Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thankfully most scientist don't think like our friends awareness and zeek...

Science is a matter of formulating testable hypotheses that can be verified provisionally or falsified. It isn't a matter of absolute truth as you claim the Bible is. You and OBW have your hypothesis about 15:45, and Witness Lee had his. Lee claimed that Jesus is the Spirit. But the verse doesn't say that and he didn't explain why not. You and OBW claim that the verse means that Jesus is a spiritual body. But, the verse doesn't say that either and you haven't explained why not. I am merely admitting that I don't know and noting that no one else that I've read so far seems to either. I'm not claiming it is unsolvable mystery but only that it is unsolved. So by all means take your time. But, if Romans 11:33 is correct, and "His ways [are] past finding out" it might be harder than just getting to the moon.

If the word "spirit" is a very well known word/term in the New Testament that most of the time it is easily defined by the context it is found in then it would help the cause of discussing systematic Biblical theology to provide such definitions here. Without a clear definition I don't see how the word/term can be meaningfully discussed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, if Romans 11:33 is correct, and "His ways [are] past finding out" it might be harder than just getting to the moon.

I think we're all in love with a mystery.

Embrace the mystery. Fall in love with it. That way is grace, and love.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think we're all in love with a mystery.

Embrace the mystery. Fall in love with it. That way is grace, and love.

That's probably a good idea. But, whether I love it or not, I can't get away from it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unto

Is this "spiritual body" a mystery? Sure is! So are LOTS and LOTS of phrases and terms in the Bible. In fact the apostle Paul was pretty much the patron saint of coining mysterious terms and phases. Heck, there are like three or four of them is this very chapter. But let's just stick with this one, "live-giving spirit", shall we?

As awareness has aptly pointed out, the term "spiritual body" seems to be an oxymoron or paradox - I agree. But God himself, especially when it come to his work among and with his creation, is filled with all manner of mysteries and paradoxes and such.

Originally Posted by Me

I think we're all in love with a mystery.
Embrace the mystery. Fall in love with it. That way is grace, and love.

Originally Posted by zeek

That's probably a good idea. But, whether I love it or not, I can't get away from it.

I believe 1 Cor. 15:45, and 2:10, as well as other verses Unto mentions, are portals into the mystery of God. They are portals that bring us up close to the mystery of God.

As Unto points out, "LOTS and LOTS of phrases and terms in the Bible are mysteries." (paraphrase) They are portals to bring us closer to the mystery of God. They are not scientific verses, providing empirical material proof, but rather are providing a look into the mystery of God ; like Paul mentions, as Zeek pointed out, in Romans 11:33, "his ways [are] past finding out!"

And as Zeek points out that, whether he loves the mystery or not he, we, can't avoid them.

So if we love God, we can't avoid embracing, and falling in love with, the glorious and wonderful mystery of God.

We are in love with a great mystery. Admit it. Embrace it. Love it. That way is grace, truth, and love.

But that's coming from a member out here that's been branded as someone that thinks the Bible is fairy tales and gibberish. So maybe everyone out here should dismiss this post right out of hand.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

..It isn't a matter of absolute truth as you claim the Bible is.

Ah zeek, there ya go again! Where have I ever made such a statement in this thread? What do you mean by "absolute truth"? And can you PROVE that I have said or even implied such a thing? Nah, never mind.

If the word "spirit" is a very well known word/term in the New Testament that most of the time it is easily defined by the context it is found in then it would help the cause of discussing systematic Biblical theology to provide such definitions here. Without a clear definition I don't see how the word/term can be meaningfully discussed.

Well, "discussing systematic biblical theology" is not part of the cause of this thread, and your constant harping of "clear definition" mantra is a smoke screen that has been aired out - the definition of "spirit" is/will be ascertained by anybody who wants to take a deep breath, open their Bible and actually read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. I know you can't seem to be bothered by this formality, but in case you didn't notice I boiled the context down for you (and others) to the lowest common denominator back in post #157. "With what kind of BODY to they come?" - "Heavenly BODIES, earthly BODIES" - "Natural BODY, Spiritual BODY". Sorry if you and Witness Lee couldn't seem to catch the next part of the 2-4-6 ("?") progression, but hey, we all have our blind spots, now don't we? (emphasis mine)

Is this "spiritual body" a mystery? Sure is! So are LOTS and LOTS of phrases and terms in the Bible. In fact the apostle Paul was pretty much the patron saint of coining mysterious terms and phases. Heck, there are like three or four of them is this very chapter. But let's just stick with this one, "live-giving spirit", shall we?

As awareness has aptly pointed out, the term "spiritual body" seems to be an oxymoron or paradox - I agree. But God himself, especially when it come to his work among and with his creation, is filled with all manner of mysteries and paradoxes and such.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ah zeek, there ya go again! Where have I ever made such a statement in this thread? What do you mean by "absolute truth"? And can you PROVE that I have said or even implied such a thing? Nah, never mind.

You have stated that you are an inerrantist in the past according to my recollection. That isn't something that changes with you from thread to thread is it?

Well, "discussing systematic biblical theology" is not part of the cause of this thread, and your constant harping of "clear definition" mantra is a smoke screen that has been aired out - the definition of "spirit" is/will be ascertained by anybody who wants to take a deep breath, open their Bible and actually read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15.

If a definition is clear to you, you could easily state what it is as I have. Why wouldn't you want to practice systematic theology on this thread if it is possible? From what I have read systematic theologians define their terms whenever possible, because, unless that is done, there is no way to check the system for coherence. The definition I gave --that a spirit is a person without a body works in many but not all the contexts I have applied it to. The usual exception is when spirit is used to refer to a suchness or subtle essence.

Neither of those definitions seem to apply in 15:45B. But, only because in the context of the verse, Paul is talking about a spiritual body. I do agree with you and OBW that Lee's mistake was not to take the context into account when expounding on the verse.

It seems that Paul was using the word here in a special sense. He is contrasting the last Adam with the first whom he has said is a living soul. It is not that Adam has a soul, but that he becomes one. In other words, soul is constitutes his being. So the parallel figure, the last Adam, becomes a life-giving spirit. To say he becomes a spiritual body would not have been parallel and would not have been inclusive of his entire being. It isn't that he has a spirit, it is that spirit constitutes his being. As the first Adam's body is included in the fact of being a living soul, the last Adam's body is included in the fact of being a life-giving spirit. That seems like a plausible interpretation to me at the moment. What do you think?

Is this "spiritual body" a mystery? Sure is! So are LOTS and LOTS of phrases and terms in the Bible. In fact the apostle Paul was pretty much the patron saint of coining mysterious terms and phases. Heck, there are like three or four of them is this very chapter. But let's just stick with this one, "live-giving spirit", shall we?

Well then you agree with me then. Good.

As awareness has aptly pointed out, the term "spiritual body" seems to be an oxymoron or paradox - I agree. But God himself, especially when it come to his work among and with his creation, is filled with all manner of mysteries and paradoxes and such.

Actually it was me that pointed that out. But then, this is not the first time you have confused Awareness and I. I guess it's hard to tell people apart when they're in outer darkness. But, seriously, it's beginning to be difficult to see where you and I disagree on this topic. We seem to have different methods and epistemology. But, if you agree with what I have said above, we have arrived at a similar conclusions.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

You have stated that you are an inerrantist in the past according to my recollection. That isn't something that changes with you from thread to thread is it?

Sorry not directly relevant to this thread. It's a rabbit hole that I'm not going to let you lead us down into today. Another discussion for another day maybe.

The definition I gave --that a spirit is a person without a body works in many but not all the contexts I have applied it to. The usual exception is when spirit is used to refer to a suchness or subtle essence.

You can define spirit any way you want to, but that does not make it a "biblical" definition. I noticed you pointed us to a non Christian, non biblical reference for help with your definition:

Explanation for spiritual body intimated here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rolf...b_5499969.html

Filled with all sorts of speculations and postulations from physicists and biologists - sorry but these are the wrong fellows to help us with our BIBLICAL definition of spirit. If you want start quoting world renowned theologians as a extra-biblical source, then maybe we can have a discussion based of their definitions, exegesis and interpretations.

It seems that Paul was using the word here in a special sense. He is contrasting the last Adam with the first whom he has said is a living soul. It is not that Adam has a soul, but that he becomes one. In other words, soul is constitutes his being. So the parallel figure, the last Adam, becomes a life-giving spirit. To say he becomes a spiritual body would not have been parallel and would not have been inclusive of his entire being. It isn't that he has a spirit, it is that spirit constitutes his being. As the first Adam's body is included in the fact of being a living soul, the last Adam's body is included in the fact of being a life-giving spirit. That seems like a plausible interpretation to me at the moment. What do you think?

I think what you have written here is light-years ahead of what Witness Lee ever said. The main thing, I believe, is to keep our eyes OFF OF the ball of "the Trinity" or even the actions of the Trinity, but follow the apostles progression of thought regarding WHAT the first Adam became - "a living soul" and WHAT (not who) the last Adam became - "a life-giving spirit". A few versions use the term "was made" in place of "became". I like this term "was made" a little better, but my linguistic skills are not good enough to intelligently confirm this.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You can define spirit any way you want to, but that does not make it a "biblical" definition. I noticed you pointed us to a non Christian, non biblical reference for help with your definition: Filled with all sorts of speculations and postulations from physicists and biologists - sorry but these are the wrong fellows to help up with our BIBLICAL definition of spirit. If you want start quoting world renowned theologians as a extra-biblical source, then maybe we can have a discussion based of their definitions, exegesis and interpretations.

You are mistaken again. I made it quite clear in post #122 that the source of the definition is The Coherence of God by Oxford Scholar Richard Swinburne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You are mistaken again. I made it quite clear in post #122 that the source of the definition is The Coherence of God by Oxford Scholar Richard Swinburne.

And yeah, where's InChristAlone? Swinburne is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And that should ring ICA's bell ... again.

I'm for all angles on 15:45. So far, I'm not completely satisfied with all the answers we've come up with to this point. I was told this morning, by a Church of Christer, that, I already have it, and know the answer, but I ask too many questions.

I told him, "yeah, and the question mark is shaped like a serpent for a damn good reason." Faith and questions don't always get along.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

And yeah, where's InChristAlone? Swinburne is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And that should ring ICA's bell ... again.

Awareness, it's all beyond my understanding. Besides, I have never read Swinburne's books, therefore I can't say if his ideas and descriptions are Orthodox. Even if he is a member of the EOC, some of his views can be his personal opinion. I'd stick to Vladimir Lossky's theology. It doesn't mean that he is always right, but at least his books, like 'The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church', became classic. However, there is a chance that Swinburne and Lossky had the same understanding of spirit.

Unfortunately, I can't find Lossky's clear definition of the word "spirit", but I hope you will get some glimpses from these articles:

The Holy Spirit himself being light, life, animation and the source of the uncreated light photomos, enlightenment and/or illumination, who proceeds or is manifest by procession from God the Father as another Hypostasis of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lossky

While Western thought tends towards being so highly Christological that the Holy Spirit is oftentimes added more as an appendix of thought than a crucial part, Eastern thinking discusses the Spirit in terms as being an equal in both role and personhood with Christ. The Holy Spirit in the Eastern conception, however, is truly equal, and truly consubstantial with the Father and the Son...
http://www.dualravens.com/fullerlife/Lossky.htm

Vladimir Lossky on the Essence and Energies of God: “The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church’s conception of mystical life:

1. The doctrine of the energies, ineffably distinct from the essence, is the dogmatic basis of the real character of all mystical experience...

http://orthodoxword.wordpress.com/20...ergies-of-god/

PS One of the posters mentioned that WL did not teach that the Son was the Holy Spirit. I got this quote:

“The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit ... and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father” - Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, pp. 18-19 (1973)

http://www.billionbibles.org/china/shouters.html

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

You are mistaken again. I made it quite clear in post #122 that the source of the definition is The Coherence of God by Oxford Scholar Richard Swinburne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne

zeek, you are mistaken again about me being mistaken again

I referenced to a reference that you yourself provided - I even gave out the actual link that you provided, which is more than you did in your original so-called reference in post #122. In that post you mentioned a name of a person and his work but you gave absolutely NO REFERENCE LINK that we could follow. And you STILL DID NOT PROVIDE ANY LINK TO THE EXACT STATEMENT you referenced.

But hey, you get brownie points for actually referring to what seems to be an actual honest to goodness Christian theologian! After reading his bio on wiki, I actually think he would be somebody that you, me and awareness could all sit down with, enjoy an adult beverage of our choice, and discuss all the intricacies of the live-giving spirit and what a spiritual body is all about. Hey, wait a minute...it could be kind of like Obama's "beer summit" with those two dudes who really didn't want to see each other again, and wanted nothing to do with each other, but got talked into sharing a cold brew with the POTUS and VIP. The only difference would be that what we would have to discuss would be infinitely more important.
PS: and by the way, I would MUCH rather share an adult beverage with zeek and Harold than any of the four people at that table that night. Seriously...who do you think would be more of a blast to talk with...Harold and zeek or a couple of stuffed political shirts and two dudes who probably wanted nothing to do with each other? Easiest decision of my life!

[zeek]

I gave the title and author of my source which were all that were needed to look up the definition for anyone interested. To hold others to a narrow standard of relevance and then go off on a tangent about Obama's beer summit suggests a double standard.