Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

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

Amen, ICA brings forth a quote by Lee that proves he said the son is the Spirit.

Thanks ICA. Good find. Right on, for 15:45

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Amen, ICA brings forth a quote by Lee that proves he said the son is the Spirit.

Thanks ICA. Good find. Right on, for 15:45

Some more quotes:

“The Father was expressed among men in the Son, and the Son became the Spirit to come into men. The Father is in the Son, and the Son became the Spirit.” Witness Lee, God’s New Testament Economy, fifth printing, 2002 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1986), p. 9 (emphasis added).

“...the Lord Christ is the Spirit and the Spirit is the Lord Christ....” The New Testament Recovery Version, note 18-11, third printing, 2001 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1991), p. 775.

“...God the Father is also the Spirit (John 4:24). Hence, all three Persons of the Godhead are the Spirit.”Witness Lee, The Economy of God, seventh printing, 1997 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1968), p. 14.

http://static.harvesthousepublishers..._Lawsuit_3.pdf

[awareness]

OBW, from what I've seen Zeek's charge of equivocation had to do with not answering what is "the righteousness of God" and "being about the Father's business," not about 2:10 and 15:45.

I could be wrong. It's me that wants to know what spirit is. I like Ghost ... was raised with the KJV ... for whatever that figures. I guess whatever a spirit is, and spiritual bodies are, they're a good thing.

Maybe that's all we can know.

And here we are, loving a mystery. Cuz it's good.

[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.