Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[OBW]

A couple of days ago, a lurker posted to my blog (as Unregistered) and asked the question:

Woah! @ (OBW) Did Christ "become" or not "become" the Life-Giving Spirit according to 1 Cor 15:45? I think I would love to hear your understanding on the Oneness of God..

While I answered there in the blog, I note that despite our constant references to the discussions that have gone on before, they are sometimes rather daunting to find. In hindsight, thread titles are not always as clear as we would like. And the ability to find the best way to search for certain items is not as simple as we might like.

And then, once you do manage to find it, there could be 500 posts to go through, 75 percent of which are not really on topic, and the ability to follow the thought trails is not always easy.

Now, starting a new thread on an old (or new) topic will remedy none of those problems. Unless those who participate choose to avoid them.

So just in case Mr/Ms Unregistered didn't see my response in the blog, or there is some desire to actually discuss both my reply and the parts of the question that I didn't even reply to, I'm putting it here as well. And this makes it easier to restart the thinking without it simply appearing as part of another topic.

And we might get some new perspectives anyway.

I really didn't respond to the challenge to provide my "understanding on the Oneness of God." But I did deal with the "become" or "not become" question in my own way.

Here it is (with some more recent edits):
- - - - -

1 Cor 15:45 does not speak about the Holy Spirit. That is the most important thing to know about the verse. Other than the fact that it references one (and only one) member of the Trinity (and that would be Christ, the Son), the Trinity is not a focus of the verse.

This verse is in the midst of a discussion about the kind of body that believers will receive when they are resurrected. So Paul turns to the only example that he can point to in a solid way — Jesus. He is speaking of the physical body that Jesus had after resurrection. And there is no way to describe that body as simply physical since it was not always visible, and could move through solid walls and locked doors. So Paul referred to it as "spiritual." Sort of a no-brainer since the Son is part of the Godhead and God is spirit. So Jesus is spirit. That is different from declaring that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

I know that Lee strongly declared that there can be only one spirit that gives life. But he was wrong. Jesus gives life and he became "A" spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. I think that it is also provable that the Father can give life. And he is also spirit. BTW. The Holy Spirit is also spirit.

That may seem obvious since that is his name. But it doesn't always work that way. "The Spirit" or the "Holy Spirit" are names for what we refer to as the third of the Trinity. It is obvious that the word "Spirit" in the name is actually linked to his essence as spirit. But both the Father and the Son are also spirit, yet they are not called "The Spirit." Isn't it interesting that Mr. Brown may actually be pasty white, or Mr. White be as black as coal. The name does not cause the one who bears the name to subsume all that the word that is their name implies. Neither does it deny others the ability to possess some of the attributes that the name implies.

Seems like a no-brainer. Unless you are Lee or are under his spell (and I used to be). He is equivocating between "sprit" and "Sprit." The word "spirit" has many meanings. Among them is the idea of a state of being that is not simply physical. And God is spirit. All of Him — Father, Son, and Spirit. It just happens that one of those three has a name that is the same word — Spirit.

Your question is phrased in the words of the Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon. "The Life-Giving Spirit" is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit. But this verse does not say that. It says that the last Adam became "A" quickening (life-giving) spirit. Jesus surely gives life. That does not make him the Holy Spirit. It simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus has this different body — a spiritual body — and he does give life.

Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before.

In short, Lee demanded that "spirit" can only be the "Holy Spirit" — and that is just plain wrong. So the answer to your question is "Christ did not become the Life-Giving Spirit" according to 1 Cor 15:45. At least not in the way that Lee meant it. He did receive a spiritual body in resurrection. And he does give life. But that did not cause Jesus to morph over and become the Holy Spirit. That is not supported by this or any other verse in scripture.

- - - - -

Anything still unclear? Any different thoughts?

I know I did not quote a bunch of verses. But we all know the verse in question and it is easily seen as the one I am referring to. Do you think I have misrepresented it?