Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Yes, zeek, I find both of these verses extremely puzzling. But 1 Cor 2:10 is not at all relevant to 1 Cor 15:45 because the "Spirit" in the former is not the same "spirit" that is mentioned in the later. And to get into a debate about this would take us way off track from the theme of this thread. 
|
That the spirit in 15:45 is not the same as the spirit in 2:10 is your proposition. You have argued for it, but you haven't conclusively proved it. After all, according to the Contemporary English Version (CEV), 2:10 refers to the spirit of God. If Jesus is God, then the spirit in 2:10 is his. Besides, how could the same word used by the same author in the same book not be relevant at least for the purpose of understanding the author's usage? If that is not the case, please explain why not. There are trinitarian formulations in the New Testament, but to assume that every reference in the New Testament is trinitarian is unfounded unless you can back it up. If you are only permitting your own theology on this forum, why allow any opinion but your own? No one has offered a definition of
spirit but me, and mine was rejected. How do the theologians you accept define spirit? Maybe they can help. In the end though, we may have to admit that the three hypostases of Father, Son, and Spirit are not objective facts but simply terms that we use to express a way in which the unnameable and unspeakable divine nature adapts itself to the limitations of our human minds.