[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.