference in his supposed revelation of Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15? Or is WL's logic (sorry, 'revelation') all we have to guide us here? :seestars:

zeek

08-06-2014, 10:20 AM

Well, it seems that the Scylla and Charybdis here, the two sides on which we can founder, are to say, "It is so clear to me", as WL did, or to say "nobody can understand this; it's unknowable", as we might be tempted to do.

Obviously we don't know all the oral discussion that surrounded this epistle. But we have the commentary of those who were only a few generations removed, at most, and were still privy to some of the accompanying oral discussions, i.e., "What the apostle meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, was this..." And it seems WL deliberately ignored this, and the accompanying humility of only having your logic and the text at hand. How little we know, and understand, even with the ancients to guide us! And how much less when we spurn them as guides!

But I would rather like to interpose another interpretive grid, here, and that is the idea of literary antecedent. If Paul was going to introduce such a notion, that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit in resurrection, don't you think he would point to scriptural precedent for it? This was, after all, "the people of the book"; all the time you got, "as the scripture says", or "that the scriptures might be fulfilled"... don't you think the prophets would have intimated the incarnated Messiah becoming the Holy Spirit, more than just the spices mixed with oil in Exodus 25, the significance of which anointing ointment, apparently, Paul never picked up on?

So what, if anything did Paul, use as a reference for this revelation of the processed Jesus Christ? Jesus had publicly taught, "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Everybody knew of the breath of God bringing life, from Genesis onward. Surely Paul was aware of the failure of the flesh and the hope of life in the Spirit! After Corinthians, probably, Paul wrote Romans, with its great passages on the law of the Spirit giving life... (if I remember my chronology correctly).

Instead, it seems that WL argued that Paul had these oracular "squirrel!" moments which were embedded in the accompanying text, and missed by everyone, including Paul (!) and then 2,000 years later along comes the "last apostle" and puts the jigsaw puzzle together. And voila, God is processed, before our very eyes. And on sale, too, for merely twelve dollars. Step right up, folks, get your revelation, while it lasts. Only at the Living Stream Ministry book room.

Delightfully argued, aron. In swerving Mr. Lee was not unlike the rest of us. He did admit, [as repeatedly recorded in his Life Studies and pamphlets] that christology and the trinity were mysteries. But, then he argued with such conviction for his position that one got the impression that he had unraveled the mystery with absolute certainty. No, he was not so different than the rest of us it seems, except for his vehemence, his claim to be MOTA, and the way he administered his MOTA authority. I don't wish judge him based on his position on an ambiguous Bible verse. My problem with Lee had more to do with how he held his putative position and how that was affecting me and others I cared about. As I'm sure you are aware, he and his followers sue people for disagreeing with them. I was labeled a negative brother by the elder of my local church because I wouldn't support one of Lee's lawsuits against Christians.

Cal

08-06-2014, 12:24 PM

My problem with Lee had more to do with how he held his putative position and how that was affecting me and others I cared about.

Mine, too. It's interesting that the only people awed by Lee are the ones who were subjected to him in person. I've never heard of anyone being impressed by him simply based on his writings. In fact, he gets a big yawn from practically everyone on that front. Isn't that odd? You would think if he was as great a teacher as he thought he would have impressed someone other than those he personally intimidated.

I was labeled a negative brother by the elder of my local church because I wouldn't support one of Lee's lawsuits against Christians.

If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is.

awareness

08-06-2014, 02:33 PM

There was no need for the Holy Spirit to "become" something it had not already been, all along. So my question here is: what precedence, if any, does Paul reference in his supposed revelation of Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15? Or is WL's logic (sorry, 'revelation') all we have to guide us here? :seestars:
I don't know. But the seven spirits of God just seem to confound 15:45 all the more. Paul's pneumatology is confounding enough. But add Johns' seven spirits of God to the consideration and my brain becomes completely overloaded.

I would perchance understand 15:45 better if Paul had said, "the last Adam became a life-giving ectoplasm." But alas, ectoplasm wasn't coined until the 19th century, and wasn't use for spirit until the early 20th c. So Paul, writing in Greek, used the word available to him, which was pneuma, or breath.

So, in the end, the last Adam became a life-giving breath.

Does that help anything? better than adding 7 spirits, pneumas, or breaths of God?

Can't God be as many spirits as He wants to be? as well as a life-giving spirit too?

And our little brains just can't understand such numinous matters.

zeek

08-06-2014, 06:01 PM

Mine, too. It's interesting that the only people awed by Lee are the ones who were subjected to him in person. I've never heard of anyone being impressed by him simply based on his writings. In fact, he gets a big yawn from practically everyone on that front. Isn't that odd? You would think if he was as great a teacher as he thought he would have impressed someone other than those he personally intimidated.

He was an enthusiastic preacher who seemed to get buzzed by generating controversy with his unorthodox Bible interpretations. But, after he was labeled as a cult leader by his evangelical critics, he began to his sermons and training before they went into print with the help of his Living Stream scribes. I remember watered down his Life Studies seemed after I had actually seen the videos on which they were based.

If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is.

It was the second of the three strikes against Lee that prompted me to leave Lee's movement. The first was when he claimed to be the MOTA. The third was when I learned that sham business meeting practices were not just a local aberration of the church I met with but widespread and MOTA approved.

aron

08-07-2014, 06:55 AM

the seven spirits of God just seem to confound 15:45 all the more. Paul's pneumatology is confounding enough. But add Johns' seven spirits of God to the consideration and my brain becomes completely overloaded.

To me, when visualizing the throne scene (arguably the center of the universe) it becomes relatively straightforward. There is one throne, and one God on the throne. "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is one God..." Pretty straightforward, there. One is a simple number.

Then, "there is one name by which we can be saved". There is one name above every name, both in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. There is one Savior, one Lord, one Shepherd; there is one Master who said, "I am the way to the Father". So you have another "one" standing in front of the throne in the scene opening John's Revelation. You have the singular "emanation" from the Father's glory. Etc, etc... there are 65 different ways to say it, but you still have "one". And we may call Him Jesus. I do, anyway.

Then, it starts to get fancy, but bear with me. You have seven spirits, seven flames burning, seven eyes of the Lamb, that run to and fro throughout the earth. There are seven angels who stand before the throne. The seven "first created spirits", according to the commentary of the ancient writers of the first and second centuries. My point is simply that John is perhaps referencing Moses building the Menorah candle stick when he stresses the seven flames in his Apocalypse.

Now, here is my point of this. When the slave girl Hagar was talking to the angel in the desert, she said, "You are the God who sees me." God sees everything, knows everything, and His will is done on earth, as it is in heaven. How? Through His Holy Spirit, who is one in essence, in function, in will, in purpose, in love, in holiness, in purity, etc etc, BUT (and here is the big but) can be manifested in Spain as well as in Puerto Rico. So in the Spirit you have the beginning (and arguably the end) of multiplicity. You have different manifestations upon the 120 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. One might speak one tongue, another a different tongue, each praising the manifest works of God.

"Not by might, nor by strength, but by My Spirit [singular], says Jehovah God of hosts [plural].

So my vision is as simple as Lee's "processed Triune God", but with one caveat, which is that I really don't see anything at all. I'm just a doofus on the bus. I'm not the Mota, so if you don't like my vision I won't curse you as a dumb moo-cow. Anyway, my vision might be very different in 6 or 8 months, so who knows? So I'm not going to argue over "truths". The only truth is to love God and receive one another. And for me, Jesus is the way.

Can't God be as many spirits as He wants to be? as well as a life-giving spirit too?

And our little brains just can't understand such numinous matters.

I'm definitely with you on the "little brains" part. God calls each star by name (Psalm 147). Every hair on your head is numbered (Luke 12). Not a bird falls from the sky but the Father doesn't know it (Matt 10).

You really don't think our brains are going to wrap that all up in a neat package, do you? And sell it to each other for 5 or 7 bucks a pop?