[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The actual goal is not necessarily to see if Lee is wrong, the goal (I think, I hope!) is to ascertain what might be the closest interpretation to the truth that is revealed in the Word, and in doing so I strongly believe we will see that Lee was wrong...very wrong. My intention from the beginning of the thread is that we might use every tool at our disposal - commentaries, word studies, language and historical experts. Of course the main thing would be to use these tools as a help for us to interpret the Word with the Word.

My point was that if you venture to prove somebody wrong in their interpretation of the Trinity or Christology, you put yourself in the position of trying to define something that is in the end undefinable. The more subtle their error the more precise your definition of the undefinable needs to be. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, just that that's what you are venturing into.

OBW brought out the point that defining the meaning of 1 Cor 15:45 didn't necessarily do anything for your relationship with God. I just pointed out that I didn't see that as the point of this discussion anyway.

For those of you who do not want to get into "deep theology" then I think it might be a good thing if you sit this one out. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE is welcome to participate, but I don't think it's fair to anyone concerned to use the "nobody really understands the Trinity" card to sidetrack the conversation.

I don't think anyone is trying to sidetrack anything. I discussed 1 Cor 15:45. I said I thought it was speaking about how the humanity of Christ became a life-giving Spirit, i.e. became included with the Trinity, specifically the Holy Spirt.

I know what you are trying to say here but I don't think it's good way to say it. The problem is there are some Unitarians and others who would use the very same kind of logic and say "The Son is not God, yet on some level he is". I guess what my real problem would be that I do not think we can discuss the very nature of God or the Trinity in expressions of "levels".

Well, you just made my point. Words fail. What "levels" means to you means something different to me. I'm using the word to express an idea, you are taking the word at its most literal meaning. Words fail.

So you want some deep theology, eh? Try this. The reason we cannot perfectly express the Trinity is because any perfect expression would have to be the Trinity itself. This is like the Son being the perfect expression of the Father. The Father has an idea, a definition of Himself. Because he is God, that idea or definition is perfect. But for it to be perfect it must be God. That is why the Father's perfect idea of himself, the Son, is God.

By necessity, none of our ideas about God can be perfect, because then we would worship the idea rather than the reality. For us, the reality is always and must be separate from the idea. But in God's case, his idea of himself is the reality. That's why his idea of Himself is God, the Son.

I believe our inability to perfectly define the Trinity is God's way of pointing us to the reality of the Trinity and away from our ideas of it. He doesn't want us worshiping our perfect idea of him. He wants us worshiping him.

An imperfect idea, I admit. But I hope you get the idea.