Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
A full discussion of the Trinity would be necessary (in some circles anyway) to determine that the verse is actually not about the Trinity. Apparently this is one of those circles.
|
But the passage is talking about something else. It is not discussing the Trinity. Unto's recent post made that point rather well without discussing everything about the Trinity. Every verse before and after is talking about a comparison of bodies — natural/human, and spiritual. The reference to "spirit" in v. 45 is completely in keeping with the existing discussion. at that point, it becomes more important that those who think something else is there provide more than some linguistic shenanigans to exclude otherwise obviously true statements from consideration as true. That there can be no other life-giving spirit than the Holy Spirit is a patently false statement. It is a misuse of language. It is a form of equivocation.
And you don't need to discuss the Trinity to prove it. Just show that God is spirit, therefore all three of the Godhead are "spirit" yet only one of them is called "the Spirit." From that it is clear that a reference to spirit in connection with any one of the Three does not prove that they three are simply the Spirit. Time to get out the "bah humbugs." Time for the ones who think it is true to show how it is so — not for us to find he definitive verse proving that it is not so. The verses all over the NT show the Three. They do not comingle or obscure them. Let those with the other position show how their Godhead stew is the correct understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
In order to do that, I would have to define what the Trinity is (and isn't), which would mean I would already have to be discussing it, which would make the discussion necessary.
|
That position would suggest that any word could be used to shoehorn the irrelevant into any discussion and require a lengthy discourse with people who obviously either have no grasp of the subject, or who have a desire to derail the subject — think Bilbo) and the regular participants are required to spend all of their time on a theoretically (yet minutely) possible but extremely implausible position. The context throws the discussion of the Trinity out without a discussion of the nature of the Trinity. Yet we have managed to do a pretty good job of discussing the Trinity anyway, and even in that pretty well refuted Lee's position. So that is a loss for that side on two fronts.
If this does not end pretty quickly, it is evident that "they" will not bow to reason and we won't bow to irrationality, therefore we are at an impasse. Time to stop the discussion unless you (generically) have something new to throw into the mix. At this point, we are now getting people (awareness) throwing out 1 Cor 2:10 without comment as if that makes it relevant to the discussion. If it is, it requires at least a decent comment showing the relevance. But verses with different contexts and different meanings are not relevant to this discussion unless established as so. Yet we put up with every nonsensical grenade tossed over the wall.
They are duds. Treat them as such. Make someone supporting Lee's position do more than repeat Lee's unsupported drivel about "life-giving spirit." (Hard to believe that it is possible to have drivel about "life-giving spirit. It seems Oxymoronic. But then there's Lee . . . .)
In short, I think that we are giving the nonsense of Lee's positions a status as something to disprove rather than something that needs proving. So far, there really hasn't been much other than some claims that we can't prove them wrong. Like I said in another post, it is hard to disprove such vague stuff other than to suggest that they show how it is worthy of being disproved. And I think the context shuts down almost all ability to shoehorn Lee's discussion of the Trinity into the passage.