Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Funny that zeek pointed to this post. I missed something in it way back when . . . .
I think that no zealot Bible literalist would interpret that way. Instead, it would be a zealot who plays around with the Bible and only allows one definition of any word to exist within the whole of scripture who would interpret that way. Therefore, since there is clearly the Holy Spirit and he is referred to as The Spirit, then spirit can only mean the Holy Spirit.
And how many times did Lee actually say things like that?
That and a credit card might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But it won't get you anything by itself.
|
Lee said "Some who oppose the claim that Christ today is the life-giving Spirit try to make an issue of the fact that 15:45 does not use a definite article, that this verse speaks of a life-giving Spirit and not of the life-giving Spirit. However, the crucial matter here is not whether the article is definite or indefinite; it is the clear mentioning of the life-giving Spirit. Do our opposers believe that there are two Spirits who give life, the Holy Spirit and the life-giving Spirit? It is heretical to teach that there are two life-giving Spirits, two Spirits who give life. The more I speak on Christ becoming the life-giving Spirit, the more bold, assured, and encouraged I am. It truly is according to the divine revelation that Christ, the last Adam, became a life-giving Spirit.'
Now the two spirit argument, I still find an effective
reductio ad absurdum argument seemingly requiring a complex and therefore self-defeating response. However, Lee skips right over the grammatical problem-- the use of the indefinite article. And, I would take the grammatical question further---Paul was a smart guy wasn't he? If he had meant to say that Jesus became the Holy Spirit, wouldn't he have said "Jesus became the Holy Spirit"? The fact that he did not say that is the best evidence we have that that is not what he meant.