Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
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.