Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

YP in John 4 it says God is spirit. Are you suggesting that God who is spirit is not life giving? If God is life giving then that would mean the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who are all spirit are life giving. The idea that the Son has to become the Holy Spirit otherwise there would be two Spirits is Lee math.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP in John 4 it says God is spirit. Are you suggesting that God who is spirit is not life giving? If God is life giving then that would mean the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who are all spirit are life giving. The idea that the Son has to become the Holy Spirit otherwise there would be two Spirits is Lee math.

This "Lee math" is apparently your concern, djohnson, but it certainly is not mine!

I would contend that the whole Triune God is indeed life-giving. I have suggested nothing to the contrary. Once again, you seem to have misunderstood me in your zeal for something else.

Sorry about it!

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Then why did you mention it in your post YP? If the whole Triune God is life-giving then why the issue about there having to be two Spirits? The Son does not have to become the Holy Spirit and neither are there two Holy Spirits if He does not. In other words the Son is a life giving spirit without becoming the Holy Spirit.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Then why did you mention it in your post YP? If the whole Triune God is life-giving then why the issue about there having to be two Spirits? The Son does not have to become the Holy Spirit and neither are there two Holy Spirits if He does not. In other words the Son is a life giving spirit without becoming the Holy Spirit.

djohnson, what do you think I mentioned in my post?

There are a lot of things that are possible but not required in the universe. Pointing out that there are alternative possibilities is not of itself proof or disproof of anything.

I see no point in such disputations whatsoever.

But, thank you for the invitation!

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

YP I am merely pointing out that making a defacto change from a to the in the half verse of 1 Cor 15:45b is not required except to accommodate Lee math. The use of a in this verse is not an alternative possibility it is the text of the bible.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I say I've been on the Internet long enough not to take the bait!

Originally Posted by YP0534

If one were to say they are different, then one surely divides the Trinity too much.
If one were to say they are the same, then the anti-modalists come screaming about heresy.

No, I'll decline to do more than say that I believe what the Bible says in that Christ as the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit and that I believe it was this very same Holy Spirit, and no other, that He breathed into His disciples after His resurrection.

It is not my goal to try to justify the creeds or to comport myself therewith, as I recognize some attempt. I'll leave that to them. It seems rather plain to me the pale fruit of such activities. Moreover, in this discussion, I merely want to emphasize that the grave churchmen of old who invented those things were at least (at the very least) as fallible and subject to error as Lee.

How many life-giving Spirits are there in the universe?

You'll have to say for yourself if you believe in a God of multiple vivifying Spirits simply because it's the opposite of Lee's teaching. I know no such divinity and the musings I've seen thusfar rather substantially fail to measure up to something I could put my confidence in.

I really could care less where this doctrine came from or if it came from anyone in particular. The discussions running counter to it are just really weak and illogical.

That's all I'm really saying. I'm completely open to hearing Lee was wrong about anything, including this point, but what I've heard herein just ain't it. All I've heard is, well, Lee's doctrine doesn't fit the ancient doctrine very well so we'd like to come up with something different that maybe does fit the ancient doctrine better.

Well, go ask a Jesuit and save yourself the time!

Sorry!

Dear YP0534,

Sorry for my slow response. I've been out and about.

I must say that I was stunned by your response to me. This was not “bait,” but an honest question. I would not say either of the things you suggested. You have misunderstood me.

Here is where I was actually headed with my question: I wanted to know if you believe something was added to the Holy Spirit. In other words, was God lacking something that He needed to become something new that had not been before?

The Bible says God is perfect. That means He is lacking in nothing. Therefore, how we can accept WL’s teaching that something was added to God producing something new?

(BTW, I am not into creeds, etc. KSA will confirm that for you. However, I will say that I have not minded learning about what is contained in the creeds and why they were written.)

I am totally with you as far as sticking to the words of the Bible, and that is the reason for my question.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Here is where I was actually headed with my question: I wanted to know if you believe something was added to the Holy Spirit. In other words, was God lacking something that He needed to become something new that had not been before?

The Bible says God is perfect. That means He is lacking in nothing. Therefore, how we can accept WL’s teaching that something was added to God producing something new?

Jane, in response to this better question, I think I have to say that I believe that, at least as far as our perspective within time goes, God surely has changed and is even constantly changing still. I see absolutely no problem with that based upon my awareness and experience of God's doings.

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Thus, the work of redemption was accomplished before Christ was crucified, according to the Bible. Similarly, the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. A similar issue arises with regard to the Body, which is one of the reasons Galatians 4:26 is, to me, one of the most marvelous verses in the whole Bible. It's all just a further extension of the same marvelous revelation of our wonderful God's intervention into solving the problem our pitiful human condition, which was all about solving some difficulties of His own, particularly, desiring a counterpart and defeating His enemy. Of course, John has seen the City and the enemy cast into the Lake of Fire, as well.

The problem with all of this, especially from the perspective of a faithful Hebrew or a thoughtful Greek, would be just what you have identified: how can our eternally perfect and unchanging God become a man? How can this very God Himself personally accomplish the work of redemption? How can the last Adam become the life-giving Spirit? How can Christ have a Body? All of this is nonsense to their ears and yet, this is my faith and my experience and my testimony and my enjoyment.

And, really, y'all? I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but I just don't.



I don't know that it's precisely true but the distinction may not be enough to matter anyway so I'll just put it this way for you and then you can do with it whatever you wish:

I believe whatever Witness Lee taught about 1 Cor. 15:45b.

There.

Happy?

[KSA]

I felt that the topic started to go in circles and decided to add another verse to discussion. But it does not mean that I control the thread and everybody is obliged to discuss the new topic I introduced. We are free to write according to our interest.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP I am merely pointing out that making a defacto change from a to the in the half verse of 1 Cor 15:45b is not required except to accommodate Lee math. The use of a in this verse is not an alternative possibility it is the text of the bible.

Let me put it this way for you and see if you can get it:

I have pointed out that the definite and indefinite article distinction is not determinative of anything in this verse.

And now an illustration of the problem with your reasoning regarding the indefinite article.

If there is a banana upon the table and I wish for you to give me the banana, I might say either "Please give me a banana" or "Please give me the banana" and both are correct. The distinction is not without meaning but the difference is quite small. What is the difference? The indefinite article implies that there may be more than one banana.

I have stated my belief that because there is only one Spirit, that is, the Holy and life-giving Spirit of the resurrected Christ of God, the indifinite article doesn't really mean much in the context.

I do not understand what you mean to imply otherwise unless it is that there are three Spirits of God but that the Spirit of the Father is not the Spirit of the Son is not the Holy Spirit. I decline to follow that latter statement because I believe that it is tritheistic, but you may believe that if you wish.

[KSA]

I think it is time for us to discuss John 7:37-38, "the Spirit was not yet". W.Lee's pheumotalogy was not based on 1 Cor. 15:45 exclusively.

[UntoHim]

Good idea KSA!

Just as we have discovered that there is a big difference between teaching that the Lord Jesus "became THE life giving Spirit" - (an erroneous teaching/interpretation that the Greek word PNEUMA here refers to the Holy Spirit, when a different article "A life giving spirit" was used) - so here again we see the jumping to an erroneous conclusion in interpreting John 7:39. In this case Witness Lee has intentionally brought an erroneous teaching to the table, and this time it was not by changing an article from "a" to "the", rather his interpretation is erroneous because he intentionally leaves out the completed thought of the author as given in the original language.

There is a very good reason that most translators completed the author's thought for us English readers by adding the word "given"...."the Spirit had not been given". The reason is, that to us English readers, the phrase "not yet", if left in it's uncompleted form in English, conveys the meaning that the Holy Spirit either did not exist, or did not exist in a completed state. When one does even a cursory check to the sentence construction in the Greek, it is more then obvious that the complete and correct translation is "the Spirit had not been given".

Please take a look at the sentence structure as clearly laid out in Greek:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...version=KJV#39

Also, here is a partial list of all the reputable translations of John 7:39

KJV
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
NIV
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
ESV
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NASB
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet {given,} because Jesus was not yet glorified.
RSV
Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
ASV
But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet [given]; because Jesus was not yet
glorified.
Webster
(But this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good idea KSA!

Just as we have discovered that there is a big difference between teaching that the Lord Jesus "became THE life giving Spirit" - (an erroneous teaching/interpretation that the Greek word PNEUMA here refers to the Holy Spirit, when a different article "A life giving spirit" was used)

oh.

OK

You hear that Old Rasputin?
We're done with the topic.
We're moving on to something else now.



Probably ought to be a new thread, though, moderators.

Or maybe just move all of it over to a more general "heretical pneumatology of the Witness Lee followers" or something like that?

:rollingeyes2:



(The worst thing is, the biggest criticism of Lee's interpretation of this verse that I can think of, no one even mentioned because of this "discovery" about definite versus indefinite articles. But I'm not bringing it up now. Too late!)

[UntoHim]

So who is saying that "we're done with the topic"?

KSA can speak for himself, but I understand that he thought that it would be profitable to keep the thread moving along, so to speak.

My post was on topic. I addressed the verse that the moderator was suggesting we address. KSA is correct, there are a number of verses that Witness Lee used in support of his teaching that the Lord Jesus became the Holy Spirit.

YP, would you care to address what I have posted, or maybe just give us your take on how this verse fits in with this crucial teaching?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So who is saying that "we're done with the topic"?

KSA can speak for himself, but I understand that he thought that it would be profitable to keep the thread moving along, so to speak.

My post was on topic. I addressed the verse that the moderator was suggesting we address. KSA is correct, there are a number of verses that Witness Lee used in support of his teaching that the Lord Jesus became the Holy Spirit.

YP, would you care to address what I have posted, or maybe just give us your take on how this verse fits in with this crucial teaching?

Um, Old Rasputin and I were basically concerned that you fellas are merely assuming what you need to prove and now there's a conclusory statement about what has supposedly been thoroughly vetted. You both state your intention to change the subject from the original verse under consideration, which I submit is done unwisely and in error. Some might get the impression that you guys were pushing an agenda on the topic, you know?

Regardless, I'm content to let you guys settle into this new doctrine of proper article usage, although I was somewhat disappointed that my citation to the implications of that approach in another verse strangely went entirely ignored when I brought it up previously. (It is "The Lord is THE Spirit," right? Or do I have the incorrect article there as well?)

If you haven't got the message yet, I simply do not play Internet debating games even thought I do thoroughly enjoy lively exchange on topics like these.

I'm sure I'd just put a monkeywrench in things at this point by arguing yet again that the article distinction is virtually meaningless in the case of 1 Cor 15: 45 and repeating again my illustration that a banana on the table and the banana on the table have nearly identical semantic values when there is but one banana. I'll concede I implicitly make the assumption of only one banana (because I think the entailments are reducible to Biblical absurdity) but you must also concede that you have done the converse if there is going to be honest discussion of topics such as these.

But honestly, I had grown quite weary with those same arguments myself!

So, go ahead and move things along as you see fit, guys.

If y'all say something I think I can contribute positively to, I'll just jump right in with my $.02 at the time I think appropriate. You may have noticed that I feel comfortable to post here freely.

I appreciate your efforts to do your best in all of these things...