Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[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.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's true, OBW seemed to prevaricate about the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD and the FATHER'S BUSINESS too. But, I have repeatedly asked for a definition of the word spirit and gotten no answer. Evidently they don't know but do not wish to admit it. They go on about context. Yet from the context they are apparently unable to derive what the word means. They criticize my attempts at definition but are unable or unwilling to do any better.

[OBW]

Here is the definition of "sprit." (thanks to the fine people at Webster's)

1. an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

2. a supernatural being or essence: as

a. Holy Spirit

b. soul

c. an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically, a ghost

d. a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being

3. temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated, e.g., “in high spirits”

4. the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person

5.

a. the activating or essential principle influencing a person. e.g., “acted in a spirit of helpfulness”

b. an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind — mood

6.

a. a special attitude or frame of mind, e.g., the money-making spirit

b: the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something, e.g., "undertaken in a spirit of fun"

7. a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions

8. a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature

9. a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness, e.g., “he denied the charge with spirit”

10.

a. distillate

1: as

(1) the liquid containing ethanol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash — often used in plural

(2) any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) — often used in plural

b. a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)

11.

a. prevailing tone or tendency, e.g., spirit of the age

b. general intent or real meaning, e.g., spirit of the law

12. an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance, e.g., spirit of camphor

13. enthusiastic loyalty, e.g. school spirit


Now the question that bothers me is why you needed this? I have never shifted my definitions. When discussing 1 Cor 2:10, there is one meaning. When discussing 1 Cor 15:45, there is another. They are not the same (and can be found as two of the many definitions provided above). There has not been any morphing around between meanings in any particular context. And it has been clearly stated that neither verse/passage has any bearing on the other in terms of the meaning of the word spirit or how it is used.

So I have to consider that either you are not following the discussion well (which has been my approach until today), or you are trying to be troublesome. And why would you be troublesome in the manner that you seem to be (if that is the correct assumption)?

I can only respond to the questions raised. And when they don't seem to make sense, try to respond to what I think is meant and see if that brings out something that is easier to understand. As it is, you keep harping on the near absurd. If there is equivocation, it is in the position that the word "spirit" in both verses means the exact same thing in all aspects. And you insist that we prove that it is not (which is what we have been showing from the beginning). If you did not intend to infer that they mean the same thing, then why did you ask us to prove that they are not the same?

Openly using different meanings of words where the context calls for the different meaning is not equivocation. Equivocation would be to arrive a one passage, note the word spirit, and start talking about it like it was what was talked about in the other passage, thereby making the two into one meaning. Like when Karl Marx used the word "exploit" within a discussion of economics to enrage the less educated who would not realize that in the economic discussion, exploit does not mean to unrighteously use something. Just to use it. And if you have people providing labor, that labor is exploited. But not necessarily in the way that should cause workers to rise up and revolt.

Going back to a post of yours on the July 2, you argue that Unto has not proved that the word spirit in 1 Cor 2:10 is not the same as the word in 1 Cor 15:45. Then you spend the rest of you time referring only to the meaning of the word in 1 Cor 2:10. You don't even state an assumption about 15:45. Of course, it is entirely possible that the word is the same. The question is, what is the meaning in each of the verses. And this has been discussed ad nauseum. I do not see how you can say that it has not been defined. I know I have. Are you actually reading my post, or just looking for words that say "in this case, spirit means _____, and in the other case, it means _____."

Actually, looking at the list I provided from Webster's online, # 2.a fits 1 Cor 2:10 fairly well, although that verse may not be simply talking about the Holy Spirit. For 15:45 it is a little more difficult since, like Paul indicates, we are not dealing with something that is physical (disembodied as I think you said it once) but also not simply a ghost (sort of like 2.c. without the malevolence). So Paul is using the term to overlay the idea of supernatural (non-malevolent, but a ghost) onto the physical flesh. It is not simply either. What does that mean? I don't know. But it seems to have been enough to get the minds back to what is important. (And what kind of body we will have is not really important. We will have what we have, not what we think we will have.)

As for the suggestion that awareness made that the whole thing goes back to what is "being about the Father's business" or "the righteousness of God," it is funny that those were brought into a side discussion that was not really about the meaning of "spirit" in any case. And they were not provided as something to have a precise definition, but rather to stand as phrases about living life as sinners who have recognized the commands to live righteously in the world in which we find ourselves as opposed to doing a lot of "spiritual" activities like going to lots of meetings, and saying spiritual things as we ignore righteousness because we expect that if it was important it would naturally flow from us.

I bet Adam and Eve thought the same thing. And look where that got us.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, I have repeatedly asked for a definition of the word spirit and gotten no answer. Evidently they don't know but do not wish to admit it. They go on about context. Yet from the context they are apparently unable to derive what the word means. They criticize my attempts at definition but are unable or unwilling to do any better.

zeek I've provided the answerers for you, but since they are directly from the Bible you don't accept them. (I can only assume you don't accept them because you just ignore clear biblical definitions and go about your own way) I have given the context, which is CLEARLY PROVIDED BY THE SURROUNDING VERSES, WHICH CONTEXT IN TURN PROVIDES A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS MEANT BY "LIFE GIVING SPIRIT". You keep insisting to isolate the word "spirit" from this originally coined term of the apostle Paul - "life-giving spirit". In fact, this originally coined term is best defined, as I have clearly shown, by the preceding 9 verses and by the 4 verses that follow.

I have, in numerous posts, shown how these surrounding verses give us a firm, logical basis to believe that this term "live-giving spirit" is referring to the resurrected body of the Lord Jesus. If you think otherwise, then make your argument. But keep it within the context of the Bible in general, and even better keep it within the context of 1 Corinthians 15. If you can't seem to get an understanding of this "spiritual body" that is mentioned several times, then I suggest you do some deeper studying of the writings of the apostles, and more specifically the writings of the apostle Paul....then get back to us and make a more intelligent argument than just "they haven't defined spirit so they must not know any more than me!"