Originally Posted by OBW
Zeek,
I've been away for a few days and see that you are not really paying attention, yet accusing Unto and myself of equivocating concerning these two verses.
Actually, it should have been clear that the use in 1 Cor 2 was intended as a reference to the spirit of God. The context refers us to our own understanding of what goes on within us. That is referred to as our spirit. In the same way, God's spirit (or Spirit, not sure if this is truly a reference to the Holy Spirit or to the core attribute of God that he is spirit) knows all concerning God.
When we get to 1 Cor 15, much has passed and the question on the table concerns the nature of the body we will receive in resurrection. There are many possibilities to what brought the subject up. But Paul begins to talk about the body. It is called a body, not a disembodied spirit — a ghost. Yet it has attributes that are not consistent with a purely physical body. Did Paul know as a matter of certainty what he was talking about? Probably not.
But he was inspired to point to the example of Jesus after the resurrection. At that point, the man who was almost incapable of losing a crowd could suddenly be there, then be gone. Send the disciples ahead, then be waiting for them when they got there. Appear to them in a locked room, then disappear. Be touched, hugged, prodded, yet simply rise up from the ground and disappear into the clouds above.
Here, spirit is not about the essence of God, or about some special aspect of what we otherwise call the soul of man. It is talking about the outward aspects of a physical being that is not acting entirely according to normal physics.
Unto and I have never suggested that there is anything common between 1 Cor 2 and 1 Cor 15 other than the word "spirit" being used. We acknowledge the potential for morphing the two together into one and thereby engaging in equivocation. We have instead delineated the differences and insisted that they are not simply the same. That they are not talking about the same thing.
Equivocating would be Lee when he insists that a discussion about this breaks-the-laws-of-physics body means that for Jesus, he became the Holy Spirit. That is what is not found in the passage. Of course, Jesus is holy. His body is now spiritual (not just physical, but ghost-like). Therefore Jesus is a holy spirit, but not The Holy Spirit. To say otherwise, as Lee did, is the equivocation.
From my vantage point, it appears that you define equivocation quite well, then apply it as if it actually means the opposite. You think that defining "spirit" as used in the two different passages is necessary to avoid equivocation. All that is required is that we see and reveal the two different uses and point to how they are different rather than trying to insist they are the same simply because of the word. If you are confused still — if you want to have a more thorough discussion on why they are not the same — ask that question. But you have asked the opposite. By accusing us of equivocation, you have asserted that we are using them as if the two verses are talking about the same thing. We have done just he opposite.
So what exactly are you trying to do? Obfuscate? Act up? I don't get it. Your question/assertion does not agree with the verbiage that goes with it.
|