Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[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?

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

YP what I believe from the surrounding context of 1 Cor 15 is that the Son changed form in resurrection and this does not have to = He became the Holy Spirit as Lee math insists.

I think it might behoove you to study what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I think it might behoove you to study what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT.

Pehaps you can help me to understand such a study, since it appears that you have made it very well to become a teacher.

Please feel free to explain at this point your understanding about "what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT."

Thank you.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you.

[Old Rasputin]

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.

I think I'm in the same boat. I'm ready to be convinced, but haven't seen a convincing argument yet that a life-giving spirit is different from the Holy Spirit. Sme with, now the Lord is the Spirit. Why is problematic if the new Testament shows us a deep unity between the Son and the Spirit?

For me it has nothing to do with Lee math. It seems to be what the Bible is saying.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you.

I cannot study what you want me to study because this is not there, djohnson.

Your logic, once again, is unassailable.

[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.