Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I find both I Cor 15:45 and I Corinthians 2:10 puzzling. But, you don't UntoHim. Are there any verses or passages in the Bible that puzzle you?

Yes, zeek, I find both of these verses extremely puzzling. But 1 Cor 2:10 is not at all relevant to 1 Cor 15:45 because the "Spirit" in the former is not the same "spirit" that is mentioned in the later. And to get into a debate about this would take us way off track from the theme of this thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes, zeek, I find both of these verses extremely puzzling. But 1 Cor 2:10 is not at all relevant to 1 Cor 15:45 because the "Spirit" in the former is not the same "spirit" that is mentioned in the later

Now we're getting somewhere, of sorts. The last Adam spirit is not the same as the Holy Spirit. That's opposite of what Lee said.

So we don't know what the last Adam spirit is, but we now know it's not the Holy Spirit.

Alright UntoHim! Way to go! Kudos!

And I took the jab at me over 2:10. It wasn't a knockout blow. You opened that door by introducing the trinity into this thread. Which you never tied in to the last Adam ... if I'm not mistaken. I'm still dodgin' and weaving. "Sting like a bee."

I admit that 1 Cor. 2:10 doesn't just puzzle me. It blows my mind. A lot of the Bible blows my mind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes, zeek, I find both of these verses extremely puzzling. But 1 Cor 2:10 is not at all relevant to 1 Cor 15:45 because the "Spirit" in the former is not the same "spirit" that is mentioned in the later. And to get into a debate about this would take us way off track from the theme of this thread.

That the spirit in 15:45 is not the same as the spirit in 2:10 is your proposition. You have argued for it, but you haven't conclusively proved it. After all, according to the Contemporary English Version (CEV), 2:10 refers to the spirit of God. If Jesus is God, then the spirit in 2:10 is his. Besides, how could the same word used by the same author in the same book not be relevant at least for the purpose of understanding the author's usage? If that is not the case, please explain why not. There are trinitarian formulations in the New Testament, but to assume that every reference in the New Testament is trinitarian is unfounded unless you can back it up. If you are only permitting your own theology on this forum, why allow any opinion but your own? No one has offered a definition of spirit but me, and mine was rejected. How do the theologians you accept define spirit? Maybe they can help. In the end though, we may have to admit that the three hypostases of Father, Son, and Spirit are not objective facts but simply terms that we use to express a way in which the unnameable and unspeakable divine nature adapts itself to the limitations of our human minds.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

That the spirit in 15:45 is not the same as the spirit in 2:10 is your proposition. You have argued for it, but you haven't conclusively proved it. After all, according to the Contemporary English Version (CEV), 2:10 refers to the spirit of God. If Jesus is God, then the spirit in 2:10 is his

Interesting approach.

But you have only shown what is agreed, and that is that 1 Cor 2:10 refers to the spirit of God, or the spirit of Jesus. But can you show that 1 Cor 15:45 is talking about the spirit of God? You assert that Unto has merely stated something but not proved it.

Actually, I think that the proof concerning 1 Cor 15:45 has been rather clearly shown. And it has been fairly clearly shown that Lee's version is so contextually wrong as to be laughable.

I think that the verse, and especially given its context, is talking about the nature of the resurrected body and not about the spirit of God, the spirit of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It is not talking about anyone's spirit — whether that of God or of man — but rather of the nature of the body that is "sown in resurrection." And that body is spiritual. It is spirit.

And since the first example was all he had, Paul is pointing us to the resurrected Christ who happens to also give life. In this case it would be safe to say that Paul waxed a little emotional here. He got a little caught up in the superlatives of the person he was speaking of as the example.

And with that, I think it is fairly safe to say that despite the common word being used in both verses, they are not talking about the same thing.

[awareness]

Just so we all know, in both 1 Cor. 15:45 & 2:10 the Greek word for spirit is pneuma; same same.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just so we all know, in both 1 Cor. 15:45 & 2:10 the Greek word for spirit is pneuma; same same.

And just so we all know, the Greek word for spirit is not a singular meaning, just like the English word "spirit" is not a singular meaning. This whole problem could be replicated in Greek.

If I have a pneuma, and God is pneuma, and there is a Holy Pneuma, and the body of the "last Adam" became a pneuma (or in another verse, was "pneuma-ish" in resurrection), then it is evident that the same games in equivocation can occur in the Greek.

Define "bases." A perfectly good English word. With two entirely unrelated meanings. Does anyone think that Greek was composed of words with only one single, simple, unable to be equivocated meaning? Lee evidently did because that is how he created some of his more problematic theology.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting approach.

But you have only shown what is agreed, and that is that 1 Cor 2:10 refers to the spirit of God, or the spirit of Jesus. But can you show that 1 Cor 15:45 is talking about the spirit of God? You assert that Unto has merely stated something but not proved it.

Actually, I think that the proof concerning 1 Cor 15:45 has been rather clearly shown. And it has been fairly clearly shown that Lee's version is so contextually wrong as to be laughable.

I think that the verse, and especially given its context, is talking about the nature of the resurrected body and not about the spirit of God, the spirit of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It is not talking about anyone's spirit — whether that of God or of man — but rather of the nature of the body that is "sown in resurrection." And that body is spiritual. It is spirit.

And since the first example was all he had, Paul is pointing us to the resurrected Christ who happens to also give life. In this case it would be safe to say that Paul waxed a little emotional here. He got a little caught up in the superlatives of the person he was speaking of as the example.

And with that, I think it is fairly safe to say that despite the common word being used in both verses, they are not talking about the same thing.

Thank you for your help. But, I'm still in a bit of a quandary. If Paul meant "spiritual body" in I Corinthians 15:45B, why didn't he say so? In other words, why did Paul not say, " The last Adam became a life-giving spiritual body?" You are claiming that is what he meant. He has no problem saying "spiritual body" in the preceding verse. So, if he meant to say that in 15:45, presumably he could have. Why didn't he say, "spiritual body" here?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for your help. But, I'm still in a bit of a quandary. If Paul meant "spiritual body" in I Corinthians 15:45B, why didn't he say so? In other words, why did Paul not say, " The last Adam became a life-giving spiritual body?" You are claiming that is what he meant. He has no problem saying "spiritual body" in the preceding verse. So, if he meant to say that in 15:45, presumably he could have. Why didn't he say, "spiritual body" here?

You admit that Paul had just said spiritual body in the preceding verse. Why then is it presumed that the omission of the word "body" in the next verse is somehow trying to go somewhere different in the discussion since the discussion continues and Paul immediately refers back to the body as being "spiritual."

In that kind of context, the understanding that "spirit" in v 45 is synonymous with the spiritual body referred to immediately before and after is too obvious. Unless you have been influenced by someone who argued for so long that it has to mean something else.

If it actually means something else, please provide sound reasoning as to what it means without causing the verse to become a "squirrel" moment that really had no place in the discussion. Lee's version did not make the cut. Do you have another?

The understanding of 15:45 as referring to a spiritual body without saying it is too obvious an explanation to need to be proved against a fabrication like Lee inserted. It is Lee's version that needs proof.

Besides. If you were there in that room with the doors closed and Jesus suddenly appeared, even though you could touch him, you would have insisted that he was some kind of spirit since he then disappeared without opening the door and walking out. Where is the problem with the understanding in 1 Cor 15:45?? I can't find it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

You admit that Paul had just said spiritual body in the preceding verse. Why then is it presumed that the omission of the word "body" in the next verse is somehow trying to go somewhere different in the discussion since the discussion continues and Paul immediately refers back to the body as being "spiritual."

Maybe we won't know what Paul meant by spiritual body until we are one. If then. And what is a spiritual "body?" a plasma kinda thing? I can't imagine it.

[zeek]

OBW---Equivocation occurs when an ambiguous expression is used in more than one of its meanings in a single context. The fallacy occurs when that context is an argument and the conclusion depends on shifting the meaning of the expression while treating it as if it remains the same.

Despite my repeated requests for a definition of the word spirit you have continued to use the word without providing a definition for it. Thus, you apparently prefer to keep the word ambiguous. This leaves the way open for you to shift the meaning every time you use it including when you interpret it to mean a kind of body when in ordinary parlance a body is the polar opposite of a spirit. This you continue to do while at the same time prevaricating by refusing to give an answer to the direct question I repeatedly have asked you.

There is no shame in admitting that you don't know. But, I suppose, to do so would be to admit defeat. That would be to join me in my ignorance. Because, I am asking these questions quite simply because I don't know the answer. I am beginning to suspect that you don't either and that's why you seemed evasive.

I have no idea what a spiritual body is. It is a paradox beyond my ken. I think that anyone who claims that they understand the mystery behind the New Testament, misunderstands it. Witness Lee's questions of the orthodox doctrine of the trinity were good ones for those that lost sight of the divine mystery that such a symbol represents. Lee's mistake occurs when he arrives at a conclusion that goes beyond the New Testament and claims to solve the mystery. Fatal error. The New Testament writers don't make that mistake. They see by faith alone. The New Testament reveals and preserves the mystery. But, no greater an error than to suppose one can explain the Trinity. If it is anything, faith is our connection to ultimate reality that we cannot comprehend. Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.