Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

So we wander off into Nephilim and the daughters of man, rock monsters and extraterrestrial travel.

Has this thread jumped the shark?

If so, I blame Ben Gladd ... the movie Noah ... and The book of Enoch ...

[awareness]

So we'll perchance understand 15:45 when the trumpet sounds.

In the sweet by and by.

[zeek]

I know Glad's article was supposed to clear up our muddled thinking, but Glad says, " Paul therefore alludes to Gen 5:3 in order to assert that Christ functions typologically as an Adamic figure (vv. 45-47) by passing on his image to believers or ‘‘sons’’ (vv. 49-52; cf. Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 4:6-7)." Isn't that backwards? According to Paul's typology, events, persons or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. So Glad should have said that Adam functions typologically as a Christ figure. Christ is the antitype not the type. This is confirmed in Romans 5:14 where Paul calls Adam "a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come", i.e. a type of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

So we'll perchance understand 15:45 when the trumpet sounds.

In the sweet by and by.

Well, it seems that the Scylla and Charybdis here, the two sides on which we can founder, are to say, "It is so clear to me", as WL did, or to say "nobody can understand this; it's unknowable", as we might be tempted to do.

Obviously we don't know all the oral discussion that surrounded this epistle. But we have the commentary of those who were only a few generations removed, at most, and were still privy to some of the accompanying oral discussions, i.e., "What the apostle meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, was this..." And it seems WL deliberately ignored this, and the accompanying humility of only having your logic and the text at hand. How little we know, and understand, even with the ancients to guide us! And how much less when we spurn them as guides!

But I would rather like to interpose another interpretive grid, here, and that is the idea of literary antecedent. If Paul was going to introduce such a notion, that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit in resurrection, don't you think he would point to scriptural precedent for it? This was, after all, "the people of the book"; all the time you got, "as the scripture says", or "that the scriptures might be fulfilled"... don't you think the prophets would have intimated the incarnated Messiah becoming the Holy Spirit, more than just the spices mixed with oil in Exodus 25, the significance of which anointing ointment, apparently, Paul never picked up on?

So what, if anything did Paul, use as a reference for this revelation of the processed Jesus Christ? Jesus had publicly taught, "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Everybody knew of the breath of God bringing life, from Genesis onward. Surely Paul was aware of the failure of the flesh and the hope of life in the Spirit! After Corinthians, probably, Paul wrote Romans, with its great passages on the law of the Spirit giving life... (if I remember my chronology correctly).

Instead, it seems that WL argued that Paul had these oracular "squirrel!" moments which were embedded in the accompanying text, and missed by everyone, including Paul (!) and then 2,000 years later along comes the "last apostle" and puts the jigsaw puzzle together. And voila, God is processed, before our very eyes. And on sale, too, for merely twelve dollars. Step right up, folks, get your revelation, while it lasts. Only at the Living Stream Ministry book room.

[aron]

As a contrast to the absence of Paul using literary precedence for Jesus Christ becoming the one Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45(b), I would like to present my idea of John's use of literary precedence for his images of seven spirits burning before the throne in Revelations.

Now we all know John repeatedly saw visions of seven spirits in Revelation, starting right at chapter one with the scene of God on the throne. So it is important. But did John just cook this up out of nowhere? Or did he have any precedence which he would expect his readers to be familiar with? I argue the latter. There were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne as far back as Exodus, with the fabrication of the Menorah candlestick, and in subsequent literature, e.g. the prophets as well.

And there were seven "first created spirits" as well, in contemporary literature such as Tobit. And the apostle John, in Revelation 8:2, also mentioned seven angels that stand before God (cf Luke 1:19). The meaning of this was discussed in commentary as far back as the second century AD with writers such as Clement and Origen.

Now, my point is not to offer an interpretation, but simply to mention that John isn't dredging up something completely new and without precedence, in seven spirits before the throne. His readers might have been challenged, as they surely were by his "apocalyptic vision", but John was not being inscrutable and indecipherable - John was writing with purpose; he expected understanding. And, importantly, John's "revelation" was not without literary precedent; John's vision was tied to preceding visions. By contrast, where is precedence for Paul's supposed vision of the last Adam becoming the life-giving Spirit?

Additionally, where does WL's "God who became man who became one life-giving Spirit" need to be intensified sevenfold, anyway? Because of the degradation of the churches? There were seven lamps burning before the throne as far back as Exodus, and there they were, burning in the Holiest place, in the temple period. Suddenly, WL thinks that John is saying that the life-giving Spirit needs to be intensified sevenfold, to overcome the degradation of the church... ??? I don't buy it. God was, is, and always will be "intense" enough for whatever He sets at hand. If anything, we need the intensification, not the Spirit of God.

And if the one Holy Spirit could not give life to those in the Asian churches without becoming intensified, then where's evidence of a sevenfold intensified work of the Holy Spirit subsequently? Or was this also waiting for "the last apostle" to come and put the jigsaw puzzle together and sell us the pamphlets? And even if so, where's the evidence of a sevenfold intensified Spirit operating in the Local Churches of WL? All I remember is shouting and jumping up and down, but today it seems more like soulish enthusiasm masquerading as spirituality. Is that the extent of the "seven-fold intensified" Spirit's operation -- few scattered outbreaks of charismatic Pentecostalism over the years?

All this may seem off the thread of 1 Cor 15:45(b), but I'm trying to show that the NT writers were careful to couch their ideas in the authority of preceding scriptures. The apostle John referenced the OT over 400 times, easily, in his Apocalypse. There was no need for the Holy Spirit to "become" something it had not already been, all along. So my question here is: what precedence, if any, does Paul reference in his supposed revelation of Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15? Or is WL's logic (sorry, 'revelation') all we have to guide us here?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

There was no need for the Holy Spirit to "become" something it had not already been, all along. So my question here is: what precedence, if any, does Paul reference in his supposed revelation of Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15? Or is WL's logic (sorry, 'revelation') all we have to guide us here?

I don't know. But the seven spirits of God just seem to confound 15:45 all the more. Paul's pneumatology is confounding enough. But add Johns' seven spirits of God to the consideration and my brain becomes completely overloaded.

I would perchance understand 15:45 better if Paul had said, "the last Adam became a life-giving ectoplasm." But alas, ectoplasm wasn't coined until the 19th century, and wasn't use for spirit until the early 20th c. So Paul, writing in Greek, used the word available to him, which was pneuma, or breath.

So, in the end, the last Adam became a life-giving breath.

Does that help anything? better than adding 7 spirits, pneumas, or breaths of God?

Can't God be as many spirits as He wants to be? as well as a life-giving spirit too?

And our little brains just can't understand such numinous matters.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

the seven spirits of God just seem to confound 15:45 all the more. Paul's pneumatology is confounding enough. But add Johns' seven spirits of God to the consideration and my brain becomes completely overloaded.

To me, when visualizing the throne scene (arguably the center of the universe) it becomes relatively straightforward. There is one throne, and one God on the throne. "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is one God..." Pretty straightforward, there. One is a simple number.

Then, "there is one name by which we can be saved". There is one name above every name, both in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. There is one Savior, one Lord, one Shepherd; there is one Master who said, "I am the way to the Father". So you have another "one" standing in front of the throne in the scene opening John's Revelation. You have the singular "emanation" from the Father's glory. Etc, etc... there are 65 different ways to say it, but you still have "one". And we may call Him Jesus. I do, anyway.

Then, it starts to get fancy, but bear with me. You have seven spirits, seven flames burning, seven eyes of the Lamb, that run to and fro throughout the earth. There are seven angels who stand before the throne. The seven "first created spirits", according to the commentary of the ancient writers of the first and second centuries. My point is simply that John is perhaps referencing Moses building the Menorah candle stick when he stresses the seven flames in his Apocalypse.

Now, here is my point of this. When the slave girl Hagar was talking to the angel in the desert, she said, "You are the God who sees me." God sees everything, knows everything, and His will is done on earth, as it is in heaven. How? Through His Holy Spirit, who is one in essence, in function, in will, in purpose, in love, in holiness, in purity, etc etc, BUT (and here is the big but) can be manifested in Spain as well as in Puerto Rico. So in the Spirit you have the beginning (and arguably the end) of multiplicity. You have different manifestations upon the 120 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. One might speak one tongue, another a different tongue, each praising the manifest works of God.

"Not by might, nor by strength, but by My Spirit [singular], says Jehovah God of hosts [plural].

So my vision is as simple as Lee's "processed Triune God", but with one caveat, which is that I really don't see anything at all. I'm just a doofus on the bus. I'm not the Mota, so if you don't like my vision I won't curse you as a dumb moo-cow. Anyway, my vision might be very different in 6 or 8 months, so who knows? So I'm not going to argue over "truths". The only truth is to love God and receive one another. And for me, Jesus is the way.

Originally Posted by awareness

Can't God be as many spirits as He wants to be? as well as a life-giving spirit too?

And our little brains just can't understand such numinous matters.

I'm definitely with you on the "little brains" part. God calls each star by name (Psalm 147). Every hair on your head is numbered (Luke 12). Not a bird falls from the sky but the Father doesn't know it (Matt 10).

You really don't think our brains are going to wrap that all up in a neat package, do you? And sell it to each other for 5 or 7 bucks a pop?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

You really don't think our brains are going to wrap that all up in a neat package, do you? And sell it to each other for 5 or 7 bucks a pop?

Boy that dates you. Considering Amazon, today it would go for $25.00. And maybe $9.99 for Kindle ... maybe ... prolly much more.

How much are LSM books going for these days? They're a neatly wrapped package, of Lee's hermeneutical grandiose systematization's.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Well, it seems that the Scylla and Charybdis here, the two sides on which we can founder, are to say, "It is so clear to me", as WL did, or to say "nobody can understand this; it's unknowable", as we might be tempted to do.

Obviously we don't know all the oral discussion that surrounded this epistle. But we have the commentary of those who were only a few generations removed, at most, and were still privy to some of the accompanying oral discussions, i.e., "What the apostle meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, was this..." And it seems WL deliberately ignored this, and the accompanying humility of only having your logic and the text at hand. How little we know, and understand, even with the ancients to guide us! And how much less when we spurn them as guides!

But I would rather like to interpose another interpretive grid, here, and that is the idea of literary antecedent. If Paul was going to introduce such a notion, that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit in resurrection, don't you think he would point to scriptural precedent for it? This was, after all, "the people of the book"; all the time you got, "as the scripture says", or "that the scriptures might be fulfilled"... don't you think the prophets would have intimated the incarnated Messiah becoming the Holy Spirit, more than just the spices mixed with oil in Exodus 25, the significance of which anointing ointment, apparently, Paul never picked up on?

So what, if anything did Paul, use as a reference for this revelation of the processed Jesus Christ? Jesus had publicly taught, "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Everybody knew of the breath of God bringing life, from Genesis onward. Surely Paul was aware of the failure of the flesh and the hope of life in the Spirit! After Corinthians, probably, Paul wrote Romans, with its great passages on the law of the Spirit giving life... (if I remember my chronology correctly).

Instead, it seems that WL argued that Paul had these oracular "squirrel!" moments which were embedded in the accompanying text, and missed by everyone, including Paul (!) and then 2,000 years later along comes the "last apostle" and puts the jigsaw puzzle together. And voila, God is processed, before our very eyes. And on sale, too, for merely twelve dollars. Step right up, folks, get your revelation, while it lasts. Only at the Living Stream Ministry book room.

Delightfully argued, aron. In swerving Mr. Lee was not unlike the rest of us. He did admit, [as repeatedly recorded in his Life Studies and pamphlets] that christology and the trinity were mysteries. But, then he argued with such conviction for his position that one got the impression that he had unraveled the mystery with absolute certainty. No, he was not so different than the rest of us it seems, except for his vehemence, his claim to be MOTA, and the way he administered his MOTA authority. I don't wish judge him based on his position on an ambiguous Bible verse. My problem with Lee had more to do with how he held his putative position and how that was affecting me and others I cared about. As I'm sure you are aware, he and his followers sue people for disagreeing with them. I was labeled a negative brother by the elder of my local church because I wouldn't support one of Lee's lawsuits against Christians.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

My problem with Lee had more to do with how he held his putative position and how that was affecting me and others I cared about.

Mine, too. It's interesting that the only people awed by Lee are the ones who were subjected to him in person. I've never heard of anyone being impressed by him simply based on his writings. In fact, he gets a big yawn from practically everyone on that front. Isn't that odd? You would think if he was as great a teacher as he thought he would have impressed someone other than those he personally intimidated.

Originally Posted by zeek

I was labeled a negative brother by the elder of my local church because I wouldn't support one of Lee's lawsuits against Christians.

If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mine, too. It's interesting that the only people awed by Lee are the ones who were subjected to him in person. I've never heard of anyone being impressed by him simply based on his writings. In fact, he gets a big yawn from practically everyone on that front. Isn't that odd? You would think if he was as great a teacher as he thought he would have impressed someone other than those he personally intimidated.

He was an enthusiastic preacher who seemed to get buzzed by generating controversy with his unorthodox Bible interpretations. But, after he was labeled as a cult leader by his evangelical critics, he began to his sermons and training before they went into print with the help of his Living Stream scribes. I remember watered down his Life Studies seemed after I had actually seen the videos on which they were based.

If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is.

It was the second of the three strikes against Lee that prompted me to leave Lee's movement. The first was when he claimed to be the MOTA. The third was when I learned that sham business meeting practices were not just a local aberration of the church I met with but widespread and MOTA approved.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was labeled a negative brother by the elder of my local church because I wouldn't support one of Lee's lawsuits against Christians.

This was the "official" beginning of the split between Anaheim and Cleveland. After the death of Lee, the newly ordained Blended Blindeds began exercising their biceps with the lawsuit against Heritage House Encyclopedia. The whole of the Recovery was automatically expected on deck, but Titus Chu, the leader of the "free world" within, was not on board. Once he made this decision, most of the Midwest followed suit, thus assaulting the fabled "one accord" of the Lord's Recovery.

Let it be made clear that once a brother decides to follow Jesus by exercising his own conscience, his usefulness to the Recovery is over, and he becomes a dangerous threat.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was the "official" beginning of the split between Anaheim and Cleveland. After the death of Lee, the newly ordained Blended Blindeds began exercising their biceps with the lawsuit against Heritage House Encyclopedia. The whole of the Recovery was automatically expected on deck, but Titus Chu, the leader of the "free world" within, was not on board. Once he made this decision, most of the Midwest followed suit, thus assaulting the fabled "one accord" of the Lord's Recovery.

Let it be made clear that once a brother decides to follow Jesus by exercising his own conscience, his usefulness to the Recovery is over, and he becomes a dangerous threat.

Thank you for that last statement. Maybe Mr. Lee's mom never taught him about "sticks and stones..." Anyway, litigious Lee and his blended disciples don't seem to understand that their knee-jerk law suits against their brethren cast serious doubt on the spiritual reality of their ground of oneness and ironically make them look like the Church of Scientology which is just the kind of image they are suing to avoid.