Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

KSA · 07-24-2008, 03:16 AM

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

YP0534 · 07-24-2008, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

Your observation about Christ's humanity is well taken and is something Lee himself taught. It was the addition of the element of humanity which was different.

But I'd like you to expound upon your concept of "life-giving spirit" as "a metonomy" in this verse.

By definition, metonymy is "a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated."

Which word or phrase do you believe is the stubstutional item and what do you propose it is intended to substitute for?

Examples of this literary device include things like e.g. the bottle for alcoholic drink, the press for journalism, skirt for woman, Mozart for Mozart's music, the Oval Office for the US presidency. A well-known metonymic saying is the pen is mightier than the sword (i.e. writing is more powerful than warfare).

I just don't see this concept at play in this verse.

And, not to be too harsh, but, if you can respond with a concrete answer to this question, please then also support your response with citations from the immediate context of the verse.

Having experienced Christ's vivification, as I believe regenerated believers do, I feel I do have some appreciation of this verse at least from that perspective and I don't understand your comment about there being a literary device here.

Do you mean to suggest that Christ is NOT a life-giving Spirit?

Ohio · 07-24-2008, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

Christ also became a life-giving Spirit to regenerate man, they also would be genuine sons of God.

Not being enthralled with theology, I find no contradictions in my faith or the scripture for my belief that "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

KSA · 07-24-2008, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

But I'd like you to expound upon your concept of "life-giving spirit" as "a metonomy" in this verse.

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

YP0534 · 07-24-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

Brother, I gave some examples of metonymy and your suggestion is not a metonymy. It is a parallel structure, but there is not the thought of one thing standing for or symbolizing another, as it is in a metonymy. Sorry but you are mistaken in your use of this word.

As to the LC teachings regarding "becoming", I should like to just discuss what Lee taught himself versus what others say that he taught. If you have what someone else taught, such as Ron Kangas, then let us discuss that in particular. There is at this point clearly no simple body of work that might be termed "LC teachings."

I agree that it seems that Lee taught that a change in the Godhead occured as a result of the mingled element of humanity being added into divinity and much of that was based upon his interpretation of this verse. Nevertheless, what you have stated is not inconsistent with that teaching, except perhaps in emphasis.

Perhaps I am still missing your point here.

KSA · 07-24-2008, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother, I gave some examples of metonymy and your suggestion is not a metonymy. It is a parallel structure, but there is not the thought of one thing standing for or symbolizing another, as it is in a metonymy. Sorry but you are mistaken in your use of this word.

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics.

Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

Quote:

As to the LC teachings regarding "becoming", I should like to just discuss what Lee taught himself versus what others say that he taught. If you have what someone else taught, such as Ron Kangas, then let us discuss that in particular. There is at this point clearly no simple body of work that might be termed "LC teachings."

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

Quote:

I agree that it seems that Lee taught that a change in the Godhead occured as a result of the mingled element of humanity being added into divinity and much of that was based upon his interpretation of this verse.

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

YP0534 · 07-24-2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

Let me just say what I should have stated clearly in my first response, that I do understand that the Genesis verse quoted by Paul does arguably utilize the common Hebrew device of metonymy and that an argument could be made that the parallel structure then transfers that analysis.

The problem with this analysis is that you implicitly state that Adam did NOT become a living soul and that Christ did NOT become a life-giving Spirit.

YP0534 · 07-24-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics.

Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

Please do not be like a moderator on the other board and deflect.

You introduced the linguistic term and now you do not care to defend your introduction of it. Please, dear moderator, refrain from such specious argumentation on our holy forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

I don't think I disagreed with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

And you are entitled to that opinion and I don't disagree that Lee was loose sometimes on such matters.

However, I was merely questioning whether your suggestion was "more clear language."

I do not think your presentation is clear in any fashion and just makes thing worse than they already were.

Sorry!

SpeakersCorner · 07-24-2008, 07:49 AM

I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this.

What is important in bringing this matter up is that metonymy is figurative language. If this verse is figurative then we must not take it as literal ... in which case the 2nd person of the trinity did not literally become the 3rd. He became it in figure in some way.

I'd like both of you to speak more on this matter. It isn't just a linguistics sidewater; it matters.

SC

P.S. I just re-read one of your above posts, KSA, and now I think I'm more clear on what you are calling metonymy. To wit: the "spiritual body" is the metonymy -- that is, the figure -- for the "life-giving spirit." Or is it the other way around? I'm still confused, I guess. At any rate, it just doesn't seem like a case of metonymy because neither term is a handy metaphorical shorthand for the other as far as I can tell.

Peter Debelak · 07-24-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

Peter Debelak · 07-24-2008, 12:25 PM

Some thoughts:

In Paul's reasoning in this chapter, he seems to identify the following objects/process:

1) a "seed"
2) "death" of that seed;
3) which manifests in a "body" which matches the nature of that seed

see verses 36, 38 (as well as the thought of entire chapter).

In the case of the LAST ADAM, I would match these items up with:

1) "a life-giving spirit" is the "seed" which,
2) by Christ's death
3) manifested as a "spiritual body"

Similarly, for us, the "seed" is the "life-giving spirit" received at regeneration which manifests as a "spiritual body" for us after our death.

Not sure if there's any metonymy going on here, but I don't think so - these terms aren't "stand-ins" for eachother. They are related, however, in this narrative and metaphor Paul is using.

Thoughts?

YP0534 · 07-24-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

My understanding of this thought is that the phrase "the last Adam" is a designation of Christ's human element as opposed to His innate divine nature. In other words, it is not only THAT the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit but that it was the last ADAM who became a life-giving Spirit.

And KSA's main point is well taken, I believe. If it is Christ as the last ADAM who became a life-giving Spirit, how does this indicate the confounding of the Persons of the Trinity that Lee's exegesis so commonly entails? (KSA says sloppy. I say loose. Not much difference.)

Ultimately, my response is that a difference in emphasis may become substantive at a certain point but unless we can dismiss Lee's teachings altogether with regard to the balance on the side of the Three, we should not make too much of his lack of balance on the side of the One. If the One side was correct, it is still correct even if it is incomplete.

And my intial testimony, I repeat: I have enjoyed and experienced the vivification of the Spirit of Christ enlivening my pitiful humanity and I expect that the eventual issue will be something to see one day, if not so much just yet. According to my understanding and experience, we receive the complete Triune God as the Spirit and in the Spirit and through the Spirit and all of the compound ointment elements are found therein as well. Whether one Person became another Person to accomplish this, I don't think so, but I'm not so much for the deep theology, either.

I don't have any problems with "processed and consummated" as I appreciate those terms but others may disagree. I don't know how Christ can be "the way, the truth and the life" to me without being in and with the divine Trinity realized as the Spirit, but I have no problem with addressing this issue on solid Biblical grounds. The teachings of God will not collapse under man's scrutiny, rest assured! And if Lee's teachings crumble with a little talk from the likes of us? Surely that could not be anything to concern us!

I figure it's not a bad thing to kindle a little wood, hay and stubble before the real tests by fire arrive!

Shawn · 07-24-2008, 08:11 PM

When brother Lee expounded these verses, the scriptural support was based on the word "became," that was also used in John chapter 1 to describe the Word becoming flesh. It was my understanding that the first becoming occurred in incarnation and the second becoming took place in our Lord's ressurrection; not that the trinity changed, but that God's access to man has changed with the Lords ressurrection.

I wonder how KSA's ideas support or refute this understanding?

Is the last Adam becoming the life giving Spirit figurative or actual?

Explaining this will help me to understand the last few threads.

Thanks,

Shawn

KSA · 07-25-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

The Holy Spirit is always life-giving (John 6:63). 1 Cor. 15:45 talks about Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit in the context of His resurrection, when He was glorified and His body became spiritual. And notice that it says that it was last Adam (referring to the humanity of Jesus) who became a life-giving Spirit.

KSA · 07-25-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

When brother Lee expounded these verses, the scriptural support was based on the word "became," that was also used in John chapter 1 to describe the Word becoming flesh.

Yes the Word became flesh, and then flesh became a life-giving spirit. Therefore, we do not know Christ according to flesh anymore (2 Cor. 5:16).

KSA · 07-25-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this.

I will not insist that it is metonymy. It is not too important. But I will try to explain once again why I think it is a metonymy. One of the types of the metonymy (I think it is called synecdoche) is when the whole is called by part (or vice versa). For example, you call a person "blue eyes", you call the whole person by one feature of his. This is synecdoche. Christ is called a life-giving spirit, because spirit now animates his spiritual body. I think it is a case of synecdoche too. If you disagree, it is fine.

Thankful Jane · 07-25-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Christ is called a life-giving spirit, because spirit now animates his spiritual body.

I like this statement KSA. Here are my thoughts on this.

I think this is what the scripture shows and it fits with the whole context of I Cor. 15. He was raised a spiritual body. I find the following verses very interesting:

Luk 24:37-39 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

In essence he was assuring them he had not become a spirit!

Lee taught over and over again that the last Adam became the life-giving Spirit, but Jesus didn't say this.

It was the perfect opportunity. Why didn't he tell the disciples, "Yes, you are seeing a spirit. That is because I have become the Life-giving Spirit." ? Instead he proved to them that he was not a spirit but was still flesh and bones, a spiritual body.

This was the clencher for me, that in I Cor. 15 Paul was talking about what was animating Christ, as you said. Adam is animated (alive) by blood. Christ in resurrection is "flesh and bones" ("blood" not mentioned) and animated (alive) by the Spirit.

I also see a strong implication in I Cor. 15 of something else. The first Adam was a living soul, and, clearly, like him we all are living souls. The Bible says that when we see the Lord, the second man, as He is, we will be like Him. By following through with the parallel Paul was making, couldn't he have been showing that in resurrection we too will have flesh and bones and be animated (alive) by the Spirit?

Thankful Jane

OBW · 07-25-2008, 02:20 PM

There’s been a lot of discussion (ignoring the metonymy thing), but I think that KSA has basically hit the mark.

Every time I read through the whole of these verses, I see Paul explaining something about how we will be resurrected. It really is not about Christ. He is merely using the example or parallel of the first and last Adam. If Paul’s intent had been to make a radical statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, he would not have buried it in this manner. It would have been the forefront of what he was saying, not simply part of the discussion of how we frail humans will be resurrected.

Surely the Christ as flesh and blood was separate from mankind. But after resurrection, flesh and blood were replaced by the spiritual. Now the Christ that gives life is doing so spiritually. Just as God is spirit, but not exclusively the Holy Spirit, so also Christ is spirit.

YP0534 · 07-25-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Every time I read through the whole of these verses, I see Paul explaining something about how we will be resurrected. It really is not about Christ. He is merely using the example or parallel of the first and last Adam. If Paul’s intent had been to make a radical statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, he would not have buried it in this manner. It would have been the forefront of what he was saying, not simply part of the discussion of how we frail humans will be resurrected.

I disagree.

To my way of thinking, Paul often dropped little landmine nuggets of truth into a discourse which was only tangentially related to that particular gem.

My favorite example of this is Galatians 4:26. Others are 1 Tim. 3:15-16 and Ephesians 5:32. Hebrews has moments like this as well.

We need to care for immediate context always but not exclusively.

There is always a larger context Paul is working within and sometimes things just seem kind of plopped inappropriately in the middle of something else...

UntoHim · 07-25-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

To my way of thinking, Paul often dropped little landmine nuggets of truth into a discourse which was only tangentially related to that particular gem.

Agreed. Good point. However, no major, essential teachings or doctrines should be based solely upon any of these landmines. And this is exactly what Witness Lee did time and time again. When this is done it leads to misinterpretation at the very least, and in some cases out-in-out heresy.

This is what Christian orthodoxy is all about. There are standards, there are boundaries, there are limits.

Let me give just one brief example that I hope will hit my point home.

All (or most?) Christians consider that Jesus was God and He was equal to the Father in substance, glory, power and holiness.
How then do we handle John 14:28...
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I"

"Greater?" But I thought we orthodox Christians consider the three of the Trinity to be equal. Is this one of the landmines that YP is talking about, or should we interpret/understand this statement within the larger context of the orthodox understanding of the nature of the Trinity?

There is a myriad of examples of such "contradictions" throughout the New Testament, especially those which touch upon (or seemingly touch upon) the nature of the Trinity. If any teacher, or so-called apostle, who comes along is allowed to interpret (or reinterpret as it were) any given verse apart from the standards, boundaries and limit set, then all bets are off folks. Everything becomes a theological free-for-all.

Quote:

There is always a larger context Paul is working within and sometimes things just seem kind of plopped inappropriately in the middle of something else...

Ok, agreed again. But this is EXACTLY why we need to rely upon wise, educated and spiritual persons to let us know what should be put within a larger context, and what might just be something to be considered "an exception to the rule". Witness Lee was no such person. As a matter of fact, in my observation over 30+ years, the Local Church has never produced such a person. Maybe they have but such a person has never been allowed to excersise their gift to teach/expound upon the Word of God in this manner. Very sad actually.

djohnson · 07-25-2008, 08:17 PM

OBW I agree with your assessment. To take half a verse out of context as Lee did to support his theory about God being processed is sloppy scholarship. If exegesis work is reduced to this level we can take half verses from over the bible and string them together to support anything we want.

YP0534 · 07-25-2008, 11:51 PM

Is it really fair to say that Lee's doctrine regarding the life-giving Spirit is solely based upon 1 Cor. 15:45b?

What about his coordinated appeal to John 7:39 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18?

I mean, you could almost leave 1 Cor. 15:45b out altogether to get to the same place Lee got in citation of these other two verses.

I'm observing that there seems to be an ease of ditching Lee's teaching regarding 1 Cor. 15:45b simply because it was Lee's teaching and diverged from mainstream orthodoxy. That's your choice, I suppose, but it seems like maybe there's at least a possibility of some discarding of the baby with the bathwater in that approach.

Personally, I'm not all that impressed with academic credentialing, particular with regard to religious academia. No offense meant to anyone here but neither traditional study nor extra letters behind your name makes you any better able to know God or God's Word than the rest of us poor layman peons.

I'd like to pose this question for your honest consideration: has anyone looked elsewhere, say in the volumes of the Early Church Fathers, for support for Lee's teaching on this point? I believe there's something to be said about being cautious in embracing wholeheartedly the results of Post-Nicene theological formulations for the same reasons I view academic credentials as of limited utility in knowing the truth of God. Further, I'm pretty sure if I dug around enough I could find at least a few with theological cred of some kind to corroborate Lee's reading of this verse. (For instance, see the discussion beginning on p. 322 in http://books.google.com/books?id=CEkyo7Wb7hgC)

I'll be honest with you. My cursory review of general Christian literature on this verse mostly seems to demonstrate people struggling to avoid the conclusion that Lee so gleefully reached. There are of course a few who dogmatically declare that it cannot mean any such thing, but most seem to see what it rather clearly says and then in honesty feel they have to struggle with its meaning within the confines of traditional orthodoxy. I'll note in this context that the "Open Letter" scholars do not directly address this one as an issue, although they are generally critical of Lee's theology on related points (such as implicit patripassionism and modalistic phraseology.)

I'm not really advocating for Lee's position here, although I do hold it, or at least something similar, myself. I just don't think any of us should become those who likewise deal loosely with things in an attempt to overthrow whatever looseness we have been burdened and bound with. It seems too easy for us to become what we hate.

If it makes someone happy to speculate concerning a Christ whose life-giving spirit is meaningfully distinct from the Holy Spirit who is the third Person of the Trinity, that is of course your right, but I won't follow that myself. According to my experience, that is a corrosive doctrine that will eventually leave you without any reality.

I think there is something infinitely profound to be learned about God's purpose and work in verses such as John 1:14 and 1 Cor. 15:45. God's entry into human history and His accomplishments while among us are what infuse us with the interest to take up this topic at all. If the the Word that became flesh has not in turn become the life-giving Spirit, I'm pretty much done with Him, I'm afraid.

I have the joy to participate in the living God in His assembly.

I have no more use for an orthodox creed than I do for a statue of the Buddha.

Of course, as they say in the commercials, your mileage may vary.

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 04:29 AM

I just wanted to additionally mention, since it has not been expressly mentioned yet in this discussion, that the section is clearly mainly concerned with Paul's teachings regarding resurrection of the mortal body in apparent refutation of those who might deny physical resurrection.

Thus, the discourse focuses on the fact we should know that our spiritual bodies in resurrection are to be far different from our soulish bodies in death.

Please note that the contrast is not between spiritual and physical bodies, but between spiritual and soulish.

Thus, we know that God formed the physical body out of the earth, breathed into the nostrils of that, and Adam became a living soul, which is obviously something distinct from, although connected with, the now-animated pile of dirt.

So, to the extent that there is a parallel structure here, how can we handle all these elements with proper care?

The suggestion, according to the whole context, is not only that our spiritual bodies will be different in kind from the soulish bodies in resurrection, but indeed that we are the now-animated pile of dirt as the Body of Christ by the operation of the life-giving Spirit.

We surely cannot ignore that He breathed into the disciples after resurrection and told them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22...

djohnson · 07-26-2008, 06:21 AM

YP your post #22 demonstrates the problem. 1 Cor 15:45b doesn't say the it says a. But if you repeat something over enough times as Lee did then in people's heads a can change to the.

Here is the argument Lee made: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Therefore 1 Cor 15:45b refers to the Holy Spirit. Here is my argument: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Did the Son change form after the resurrection? Yes. Was this change demonstrated for 40 days on earth? Yes. Can the Son change form without becoming the Holy Spirit? Yes.

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP your post #22 demonstrates the problem. 1 Cor 15:45b doesn't say the it says a. But if you repeat something over enough times as Lee did then in people's heads a can change to the.

Here is the argument Lee made: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Therefore 1 Cor 15:45b refers to the Holy Spirit. Here is my argument: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Did the Son change form after the resurrection? Yes. Was this change demonstrated for 40 days on earth? Yes. Can the Son change form without becoming the Holy Spirit? Yes.

Yes, I can see the distinction between the definite and indefinite articles, djohnson, although I think you make too much of it here.

Nevertheless, my only response to your last question is that the Lord is the Spirit. But if you'd like to change "the" into "a" to suit your position, feel free to do so. I'll not argue that bit further.

djohnson · 07-26-2008, 08:54 AM

YP we are discussing 1 Cor 15:45b and the verse we are discussing uses a not the so I would say it is quite a big distinction since after all its the bible. The first discipline of an exegete is to exegesis the verse within the context it was written textually. Stringing a few half verses together to form a theological position makes the bible subject to us instead of us subjecting our minds to it.

Please allow me to offer another comment. One of Lee's supposedly revolutionary theological breakthroughs was that the Triune God lives in us. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit live in me then why would the Son have to become the Holy Spirit?

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP we are discussing 1 Cor 15:45b and the verse we are discussing uses a not the so I would say it is quite a big distinction since after all its the bible. The first discipline of an exegete is to exegesis the verse within the context it was written textually. Stringing a few half verses together to form a theological position makes the bible subject to us instead of us subjecting our minds to it.

Please allow me to offer another comment. One of Lee's supposedly revolutionary theological breakthroughs was that the Triune God lives in us. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit live in me then why would the Son have to become the Holy Spirit?

Yes, I said I understood your point.
Apparently you failed to understand mine.

That is OK!

Thankful Jane · 07-26-2008, 10:55 AM

Dear YP0534,

All of us that embraced Lee's teaching believed that Christ became the Life-giving Spirit. He told us that the LGS (life-giving Spirit) had something new added to it, that is, Christ's resurrected humanity.

So the question then becomes: is the Life-Giving Spirit different from the Holy Spirit?

What say you?

Thankful Jane

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear YP0534,

All of us that embraced Lee's teaching believed that Christ became the Life-giving Spirit. He told us that the LGS (life-giving Spirit) had something new added to it, that is, Christ's resurrected humanity.

So the question then becomes: is the Life-Giving Spirit different from the Holy Spirit?

What say you?

Thankful Jane

I say I've been on the Internet long enough not to take the bait!

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!

djohnson · 07-26-2008, 12:48 PM

YP in John 4 it says God is spirit. Are you suggesting that God who is spirit is not life giving? If God is life giving then that would mean the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who are all spirit are life giving. The idea that the Son has to become the Holy Spirit otherwise there would be two Spirits is Lee math.

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP in John 4 it says God is spirit. Are you suggesting that God who is spirit is not life giving? If God is life giving then that would mean the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who are all spirit are life giving. The idea that the Son has to become the Holy Spirit otherwise there would be two Spirits is Lee math.

This "Lee math" is apparently your concern, djohnson, but it certainly is not mine!

I would contend that the whole Triune God is indeed life-giving. I have suggested nothing to the contrary. Once again, you seem to have misunderstood me in your zeal for something else.

Sorry about it!

djohnson · 07-26-2008, 03:13 PM

Then why did you mention it in your post YP? If the whole Triune God is life-giving then why the issue about there having to be two Spirits? The Son does not have to become the Holy Spirit and neither are there two Holy Spirits if He does not. In other words the Son is a life giving spirit without becoming the Holy Spirit.

YP0534 · 07-26-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Then why did you mention it in your post YP? If the whole Triune God is life-giving then why the issue about there having to be two Spirits? The Son does not have to become the Holy Spirit and neither are there two Holy Spirits if He does not. In other words the Son is a life giving spirit without becoming the Holy Spirit.

djohnson, what do you think I mentioned in my post?

There are a lot of things that are possible but not required in the universe. Pointing out that there are alternative possibilities is not of itself proof or disproof of anything.

I see no point in such disputations whatsoever.

But, thank you for the invitation!

djohnson · 07-26-2008, 07:30 PM

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 · 07-26-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I say I've been on the Internet long enough not to take the bait!

Quote:

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 · 07-27-2008, 03:50 AM

Quote:

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.

YP0534 · 07-27-2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-27-2008, 07:31 AM

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 · 07-27-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

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.

KSA · 07-27-2008, 11:08 AM

I think this commentary from John Gill will add to our discussion:

...now he is made "a quickening spirit"; which some understand of the Holy Spirit, which filled the human nature of Christ, raised him from the dead, and will quicken our mortal bodies at the last day; others of the divine nature of Christ, to which his flesh, or human nature, was united; and which gave life, rigour, and virtue, to all his actions and sufferings, as man; and by which he was quickened, when put to death in the flesh, and by which he will quicken others another day: though rather I think it is to be understood of his spiritual body, of his body, not as it was made of the virgin, for that was a natural, or an animal one; it was conceived and bred, and born as animal bodies are; it grew and increased, and was nourished with meat and drink, and sleep and rest; and was subject to infirmities, and to death itself, as our bodies be; but it is to be understood of it as raised from the dead, when it was made a spiritual body, for which reason it is called a "spirit": not that it was changed into a spirit, for it still remained flesh and blood; but because it was no more supported in an animal way; nor subject to those weaknesses that animal bodies are, but lives as spirits, or angels do; and a quickening one, not only because it has life itself, but because by virtue of the saints' union to it, as it subsists in the divine person of the Son of God, their bodies will be quickened at the last day, and made like unto it, spiritual bodies; also because he lives in his body as a spiritual one, they shall live in theirs as spiritual ones: and so the apostle shows, that there is a spiritual, as well as an animal body; that as the first man's body, even before the fall, was an animal or natural one; the last Adam's body upon his resurrection is a spiritual and life giving one, as the Syriac version renders it...

djohnson · 07-27-2008, 11:12 AM

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

Old Rasputin · 07-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-27-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

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.

YP0534 · 07-27-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

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.

Thanks for the props, OR.

djohnson · 07-27-2008, 12:18 PM

Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot.

Arizona · 07-27-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot.

With no small amount of fear and trepidation I join this discussion.

djohnson's point here seems to be the central concept that I have wrestled with in trying to understand.

2 ideas: I have always appreciated W Lee's teaching re the Sons incarnation being not just from the Father but "from-with" the Father. The Bible tells us that the Comforter was sent from the Father and from the Son. The Lord Jesus tells us "I am coming to you". So, the Spirit comes, again, "from-with" the Father, and "from-with" the Son. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in us! So the Triune God is in us, but not separated or apart from one another. The question for me has always been this: Is this concept one of Oneness, ie union or one of "one and the same", without distinction?

Second, we are told that there is one mediator between God and man and that one is the man Christ Jesus. The Man. It seems this must be a present spiritual reality in order that we humans may experience and enjoy that which the Lord accomplished on the cross so somehow the humanity of Jesus must be involved spiritually.

I hope I have made some sense. My thoughts dont always translate on paper as I would like.

I would appreciate commentary,,,,, I just ask for love and mercy!!

Paul Miletus · 07-27-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

I beg to disagree with your second paragraph posting as shown above.

The local church or Brother Witness Lee has never taught that there was "a change in the Godhead". WL was very careful to state the following in contrast with your statement:

Quote:

The Compound Spirit

This life-giving Spirit is the all-inclusive, compound Spirit typified by the compound anointing ointment in Exodus 30:23-25. Now the Spirit is no longer just the Spirit of God typified by the olive oil but is the compound Spirit typified by the ointment formed by compounding a hin of olive oil with four spices—myrrh and cinnamon (signifying Christ's death with its effectiveness) and calamus and cassia (signifying Christ's resurrection with its power). As the compounded, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit, He is now an ointment compounded with the four factors of God, man, Christ's death, and Christ's resurrection.

Christ's Two Becomings

The compounding of the Spirit took place when Christ as the last Adam became the life-giving Spirit. This becoming was not a simple matter. As we pointed out in the previous message, Christ has passed through two becomings. The first becoming was His incarnation: "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). This becoming was rather simple, for it involved the entering of divinity into humanity and the mingling of divinity with humanity, but it did not include either death or resurrection. Christ's second becoming was His becoming in resurrection: "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45b). This becoming was quite complicated because it included divinity, humanity, Christ's death, and Christ's resurrection.

[Excerpts: Incarnation, Inclusion and Intensification. By Witness Lee]

Paul Miletus · 07-27-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I like this statement KSA. Here are my thoughts on this.

I think this is what the scripture shows and it fits with the whole context of I Cor. 15. He was raised a spiritual body. I find the following verses very interesting:

Luk 24:37-39 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

In essence he was assuring them he had not become a spirit!

Lee taught over and over again that the last Adam became the life-giving Spirit, but Jesus didn't say this.

It was the perfect opportunity. Why didn't he tell the disciples, "Yes, you are seeing a spirit. That is because I have become the Life-giving Spirit." ? Instead he proved to them that he was not a spirit but was still flesh and bones, a spiritual body.

This was the clencher for me, that in I Cor. 15 Paul was talking about what was animating Christ, as you said. Adam is animated (alive) by blood. Christ in resurrection is "flesh and bones" ("blood" not mentioned) and animated (alive) by the Spirit.

I also see a strong implication in I Cor. 15 of something else. The first Adam was a living soul, and, clearly, like him we all are living souls. The Bible says that when we see the Lord, the second man, as He is, we will be like Him. By following through with the parallel Paul was making, couldn't he have been showing that in resurrection we too will have flesh and bones and be animated (alive) by the Spirit?

Thankful Jane

I believe it is far beyond with our imagination that in the Lord Jesus Christ resurrection he was being animated by the Spirit. This kind of concept is totally contradicting the very Scripture as shown below:

Quote:

John 20
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

The Scriptures tell us clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ is BOTH Man and God (Spirit). As a Man, "he showed them his hands and side" and the disciples "saw the Lord". As God (Spirit), He was able to be with the disciples though the doors were locked where they were staying. He became omnipresent. In addition, as God (Spirit) "he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit"."

This series of event in John 20 does not convince me that the Lord Jesus Christ was being animated by the Spirit as suggested by other posters. In fact, John 20 was the fulfillment of the Lord Jesus Christ earlier statements in the following scriptures:

Quote:

John 14
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

The Lord Jesus Christ was able to breathe on the disciples and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" because the "another Counselor" mentioned in John 14:16 is He Himself as "the Spirit of truth". Notice verse 17 that "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him." In addition, the Lord Jesus said to the disciples "But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." How can the disciples know "him" ("another Counselor") if at that time the Lord Jesus Christ was about to ask the Father to send "the Spirit of truth". The key words is "But you know him, for he lives with you." Who lives with the disciples but no other than the Lord Jesus Christ. At that time, the Lord Jesus Christ was "Immanuel" (God is with us); but after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus He became a life-giving Spirit in order for him to be IN us. This is the very reason why the Lord Jesus Christ said "and will be in you" (future tense) which was fulfilled in John 20:22.

Look! The Lord Jesus Christ has even affirmed to the disciples in verse 18 that "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." The "another Comforter" is no other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!

Therefore, 1Corinthians 15:45 "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" is not an animation of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ is the real ALL-INCLUSIVE SPIRIT! The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit! Hallelujah! Amen.

djohnson · 07-28-2008, 06:39 AM

PaulM is there such a thing as a Spirit who is not all-inclusive?

OBW · 07-28-2008, 07:08 AM

DJ,

Are you suggesting that the Spirit is fully inclusive of everything and there is not a separate “all-inclusive Spirit”? I banish you to the LSM dungeon to work the printing presses for the rest of your life!!

All kidding aside. This LC lexicon of alternate terminology for normal things needs to be ripped-up one term at a time. It is a blight on any possible oneness.

Keep up the good work.

KSA · 07-28-2008, 07:15 AM

I think it is time for us to discuss John 7:37-38, "the Spirit was not yet". W.Lee's pheumotalogy was not based on 1 Cor. 15:45 exclusively.

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 08:48 AM

Good idea KSA!

Just as we have discovered that there is a big difference between teaching that the Lord Jesus "became THE life giving Spirit" - (an erroneous teaching/interpretation that the Greek word PNEUMA here refers to the Holy Spirit, when a different article "A life giving spirit" was used) - so here again we see the jumping to an erroneous conclusion in interpreting John 7:39. In this case Witness Lee has intentionally brought an erroneous teaching to the table, and this time it was not by changing an article from "a" to "the", rather his interpretation is erroneous because he intentionally leaves out the completed thought of the author as given in the original language.

There is a very good reason that most translators completed the author's thought for us English readers by adding the word "given"...."the Spirit had not been given". The reason is, that to us English readers, the phrase "not yet", if left in it's uncompleted form in English, conveys the meaning that the Holy Spirit either did not exist, or did not exist in a completed state. When one does even a cursory check to the sentence construction in the Greek, it is more then obvious that the complete and correct translation is "the Spirit had not been given".

Please take a look at the sentence structure as clearly laid out in Greek:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...version=KJV#39

Also, here is a partial list of all the reputable translations of John 7:39

KJV
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
NIV
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
ESV
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NASB
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet {given,} because Jesus was not yet glorified.
RSV
Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
ASV
But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet [given]; because Jesus was not yet
glorified.
Webster
(But this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

YP0534 · 07-28-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good idea KSA!

Just as we have discovered that there is a big difference between teaching that the Lord Jesus "became THE life giving Spirit" - (an erroneous teaching/interpretation that the Greek word PNEUMA here refers to the Holy Spirit, when a different article "A life giving spirit" was used)

oh.

OK

You hear that Old Rasputin?
We're done with the topic.
We're moving on to something else now.

Probably ought to be a new thread, though, moderators.

Or maybe just move all of it over to a more general "heretical pneumatology of the Witness Lee followers" or something like that?

:rollingeyes2:

(The worst thing is, the biggest criticism of Lee's interpretation of this verse that I can think of, no one even mentioned because of this "discovery" about definite versus indefinite articles. But I'm not bringing it up now. Too late!)

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 11:00 AM

So who is saying that "we're done with the topic"?

KSA can speak for himself, but I understand that he thought that it would be profitable to keep the thread moving along, so to speak.

My post was on topic. I addressed the verse that the moderator was suggesting we address. KSA is correct, there are a number of verses that Witness Lee used in support of his teaching that the Lord Jesus became the Holy Spirit.

YP, would you care to address what I have posted, or maybe just give us your take on how this verse fits in with this crucial teaching?

KSA · 07-28-2008, 11:09 AM

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 · 07-28-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So who is saying that "we're done with the topic"?

KSA can speak for himself, but I understand that he thought that it would be profitable to keep the thread moving along, so to speak.

My post was on topic. I addressed the verse that the moderator was suggesting we address. KSA is correct, there are a number of verses that Witness Lee used in support of his teaching that the Lord Jesus became the Holy Spirit.

YP, would you care to address what I have posted, or maybe just give us your take on how this verse fits in with this crucial teaching?

Um, Old Rasputin and I were basically concerned that you fellas are merely assuming what you need to prove and now there's a conclusory statement about what has supposedly been thoroughly vetted. You both state your intention to change the subject from the original verse under consideration, which I submit is done unwisely and in error. Some might get the impression that you guys were pushing an agenda on the topic, you know?

Regardless, I'm content to let you guys settle into this new doctrine of proper article usage, although I was somewhat disappointed that my citation to the implications of that approach in another verse strangely went entirely ignored when I brought it up previously. (It is "The Lord is THE Spirit," right? Or do I have the incorrect article there as well?)

If you haven't got the message yet, I simply do not play Internet debating games even thought I do thoroughly enjoy lively exchange on topics like these.

I'm sure I'd just put a monkeywrench in things at this point by arguing yet again that the article distinction is virtually meaningless in the case of 1 Cor 15: 45 and repeating again my illustration that a banana on the table and the banana on the table have nearly identical semantic values when there is but one banana. I'll concede I implicitly make the assumption of only one banana (because I think the entailments are reducible to Biblical absurdity) but you must also concede that you have done the converse if there is going to be honest discussion of topics such as these.

But honestly, I had grown quite weary with those same arguments myself!

So, go ahead and move things along as you see fit, guys.

If y'all say something I think I can contribute positively to, I'll just jump right in with my $.02 at the time I think appropriate. You may have noticed that I feel comfortable to post here freely.

I appreciate your efforts to do your best in all of these things...

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

The Lord Jesus Christ was able to breathe on the disciples and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" ....Therefore, 1Corinthians 15:45 "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" is not an animation of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ is the real ALL-INCLUSIVE SPIRIT! The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit! Hallelujah! Amen.

Dear Paul M,

The verse that says Christ breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" is perfectly true. This is in no way contradictory with the idea that the new physical being of Christ (the one in resurrection) was alive by the Spirit. He was clearly alive by the power of the Holy Spirit that raised him from the dead. He was clearly able to give this Spirit, the Holy Spirit, to the disciples, He had authority to do that because He had paid the debt for sin and removed the hindrance to this being done. The Spirit could not be given to man (John 7:39) until the sin debt was paid.

Here is the problem with your oracle’s teaching, as I have told you, I believe, at other times:

Here are Witness Lee's words: “In His resurrection a life-giving Spirit was produced (1 Cor. 15:45). Before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe. John 7:39 says that ‘the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified’; that is, Jesus had not yet entered into resurrection (Luke 24:26). On the day that He entered into resurrection, the life-giving Spirit was produced.” Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God’s Relationship with Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), p. 40.

This is a false teaching. The Holy Spirit existed in completeness before the resurrection of Christ and it could "give life" before the resurrection of Christ:

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Look closely at this verse. This Spirit -- the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead -- is the one Paul says is in us today! And it clearly was already in existence before Christ was raised from the dead. So, what spirit then is “the Life Giving Spirit” that Lee is referring to when he says “before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe?” Lee says “the life giving Spirit” was "produced" on the day Christ entered into resurrection.” Re-read what Lee said. He plainly said this. I am not twisting his words in any way but calling them out for what they actually say.

Lee’s teaching is a false teaching. According to his very own words the Spirit he is talking about in I Corinthians 15:45b cannot be the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not produced on that day.

If he did not mean to teach this, and maybe he didn’t, then he clearly made a big mistake in what he spoke and what he published. In that case, the LSM publishers need to retract what I quoted from their materials and all such similar teaching from their publications, with an apology.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 12:44 PM

Lee also said:

“Do our opposers believe that there are two Spirits who give life, the Holy Spirit and the life-giving Spirit? It is heretical to teach that there are two life-giving Spirits, two Spirits who give life.” (W. Lee, Bound Life-Study of I Corinthians, p. 617)

As I have shown with his own words in the previous post, what Lee actually did was teach there was another Spirit which could give life that was produced on resurrection day, one which never existed before in the universe. He did this after declaring boldly at another time that anyone who taught there were two spirits who could give life was teaching heresy. There is no need for us to say this is heresy. Lee stands self-condemned.

Thankful Jane

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 01:14 PM

Ok YP, very well then. I'll stick with 1 Cor 15:45 a little while if you promise to play nice

I must say that your "a banana - the banana" illustration is really like comparing apples to oranges

I am sure that you would agree that every time the word pneuma is used, is is not always referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, you are quite mistaken regarding the usages of articles in biblical Greek. Many times they do indeed make a substantial and meaningful difference (you see I didn't sleep through every one of those classes in my 3 semesters of biblical Greek)

Anyway, I will still continue to beat the drum of the orthodox view of the Trinity as stated by so many of the early church fathers and a number of the early creeds and now by the vast majority of evangelical/orthodox Christianity - To wit... Our God is one. Our God is three Persons, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit who are equal in substance, holiness power and glory. As I think I may have stated before...God is one is a way that we cannot fully comprehend or understand...He is also three is a way that we cannot fully comprehend for understand... What He is not (or should I say what He does not do) is CHANGE. One Person of the Godhead does not "become" one of the others - No way, No how. God does not even "change economically" or "in His economy for His move on earth" any more then He changes essentially. This IS the crux of the matter as far as I can see.

Shawn · 07-28-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear Paul M,

Here is the problem with your oracle’s teaching, as I have told you, I believe, at other times:

Here are Witness Lee's words: “In His resurrection a life-giving Spirit was produced (1 Cor. 15:45). Before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe. John 7:39 says that ‘the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified’; that is, Jesus had not yet entered into resurrection (Luke 24:26). On the day that He entered into resurrection, the life-giving Spirit was produced.” Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God’s Relationship with Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), p. 40.

This is a false teaching. The Holy Spirit existed in completeness before the resurrection of Christ and it could "give life" before the resurrection of Christ:

Thankful Jane

Hi TJ,

I hope you caught the distinction between the use of life giving Spirit vs. the Holy Spirit you mentioned in refuting the other posters position.

Yes, the Holy Spirit has always existed, but the Holy Spirit could not enter into man as the giver of Gods life, until the death and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus; it was at this point that the Holy Spirit could become the life giving Spirit.This is the main point as I understood it from brother Lee's ministry. Not two Spirits but one Spirit that became the life giver to man after the Lords ressurrection.

YP0534 · 07-28-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok YP, very well then. I'll stick with 1 Cor 15:45 a little while if you promise to play nice

I must say that your "a banana - the banana" illustration is really like comparing apples to oranges

I am sure that you would agree that every time the word pneuma is used, is is not always referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, you are quite mistaken regarding the usages of articles in biblical Greek. Many times they do indeed make a substantial and meaningful difference (you see I didn't sleep through every one of those classes in my 3 semesters of biblical Greek)

Anyway, I will still continue to beat the drum of the orthodox view of the Trinity as stated by so many of the early church fathers and a number of the early creeds - To wit... Our God is one. Our God is three Persons, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit who are equal is substance, holiness power and glory. As I think I may have states before...God is one is a way that we cannot fully comprehend or understand...He is also three is a way that we cannot fully comprehend for understand... What He is not (or should I say what He does not do) is CHANGE. One Person of the Godhead does not "become" one of the others - No way, No how. God does not even "change economically" or "in His economy for His move on earth" any more then He changes essentially. This IS the crux of the matter as far as I can see.

There is a case of deja vu going on here for me.

Here's the deal:

I most certainly did NOT say that the article NEVER means anything. To the contrary, I gave an example of a place where I think it matters very much, which once again was not addressed.

Your Greek education notwithstanding, you still have not addressed my very simple illustration of the problem with your analysis except to make a (rather poor) joke about fruit. You could change the object on the table to any other article you might find less amusing if it would assist you in comprehending the pertinent issue in the illustration. Sometimes, the distinction between the articles is meaningless.

But I'm not even concerned about either of these things, any more so than I was a little while ago. Homey don't play that. That's all.

So, again, please beat your drum loudly if this pleases you.

I said it before. It's your place and I'm just a guest here.

But if I want orthodoxy, I'll just find a Jesuit.

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

..Yes, the Holy Spirit has always existed, but the Holy Spirit could not enter into man as the giver of Gods life, until the death and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus; it was at this point that the Holy Spirit could become the life giving Spirit.This is the main point as I understood it from brother Lee's ministry. Not two Spirits but one Spirit that became the life giver to man after the Lords ressurrection.

Shawn, in order for God to "enter into man as the giver of God's life", it was NOT GOD that had to change but US. WE had to repent (change), We had to be cleansed.. We had to be forgiven, the changing was all on our part and NOT God's. The Spirit has always, always been life giving. God is life, the Holy Spirit is God therefore HE IS LIFE and gives life to every creature. He did not have to change or even be "intensified" to give us life.

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I most certainly did NOT say that the article NEVER means anything. To the contrary, I gave an example of a place where I think it matters very much, which once again was not addressed

Never said you did...in this instance you most certainly said that it did not mean anything, and I simply disputed your contention here. Furthermore, you're the one that wanted to stick with 1 Cor 15:45, if you want to go into the rather unrelated verse of 2 Cor 3:17 at the very same time, then we are going to get too many balls in the air and you know what happens then

Ok, can I talk you into addressing this?...
"I am sure that you would agree that every time the word pneuma is used, is is not always referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit"

Quote:

But if I want orthodoxy, I'll just find a Jesuit.

Now what was that you were saying about "a rather poor joke?

YP0534 · 07-28-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, can I talk you into addressing this?...[/COLOR]
"I am sure that you would agree that every time the word pneuma is used, is is not always referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit"

Nothing to address.

uttingtosleep:

And I wasn't joking a bit about the Jesuits.

Funny that you should think so.

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi TJ,

I hope you caught the distinction between the use of life giving Spirit vs. the Holy Spirit you mentioned in refuting the other posters position.

Yes, the Holy Spirit has always existed, but the Holy Spirit could not enter into man as the giver of Gods life, until the death and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus; it was at this point that the Holy Spirit could become the life giving Spirit.This is the main point as I understood it from brother Lee's ministry. Not two Spirits but one Spirit that became the life giver to man after the Lords ressurrection.

Hi Shawn,

How do you then explain Romans 8:11 which says that the Spirit that dwells in us is the one that raised Christ from the dead?

The truth is that we could not receive the Holy Spirit until Christ completed the sacrifice for our sins. Nothing happened to the Holy Spirit to make it the life-giving Spirit. It clearly was already such a Spirit, able to give life.

Witness Lee said: "Before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe."

Thankful Jane

YP0534 · 07-28-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Hi Shawn,

How do you then explain Romans 8:11 which says that the Spirit that dwells in us is the one that raised Christ from the dead?

The truth is that we could not received the Holy Spirit until Christ completed the sacrifice for our sins. Nothing happened to the Holy Spirit to make it the life-giving Spirit. It clearly was already such a Spirit, able to give life.

Thankful Jane

Alright, Thankful's on a considerable path here so I'll go ahead and make my observation.

Folks, "became" is not in the Greek text at all, you know?

All the Greek says is "the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit."

It's not an unreasonable interpretation by any means to supply "became," but, neither is it absolutely required by the context. Supplying the word "is" would potentially preserve the author's intent just as well.

Thusly:
The first man, Adam, became a living soul; but the last Adam is a life-giving Spirit.

I'm not sure it moves the ball much on distinctions between Persons in the Trinity and such but it would kick a lot of the wind out of an exaggerated notion about the second "becoming."

Does this reading somewhat mesh with what your considerations are here?

UntoHim · 07-28-2008, 03:17 PM

Let's take a look how Darby translated this..

Thus also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul;
the last Adam a quickening spirit.

I think the way Darby translates this verse gives the English reader a clear sense of what was originally conveyed in the Greek. I would note that he used a small "s" for spirit here as well.

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Alright, Thankful's on a considerable path here so I'll go ahead and make my observation.

Folks, "became" is not in the Greek text at all, you know?

All the Greek says is "the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit."

It's not an unreasonable interpretation by any means to supply "became," but, neither is it absolutely required by the context. Supplying the word "is" would potentially preserve the author's intent just as well.

Thusly:
The first man, Adam, became a living soul; but the last Adam is a life-giving Spirit.

I'm not sure it moves the ball much on distinctions between Persons in the Trinity and such but it would kick a lot of the wind out of an exaggerated notion about the second "becoming."

Does this reading somewhat mesh with what your considerations are here?

Yes, it does. I like the Bible. It's what people do with it that gets us all into trouble. I have a little more to say about why I think addressing this teaching is not just an academic matter, but I don't have time now. Maybe later.

Thankful Jane

Shawn · 07-28-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Shawn, in order for God to "enter into man as the giver of God's life", it was NOT GOD that had to change but US. WE had to repent (change), We had to be cleansed.. We had to be forgiven, the changing was all on our part and NOT God's. The Spirit has always, always been life giving. God is life, the Holy Spirit is God therefore HE IS LIFE and gives life to every creature. He did not have to change or even be "intensified" to give us life.

I agree with you in that man had to change from his sinful position, but it was not we who changed, for we are still sinners after we receive the Lord, It was the Lord in His humanity that gave us the forgiviness of sins, that we can repent and become born again.

Yes, the Spirit could always give life, but it was not until the LAST ADAM that this life could be received by us.

I am not an WL defender, but the simple explanation of the verse agrees with the thought that the Last Adam became a life giving spirit. your explanation of your perspective is technically right, but argues with the context of the verse. why argue with the word of God? Or, should we put a disclaimer at the end of the verse that this Spirit of course, was always life giving?

djohnson · 07-28-2008, 06:59 PM

Shawn what is "humanity"? "The Lord in his humanity..." what does that mean?

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

I agree with you in that man had to change from his sinful position, but it was not we who changed, for we are still sinners after we receive the Lord, It was the Lord in His humanity that gave us the forgiviness of sins, that we can repent and become born again.

You’ve lost me here, Shawn. It was the Lord dying as a perfect man that made it possible for us to be forgiven by believing He died in our place. The moment we believe, we are forgiven.

I hope I am not misunderstanding you here. What I just read sounds like you are saying we had to receive the Lord before we could repent and become born again (see what I bolded that sounds this way). I hear the gospel the other way around. Believe and be saved. Surely I am misunderstanding, so maybe you can clarify this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Yes, the Spirit could always give life, but it was not until the LAST ADAM that this life could be received by us.

This was because sin was separating us from a holy God. When the debt was paid, we were offered access to God by faith in Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

I am not an WL defender, but the simple explanation of the verse agrees with the thought that the Last Adam became a life giving spirit. your explanation of your perspective is technically right, but argues with the context of the verse. why argue with the word of God? Or, should we put a disclaimer at the end of the verse that this Spirit of course, was always life giving?

My explanation doesn’t argue with the context, nor with the word of God. The simple explanation of the verse according to the context is that Christ is a life-giving spirit, just as Adam was a living soul.

Shawn, we are discussing what Lee taught about this verse. He taught that “before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe?” Do you agree with this statement?

Thankful Jane

Shawn · 07-29-2008, 02:13 AM

Hi TJ,

I only have a few minutes, so here goes.

The most important thing for one who can receive Jesus as their Savior is that it does not require a change; ie I do not have to change myself to be acceptable to God, only ask forforgiviness and recieve the free gift of salvation. All other religions require change.

Concerning the lifegiving part of the spirit, we are looking at two sides of the same coin; yes there has always been the life giving spirit, but to you and I we could only receive this life after the Last Adam.

Maybe there is some significance to the small "s" as others had mentioned?

Grace to you sister!

Shawn

Paul Miletus · 07-29-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane;1254[FONT=Verdana

Here are Witness Lee's words: “In His resurrection a life-giving Spirit was produced (1 [/FONT]Cor. 15:45). Before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe. John 7:39 says that ‘the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified’; that is, Jesus had not yet entered into resurrection (Luke 24:26). On the day that He entered into resurrection, the life-giving Spirit was produced.” Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God’s Relationship with Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), p. 40.

This is a false teaching. The Holy Spirit existed in completeness before the resurrection of Christ and it could "give life" before the resurrection of Christ:

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Look closely at this verse. This Spirit -- the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead -- is the one Paul says is in us today! And it clearly was already in existence before Christ was raised from the dead. So, what spirit then is “the Life Giving Spirit” that Lee is referring to when he says “before Christ’s resurrection, there was not such a life-giving Spirit in the universe?” Lee says “the life giving Spirit” was "produced" on the day Christ entered into resurrection.” Re-read what Lee said. He plainly said this. I am not twisting his words in any way but calling them out for what they actually say.

Lee’s teaching is a false teaching. According to his very own words the Spirit he is talking about in I Corinthians 15:45b cannot be the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not produced on that day.

You have quoted Romans 8:11, but please allow me to include verses 9 and 10 --

Quote:

Romans 8
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Again, Brother Witness Lee explained --

Quote:

"In Romans 8:9-11 the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, Christ Himself, and the indwelling Spirit are interchangeably used. These are not four persons but one person. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Christ is Christ Himself, and Christ Himself is the life-giving Spirit dwelling in us to impart the Triune God into our being."

Again, the Old Testament scriptures (Exodus 30:23-25) will be very helpful in our understanding regarding the Spirit that "was not yet" in John 7:37-39.

Quote:

This life-giving Spirit is the all-inclusive, compound Spirit typified by the compound anointing ointment in Exodus 30:23-25. Now the Spirit is no longer just the Spirit of God typified by the olive oil but is the compound Spirit typified by the ointment formed by compounding a hin of olive oil with four spices—myrrh and cinnamon (signifying Christ's death with its effectiveness) and calamus and cassia (signifying Christ's resurrection with its power). As the compounded, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit, He is now an ointment compounded with the four factors of God, man, Christ's death, and Christ's resurrection.

Thankful Jane, I totally agree with you that the Spirit "was already in existence before Christ was raised from the dead as typified by the olive oil as shown in Exodus 30:23-25. However, with Christ's death and resurrection (as implied in John 7:39 - Jesus was not yet glorified), the Spirit became a life-giving Spirit (all-inclusive, compound Spirit).

Shawn's post explains it more clearer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi TJ,

I hope you caught the distinction between the use of life giving Spirit vs. the Holy Spirit you mentioned in refuting the other posters position.

Yes, the Holy Spirit has always existed, but the Holy Spirit could not enter into man as the giver of Gods life, until the death and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus; it was at this point that the Holy Spirit could become the life giving Spirit.This is the main point as I understood it from brother Lee's ministry. Not two Spirits but one Spirit that became the life giver to man after the Lords ressurrection.

Brother Witness Lee's teaching on this subject is very clear based on the Word of God. He was able to interpret the Word of God (John 7:37-39) using the Word of God (Exodus 30-23-25).

djohnson · 07-29-2008, 09:39 AM

PaulM do you mean that the Father and the Son became the Holy Spirit after the resurrection?

Peter Debelak · 07-29-2008, 11:46 AM

I personally think the crux of the disagreement here again boils down to the language Lee used and the emphases he employed – rather than on whether he was patently wrong/heretical/etc…

God is spirit. Always has been, always will be. Its how he does that cool thing of being everywhere at once.

The Son of God, (aka the “second Person” of the Trinity), has eternally existed and has eternally co-existed with the other “two Persons” of the Trinity. Same with the Holy Spirit (aka the “third Person” of the Trinity).

But God was not, in eternity past, human. He was not “flesh.” Nor did humanity have any “divinity” as such.

When Christ came in the flesh, he brought divinity into humankind. But he was flesh – which meant he was limited spacially. His being had defined limits of time and space. God had never experienced this before. So, we should be careful about how broad we make the scope of statements like “God is unchangeable.” It doesn’t make that phrase incorrect to say that it has a particular scope.

Further, the actual experience of a human life, a life of temptation and of limitation, was never “part of” or experienced by God prior to Christ’s incarnation and life.

When Christ incarnated, humanity and divinity were merged – but only in this physical being, Jesus, as he walked and moved on earth in time and space.

In resurrection, humanity – personified by ADAM – was merged with divinity as spirit, not just in the Person of Jesus, the physical being in time and space. No “entity” came into existence that was not already existing. There was just something that was “added” to that entity, which is spirit. There can be unintended adverse effects of using this language, but I think it is apt to say God went through a “process” and that humanity was “added” to God. What that means to me is that I do not have a High Priest that cannot be touched with a feeling of my weaknesses. Inside me is God – God as Spirit. It’s the same God who took on human form and went to the cross for me. Does that confound the second and third persons of the trinity? I don’t know. But the scripture hasn’t given me any commands not to “confound persons,” so I am not too concerned. Its just what the Bible seems to be teaching.

As always, I’m open to being taught, reproved, corrected, or instructed differently.

.

Peter

Thankful Jane · 07-29-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Yes, the Holy Spirit has always existed, but the Holy Spirit could not enter into man as the giver of Gods life, until the death and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus; .

Okay, I'm with you up to here, Shawn ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

it was at this point that the Holy Spirit could become the life giving Spirit.

I'm no longer with you on this. The Bible shows plainly that the "life-giving" Spirit already existed. The truth is that it was at this point that God accepted Christ's offering for sin (as evidenced by His resurrection) and we were able to believe God's forgiveness and receive the Holy Spirit. No change happened in the Holy Spirit so that it could become something it wasn't before this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

This is the main point as I understood it from brother Lee's ministry. Not two Spirits but one Spirit that became the life giver to man after the Lords ressurrection.

Shawn, I understood this, too. When I was under WL's ministry, I didn't believe he taught that there were two Spirits. I simply believed there was a new and improved version of the Spirit after the resurrection, because Lee told me there was. I believed it was only this new product that could give us life. I didn't question anything. I didn't look at the Bible for myself and pray and ask God to show me if this was true. I just believed Witness Lee because he was older and knew the Bible better than I did.

When He said God had been under a long process to make this new product, I said amen. I believed the processed Triune God teaching that said there was no life-giving Spirit until Christ resurrected.

Lee clearly taught this. He said that after Christ's resurrection, the Spirit, after a long process finally had all the necessary ingredients and had become a new product . There is no question that he taught this. He taught this plainly. This is what I am objecting to.

The Spirit didn't need any new ingredients. Everything Christ needed to tabernacle in the flesh on the earth, to walk without sin, to be obedient unto death, to be raised from the dead was in existence in God before Christ became flesh. God prepared a body for him through the virgin birth, not so He could add some new ingredients to the godhead, but so he could be a sacrifice for our sins. (Heb. 10:5-13).

To say otherwise is to say that God was lacking something and was under development in order to become something over time. This is exactly what Lee said. This is not true. The Bible does not support this. Lee brought this teaching into being through faulty interpretations.

He used his interpretation of John 7:37-39 to support his belief about the development of God, saying this verse shows the product wasn't complete yet. He then used his "compound" ointment interpretation of Exodus 30 to support his belief further. (I'll comment on Ex. 30 in my response to Paul M.)

The gospel is simple. Jesus is God's Lamb. In Him we see God's self-sacrificing love for us. As God's Lamb He suffered and died so we could be saved from our sins and be reconciled to God. We can now have a relationship with God by faith. Just what is wrong with this gospel? Why do we need some kind of teaching about a new God product? The gospel doesn't need improvement nor does God.

It's not too late to humble ourselves like little children and pray and ask God to show us what is true. I am starting to learn to do that. We each need to be persuaded in our own mind using the tools God gave us (the Bible, prayer, fellowship with others, etc.).

Why is all this important? Because wrong beliefs about God and about how he relates to us can hurt our walks with God. I have experienced myself and witnessed firsthand how Lee's teachings in this vein have hindered people from having real relationships with a living God who relates to each of us as unique individuals.

God is a living, interactive being who talks with us, asks questions of us, answers questions, corrects, instructs, encourages, leads, etc. He empowers us by His Spirit as we are in fellowship with Him. God isn't just some new product with power packed ingredients that will automatically do things for us without our conscious involvement if we just keep the intravenous line connected by calling and pray-reading.

I have seen the trail of tears of those who took Lee's teaching and way as the way. But that is another topic.

Thankful Jane

Arizona · 07-29-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I personally think the crux of the disagreement here again boils down to the language Lee used and the emphases he employed – rather than on whether he was patently wrong/heretical/etc…

God is spirit. Always has been, always will be. Its how he does that cool thing of being everywhere at once.

The Son of God, (aka the “second Person” of the Trinity), has eternally existed and has eternally co-existed with the other “two Persons” of the Trinity. Same with the Holy Spirit (aka the “third Person” of the Trinity).

But God was not, in eternity past, human. He was not “flesh.” Nor did humanity have any “divinity” as such.

When Christ came in the flesh, he brought divinity into humankind. But he was flesh – which meant he was limited spacially. His being had defined limits of time and space. God had never experienced this before. So, we should be careful about how broad we make the scope of statements like “God is unchangeable.” It doesn’t make that phrase incorrect to say that it has a particular scope.

Further, the actual experience of a human life, a life of temptation and of limitation, was never “part of” or experienced by God prior to Christ’s incarnation and life.

When Christ incarnated, humanity and divinity were merged – but only in this physical being, Jesus, as he walked and moved on earth in time and space.

In resurrection, humanity – personified by ADAM – was merged with divinity as spirit, not just in the Person of Jesus, the physical being in time and space. No “entity” came into existence that was not already existing. There was just something that was “added” to that entity, which is spirit. There can be unintended adverse effects of using this language, but I think it is apt to say God went through a “process” and that humanity was “added” to God. What that means to me is that I do not have a High Priest that cannot be touched with a feeling of my weaknesses. Inside me is God – God as Spirit. It’s the same God who took on human form and went to the cross for me. Does that confound the second and third persons of the trinity? I don’t know. But the scripture hasn’t given me any commands not to “confound persons,” so I am not too concerned. Its just what the Bible seems to be teaching.

As always, I’m open to being taught, reproved, corrected, or instructed differently.

.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for saying in much more clear language what I tried to say previously. I agree,, and I hold this teaching to be truth. Let me add some further thought:

When I first came into contact with the saints at Elden Hall in 1970, I was not a christian but a rather good heathen. I had a marvelous experience of God's forgiveness and the Divine removal of extreme condemnation. But more than this, I first heard that I could be "much more saved by His life". Forgiveness was wonderful but I really, really needed to be saved from my fallen humanity.

This topic being discussed is to me more than just a conversation. If I have no way to contact this Living God, right here and right now, then I have a real problem. It is not enough for me to be forgiven and then just left on my own.

As I said before, there is one mediator between God and man and that is the same One who is now my High Priest bringing me to God. I do believe that if the humanity of Jesus Christ was not "added" to the Spirit in His resurrection then I have no way to fellowship with God and then how can I be "saved by His life"?

I do not believe that W Lee was the only, nor the first, to teach this and I hold that it is an imperative in our spiritual and subjective experience.

Thanks for listening.

Grace.

Arizona

djohnson · 07-29-2008, 04:07 PM

I keep hearing people discuss the "humanity" of Christ. Would somebody please define this for me? Thanks!

Nell · 07-29-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

I keep hearing people discuss the "humanity" of Christ. Would somebody please define this for me? Thanks!

DJ,

Perhaps you should open another topic. The "humanity" of Christ is beyond the scope of "Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Nell

djohnson · 07-29-2008, 05:59 PM

Nell both Peter and Arizona in their post recent posts on this thread used this term. I assume there is some connection with the topic of 1 Cor 15:45b otherwise they would not have brought it up. I'm just wondering what the definition is so I understand the conversation.

Thankful Jane · 07-29-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

DJ, Perhaps you should open another topic. The "humanity" of Christ is beyond the scope of "Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Nell

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Nell both Peter and Arizona in their post recent posts on this thread used this term. I assume there is some connection with the topic of 1 Cor 15:45b otherwise they would not have brought it up. I'm just wondering what the definition is so I understand the conversation.

The reason people bring up the “humanity” in this context is because this is what Lee taught and they believe it.

Lee said, This ointment signifies God, who is triune, after a long process becoming the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach His chosen and redeemed people to be one with them...

It is not sufficient to be impressed with this matter in a doctrinal way. We need to pray, “Lord, show me the vision of the all-inclusive Spirit. Show me that today You are the all-inclusive Spirit compounded of divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Lord, I need to see that Your uplifted humanity, Your all-inclusive, wonderful and mysterious death, and Your indescribable resurrection have been compounded into the Spirit.” If we see this vision, we shall pray, “Lord, I thank You that the Spirit is now the compound Spirit. This all-inclusive life-giving Spirit is the Triune God Himself reaching me, anointing me, making Himself one with me, and making me one with Him."

Every one who embraced this teaching came to believe that Christ’s “humanity” (among other things) got added to the Spirit by Christ's death and resurrection. After hearing the constant repetition and indoctrination by Lee they became convinced that this was the only way/reason they could experience God. Arizona made this clear in (his/her?) last post. (Sorry, Arizona, I haven’t been following everything close enough to know which gender…).

People who believe this are actually saying that unless something was added to God He couldn't save them! This is not supported by the Bible. In fact it flies in the face of what Christ did as the Lamb of God. God tabernacled in the flesh. According to Hebrews 5, the flesh was the body God prepared through the virgin birth so Christ could do the Father's will and die on the cross for us. Salvation is dependent on Christ dying as the Lamb of God. Period. That one act was the pivotal point in all history.

Jesus came to save us from our sins. And that salvation includes more than initial forgiveness. Having been saved by his death, we are now being saved by His life. His life is the Spirit of God that we now have access to because of the payment of our debt. This Spirit is not a new version or model of the Spirit of God. Did God needed improvement? Was He inadequate?

What we experienced at the time of our salvation was the Spirit of God, not an upgraded model!

The Bible clearly says that the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead (gave Him life) dwells in us to give us life. It is the same Spirit. (Romans 8:11)

Once you take the step that Lee took to believe that something could be added to God to make something that never existed before in the universe, there is no end to where you can go with this. You will soon be convinced you are becoming God. Why not? What is to stop such a thought and progression? If God can have things added to Him that weren’t there before and those things become God, then you can be added and become God, too. Sound familiar? Before long, the Lamb of God is lost in the dust of man glorying in becoming God.

The value of the Lamb of God is overshadowed by this teaching in the world of Lee, making this teaching something higher and more important than Christ and His redemptive act. The gospel is that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to die for our sins. This is the gospel we preach, not the gospel of the processed Triune God. This is Lee's gospel and He put it above the Lamb of God in importance. How awful that is.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-29-2008, 07:53 PM

In case some think I am too much in saying that Lee thought his teaching took a higher place than the Lamb of God, consider the following statements made by Witness Lee in the Exodus messages:

“…. I am concerned about the influence of today’s religious atmosphere. Due to this influence, many believers care only for superficial things. They may know about the Lamb, the heavenly manna, or even a little about the living water. But when it comes to a message on the compound ointment in Exodus 30, few Christians have any ear. They like messages that tickle their ear, but they do not want to hear things that are deep and weighty.”

Excuse me? The Lamb is a “superficial thing?” Messages about the Lamb “tickle the ear,” but not Lee’s compound spirit messages? Those are deep and weighty?

“I hope that all of us will be deeply impressed with the fact that it is not God’s eternal intention merely to give us a Redeemer, or to supply us with heavenly manna and living water. It is God’s eternal intention that He would reach us as the all-inclusive compound Spirit, as the Spirit who includes divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. All this is blended to form the compound ointment, and this ointment is for the anointing of God’s chosen and redeemed people. Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment. What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? It is a wonderful fact that God has become our Savior and Redeemer. Jesus is Jehovah our Savior, and I appreciate His salvation very much. Nevertheless, the Lamb cannot compare with the Triune God processed to become the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach us, to make Himself one with us, and to make us one with Him. ...”

Right. And that is why in Revelation we hear the voice of many waters proclaiming, “Worthy the Compound Spirit!” “Worthy the processed Triune God!” “Even the Lamb of God cannot compare with this!”

I repeat, Lee proclaimed:

“Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment. What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb?….the Lamb cannot compare with the Triune God processed to become the all-inclusive compound Spirit…” ?

Spend some time thinking about these statements. I'm thankful that I didn't make them and that I don't believe them.

Thankful Jane

... while your at it consider how much time we all spend discussing these exalted teachings of Lee in comparison to the time we spend exalting the Lamb of God. This should sober all of us. Where is CountMeWorthy when you need her? She's probably off somewhere warming up for that thunderous chorus in the heavens by proclaiming, "Worthy is the Lamb!" I think I'm going to join her.

djohnson · 07-29-2008, 08:22 PM

Lee used the word "humanity" but what did he and what do those in the LCS and apparently some who left mean when they use this term? What are they taking about?

Peter Debelak · 07-29-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The reason people bring up the “humanity” in this context is because this is what Lee taught and they believe it.

Lee said, This ointment signifies God, who is triune, after a long process becoming the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach His chosen and redeemed people to be one with them...

It is not sufficient to be impressed with this matter in a doctrinal way. We need to pray, “Lord, show me the vision of the all-inclusive Spirit. Show me that today You are the all-inclusive Spirit compounded of divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Lord, I need to see that Your uplifted humanity, Your all-inclusive, wonderful and mysterious death, and Your indescribable resurrection have been compounded into the Spirit.” If we see this vision, we shall pray, “Lord, I thank You that the Spirit is now the compound Spirit. This all-inclusive life-giving Spirit is the Triune God Himself reaching me, anointing me, making Himself one with me, and making me one with Him."

Every one who embraced this teaching came to believe that Christ’s “humanity” (among other things) got added to the Spirit by Christ's death and resurrection. After hearing the constant repetition and indoctrination by Lee they became convinced that this was the only way/reason they could experience God. Arizona made this clear in (his/her?) last post. (Sorry, Arizona, I haven’t been following everything close enough to know which gender…).

People who believe this are actually saying that unless something was added to God He couldn't save them! This is not supported by the Bible. In fact it flies in the face of what Christ did as the Lamb of God. God tabernacled in the flesh. According to Hebrews 5, the flesh was the body God prepared through the virgin birth so Christ could do the Father's will and die on the cross for us. Salvation is dependent on Christ dying as the Lamb of God. Period. That one act was the pivotal point in all history.

Jesus came to save us from our sins. And that salvation includes more than initial forgiveness. Having been saved by his death, we are now being saved by His life. His life is the Spirit of God that we now have access to because of the payment of our debt. This Spirit is not a new version or model of the Spirit of God. Did God needed improvement? Was He inadequate?

What we experienced at the time of our salvation was the Spirit of God, not an upgraded model!

The Bible clearly says that the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead (gave Him life) dwells in us to give us life. It is the same Spirit. (Romans 8:11)

Once you take the step that Lee took to believe that something could be added to God to make something that never existed before in the universe, there is no end to where you can go with this. You will soon be convinced you are becoming God. Why not? What is to stop such a thought and progression? If God can have things added to Him that weren’t there before and those things become God, then you can be added and become God, too. Sound familiar? Before long, the Lamb of God is lost in the dust of man glorying in becoming God.

The value of the Lamb of God is overshadowed by this teaching in the world of Lee, making this teaching something higher and more important than Christ and His redemptive act. The gospel is that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to die for our sins. This is the gospel we preach, not the gospel of the processed Triune God. This is Lee's gospel and He put it above the Lamb of God in importance. How awful that is.

Thankful Jane

Jane:

I know that we have traversed this terrain before. And I've experienced enough to know that my thick-skull requires me to continue traversing it - even hearing the same answers in return - in order to learn...

I was taken aback by this last post, however. Your post centered on one central theme about those who buy into - to whatever extent - the idea of a "processed" God (though I really don't know if I like that language). The implication from your post is that these folks think God is "inadequate." And God needed an "upgrade." And all sorts of other truely abismal views that Christians shouldn't ever ever have and how ridiculous and absurd and hubristic and small such a view is. That's how the post reads. But that is an unfair reading of those (some) who agree, to whatever extent, with the "processed" GOd (again, really don't care for the language).

I have a hard time with this kind of reasoning. It creates a false choice: either agree with me or you think God is inadequate. That may be the choice that my beliefs create and thus is good cause to vigorously reexamine my beliefs. But I hold the beliefs you say create this choice, and yet I don't view God as inadequate in any way. And I certainly don't see myself denegrating Christ's death on my behalf. In fact, I feel that every interation I have in my life, in my family, in my "church life" in my every interaction with God - it revolves around my need for a Savior and ever comes back to His death and resurrection. I don't think its impossible to hold both beliefs...

Perhaps I should have begun with this: “processed,” “added” and all this language can cause God’s beautiful work to be morphed into a “science of dispensing.” It can divert attention from God’s pivotal redemptive act and reduce His desire to walk with us to a process of “intake.” This is an important caution. Keep repeating it over and again. Please.

But the historical fact that some people have been sucked in by a language and an unhealthy emphasis does not automatically negate any and all things they saw as truth in the Word.

Why didn’t God just go ahead and redeem us, without sending His Son? Was He incapable and “inadequate”? Why was Jesus tempted by the devil before He could be the worthy Lamb? Was He “inadequate” or was that episode just for our reading pleasure?

I’ll go further: why the need for the re-birth? Why wasn’t Christ’s death on the Cross sufficient? It gave me access back to God just as Enoch had. With the Scripture, I also have the Word of God which contains the pattern of Christ, which I can imitate. Why the need for re-birth by the Spirit? And, by the way, in that re-birth, who indwells me? The Spirit or Christ? Or the Spirit of Christ? Or the….

For the record, these aren’t just questions in the wind. The Word has some things to say about them – even if it leaves some things a mystery. Asking these questions doesn’t require creating a “science of God.” It doesn’t require everything to be reduced to little morsels to “intake”. Lee can still be wrong, even if there is something to “humanity” being “added” to God (but really, there needs to be a more Scriptural articulation)

And, importantly, asking these questions, and finding some tentative answers in the Word does not necessarily create a slippery slope (e.g. “if you believe that, what’s next – there’s no telling what you’ll end up believing” – as your post implies). Our inquiry is governed by the Word. I believe something because I believe the Word teaches it. Yes, I still have many many years of being Lee-colored glasses to wrestle with, but God has been faithful to show me that I can be freed from those glasses and return to His word. So, the notion that my beliefs will be unrestrained if I “open a door,” is not fair – they will be restrained because the Word circumscribes my inquiries – even when I stray now and again.

Its not fair to ask, since these boards are all about Lee, but I will ask anyway:

Can we discuss this topic with having to defend the extremes of Lee?

In Love,

Peter

p.s. that does not mean I don't have a lot in which to be corrected in this conversation, I am just trying to address the foundation of the conversation (Lee-based or regardless-of-Lee).

Paul Miletus · 07-29-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I'm no longer with you on this. The Bible shows plainly that the "life-giving" Spirit already existed. The truth is that it was at this point that God accepted Christ's offering for sin (as evidenced by His resurrection) and we were able to believe God's forgiveness and receive the Holy Spirit. No change happened in the Holy Spirit so that it could become something it wasn't before this.

If the Bible shows plainly that the "life-giving" Spirit already existed, why then the following Scriptures say:

Quote:

John 7:37-39
37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as[a] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

The Spirit became "a life-giving Spirit" only after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Through incarnation, the Lord Jesus was the "Immanuel" (God is with us); through death and resurrection, the Lord Jesus became "a life-giving Spirit" wherefore now He can come INTO us to those who believe in Him.

Brother Witness Lee clearly taught with regards to 1Corinthians 15:45 as follows:

Quote:

Through creation Adam became a living soul with a soulish body. Through resurrection Christ became a life-giving Spirit with a spiritual body. Adam as a living soul is natural; Christ as a life-giving Spirit is resurrected. First, in incarnation He became flesh for redemption (John 1:14, 29); then, in resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit for the imparting of life (John 10:10b). Through incarnation He had a soulish body, as Adam had; through resurrection He has a spiritual body. His soulish body has become a spiritual one through resurrection. Now He is a life-giving Spirit in resurrection, with a spiritual body, ready to be received by His believers. When we believe into Him, He enters our spirit, and we are joined to Him as the life-giving Spirit. Hence, we become one spirit with Him (6:17). Our spirit is made alive and is resurrected with Him. Eventually, our present soulish body will become a spiritual body in resurrection, just like His (vv. 52-54; Phil. 3:21).

KSA · 07-29-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

The Spirit became "a life-giving Spirit" only after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

John 6:63 says "the Spirit gives life" (present tense). It means that the Spirit was life-giving even prior to the resurrection of Christ. However, before the problem of our sins was solved, we could not receive this Spirit - blood first, then anointing.

Paul Miletus · 07-29-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

John 6:63 says "the Spirit gives life" (present tense). It means that the Spirit was life-giving even prior to the resurrection of Christ. However, before the problem of our sins was solved, we could not receive this Spirit - blood first, then anointing.

Was there anyone saved (given and received eternal life) by the Lord Jesus at the time of John 6:63?

In fact, this was the very time that many disciples deserted the Lord Jesus on hearing that He is the "bread of life".

Quote:

John 6
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Only in John 20 after the Lord Jesus resurrected from the death that He was able to give "life" to his disciples:

Quote:

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

KSA · 07-29-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Was there anyone saved (given and received eternal life) by the Lord Jesus at the time of John 6:63?

In fact, this was the very time that many disciples deserted the Lord Jesus on hearing that He is the "bread of life".

No, nobody received eternal life then. First of all, because of the problem of sin. But the fact that people did not receive eternal life does not mean that the Spirit was not able to give life.

Quote:

Only in John 20 after the Lord Jesus resurrected from the death that He was able to give "life" to his disciples:

Agreed! But it does not mean that His resurrection changed the Holy Spirit. In His resurrection He was the first man who was glorified by the Holy Spirit.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

No, nobody received eternal life then. First of all, because of the problem of sin. But the fact that people did not receive eternal life does not mean that the Spirit was not able to give life.

Agreed! But it does not mean that His resurrection changed the Holy Spirit. In His resurrection He was the first man who was glorified by the Holy Spirit.

The "death [myrrh and cinnamon] and resurrection [cane and cassia]" of the Lord Jesus was added to the Spirit [olive oil] in order for Him to manifest Himself to those who believes in Him will receive eternal life. Exodus 30:23-24 is an allegorization of the Spirit becoming an all-inclusive Spirit.

Quote:

Exodus 30:23-24
23 "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane, 24 500 shekels of cassia—all according to the sanctuary shekel—and a hin of olive oil.

The Holy Spirit was not changed. It was the Lord Jesus two becomings should be noted. In His incarnation He became flesh (John 1:14); in His death and resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit (1Corinthians 15:45).

Allow me to post here the footnote from RcV on John 20:22. Please carefully note the phrase "It is as the Spirit" that was mentioned 9 times in the footnote.

Quote:

221 This was the Spirit expected in 7:39 and promised in 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; and 16:7-8, 13. Hence, the Lord's breathing of the Holy Spirit into the disciples was the fulfillment of His promise of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter. This fulfillment differs from the one in Acts 2:1-4, which was the fulfillment of the Father's promise in Luke 24:49. (See note 171 in ch. 14.) In Acts 2 the Spirit as a rushing, violent wind came as power upon the disciples for their work (Acts 1:8). Here the Spirit as breath was breathed as life into the disciples for their life. By breathing the Spirit into the disciples, the Lord imparted Himself into them as life and everything. Thus, all that He had spoken in chs. 14--16 could be fulfilled.

As falling into the ground to die and growing out of the ground transform the grain of wheat into another form, one that is new and living, so the death and resurrection of the Lord transfigured Him from the flesh into the Spirit. As the last Adam in the flesh, through the process of death and resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). As He is the embodiment of the Father, so the Spirit is the realization, the reality, of Him. It is as the Spirit that He was breathed into the disciples. It is as the Spirit that He is received into His believers and flows out of them as rivers of living water (7:38-39). It is as the Spirit that through His death and resurrection He came back to the disciples, entered into them as their Comforter, and began to abide in them (14:16-17). It is as the Spirit that He can live in the disciples and enable them to live by and with Him (14:19). It is as the Spirit that He can abide in the disciples and enable them to abide in Him (14:20; 15:4-5). It is as the Spirit that He can come with the Father to His lover and make an abode with him (14:23). It is as the Spirit that He can cause all that He is and has to be fully realized by the disciples (16:13-16). It is as the Spirit that He came to meet with His brothers as the church to declare the Father's name to them and to praise the Father in their midst (Heb. 2:11-12). It is as the Spirit that He can send His disciples for His commission, with Himself as life and everything to them, in the same way that the Father sent Him (v. 21). They are thus qualified to represent Him with His authority in the fellowship of His Body (v. 23) for the carrying out of His commission.

The Lord was the Word, and the Word is the eternal God (1:1). For the accomplishing of God's eternal purpose, He took two steps. First, He took the step of incarnation to become a man in the flesh (1:14), to be the Lamb of God to accomplish redemption for man (1:29), to declare God to man (1:18), and to manifest the Father to His believers (14:9-11). Second, He took the step of death and resurrection to be transfigured into the Spirit that He might impart Himself into His believers as their life and their everything, and that He might bring forth many sons of God, His many brothers, for the building of His Body, the church, the habitation of God, to express the Triune God for eternity. Hence, originally He was the eternal Word; then, through His incarnation He became flesh to accomplish God's redemption, and through His death and resurrection He became the Spirit to be everything and do everything for the completion of God's building.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 01:24 AM

You again base your doctrine on allegory. It is okay to use allegories, but first the clear teaching should be established. Now, please, show me where in the New Testament it says that humanity was added to the Spirit? Humanity includes human body, there is no humanity without a body. Are you going to tell us that the Spirit now has human body?

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

You again base your doctrine on allegory. It is okay to use allegories, but first the clear teaching should be established. Now, please, show me where in the New Testament it says that humanity was added to the Spirit? Humanity includes human body, there is no humanity without a body. Are you going to tell us that the Spirit now has human body?

John 7:39 is crystal clear for the New Testament proof that the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ was added to the Spirit.

Quote:

John 7
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

In addition, RcV's footnote is so enlightening on this particular verse. Please take note the difference between the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" or the "Spirit of Jesus Christ":

Quote:

391 The Spirit of God was there from the beginning (Gen. 1:1-2), but at the time the Lord spoke this word, the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19), was not yet, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected (Luke 24:26). After Jesus' resurrection, the Spirit of God became the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, and resurrected Jesus Christ, who was breathed into the disciples by Christ in the evening of the day on which He was resurrected (20:22). The Spirit is now the "another Comforter," the Spirit of reality promised by Christ before His death (14:16-17). When the Spirit was the Spirit of God, He had only the divine element. After He became the Spirit of Jesus Christ through Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, the Spirit had both the divine element and the human element, with all the essence and reality of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Spirit is now the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus Christ as the living water for us to receive (vv. 38-39).

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

John 7:39 is crystal clear for the New Testament proof that the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ was added to the Spirit.

Crystal clear to who? I do not see "humanity was added to the Spirit" in this verse. And you did not answer my question: if the humanity of Christ is in the Spirit now, does the Spirit have a human body now? If not, what kind of humanity does the Spirit have? Can you have humanity without a body?

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Crystal clear to who? I do not see "humanity was added to the Spirit" in this verse. And you did not answer my question: if the humanity of Christ is in the Spirit now, does the Spirit have a human body now? If not, what kind of humanity does the Spirit have? Can you have humanity without a body?

Sorry, but you have to spiritually discern these spiritual things and not use your physical eyes what happened in Exodus 30:23-24 which was fulfilled in John 7:39 and later in John 20:22.

You must have missed my earlier post regarding your question "does the Spirit have a human body now?" Please see below re-post:

Quote:

The Holy Spirit was not changed. It was the Lord Jesus two becomings should be noted. In His incarnation He became flesh (John 1:14); in His death and resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit (1Corinthians 15:45).

Allow me to post here the footnote from RcV on John 20:22. Please carefully note the phrase "It is as the Spirit" that was mentioned 9 times in the footnote.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:44 AM

So are you saying I do not have spiritual discernment? An easy loophole for you, don't you think so?

You say that the Spirit has not changed, but you also say that humanity was added to the Spirit. If something was added to the Spirit, it means that the Spirit changed. If the humanity was added to the Spirit, does it mean that a human body was also added to the Spirit.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

You say that the Spirit has not changed, but you also say that humanity was added to the Spirit. If something was added to the Spirit, it means that the Spirit changed. If the humanity was added to the Spirit, does it mean that a human body was also added to the Spirit.

Prior to verse 45 of 1 Corinthians 15 it says "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

Quote:

43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

How can we say "that a human body was also added to the Spirit"? The Lord Jesus human body became a life-giving Spirit. The Lord Jesus was "raised a spiritual body".

And look at the following verse...

Quote:

2 Corinthians 5:16
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

This verse tells us that we should not know Christ after the flesh but as the life-giving Spirit because as the last Adam, He became a life-giving Spirit.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

How can we say "that a human body was also added to the Spirit"? The Lord Jesus human body became a life-giving Spirit. The Lord Jesus was "raised a spiritual body".

You are dancing around. First, you say the the humanity of Jesus was added to the Holy Spirit, but now you say that the body of Christ became a life-giving spirit. So what is it? I can agree that the body of Christ became a life-giving spirit in a sense that His body is now spiritual. What I cannot agree with is that humanity was added to the Holy Spirit, otherwise it would mean that the Holy Spirit now has a human body. Witness Lee also taught that the humanity of Jesus is now in our spirit. Does it mean that Jesus' glorified body is in my spirit? How do you understand humanity? Witness Lee understood it as human nature. So it follows that I have my own human nature, but in addition to this I have Jesus' human nature in my spirit.

Ohio · 07-30-2008, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

I keep hearing people discuss the "humanity" of Christ. Would somebody please define this for me? Thanks!

DJ, that's what happened xmas morning, have you forgotten?

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

You are dancing around. First, you say the the humanity of Jesus was added to the Holy Spirit, but now you say that the body of Christ became a life-giving spirit. So what is it? I can agree that the body of Christ became a life-giving spirit in a sense that His body is now spiritual. What I cannot agree with is that humanity was added to the Holy Spirit, otherwise it would mean that the Holy Spirit now has a human body. Witness Lee also taught that the humanity of Jesus is now in our spirit. Does it mean that Jesus' glorified body is in my spirit? How do you understand humanity? Witness Lee understood it as human nature. So it follows that I have my own human nature, but in addition to this I have Jesus' human nature in my spirit.

The Holy Spirit is Spirit. The Lord Jesus became flesh in His incarnation and became a life-giving Spirit in His death and resurrectiion.

You must have easily forgotten about the 9 same phrases of "It is as the Spirit" as was provided in my earlier post.

Quote:

The Spirit we have received is not merely the Spirit of God possessing solely the divine element. The Spirit we Christians have received is the Spirit compounded with divinity, humanity, human living, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. God is in the Spirit. The uplifted humanity of Jesus and His human living and suffering are also in the Spirit. Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension are all in this one Spirit, so with this Spirit there is the bountiful supply. Paul could suffer persecution and imprisonment because of the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This supply became his personal and daily salvation. Even in chains and prison he still magnified Christ and lived Christ (Phil. 1:19-21a). He magnified Christ, not by his energy or by his own strength, but by the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 05:12 AM

Here is an article I found helpful regarding life-giving Spirit. Enjoy!

PS. It seems that the word with hyperlink is not highlighted. Just click on the word article.

djohnson · 07-30-2008, 06:05 AM

Ohio what does xmas morning have to do with the definition being used for "humanity" on this thread?

KSA · 07-30-2008, 06:12 AM

It is a good question! It seems to me that we may have different understandings of humanity. Witness Lee taught that humanity was added to the Holy Spirit, but to me it would mean that a human body was added. To me humanity comprises all of man - spirit, soul and body.

djohnson · 07-30-2008, 06:37 AM

I find Lee's theology to be confusing. If I understand it correctly he teaches that the Father has humanity and the Son has humanity and the Holy Spirit has humanity as they were all incarnated. Then he teaches that the humanity of Christ had to be added to the Holy Spirit. I thought the Holy Spirit was incarnated. If the Holy Spirit already has humanity what has to be added? The first makes the second moot.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 06:47 AM

Very good point!

Ohio · 07-30-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

I keep hearing people discuss the "humanity" of Christ. Would somebody please define this for me? Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio what does xmas morning have to do with the definition being used for "humanity" on this thread?

Oh c'mon DJ, are you playing games with us? I'll answer this one time.

The "humanity of Christ" is this: The Word became flesh (Jn1.14,) and I confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1Jn4.2,) a child born (Is9.6) of a virgin as a great sign to us (Is7.14) in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rm8.3.) This child was worshiped by wise men (Mt2.11) who saw His star, and today is celebrated as xmas by millions.

Obviously, DJ you have a problem with the terminology "humanity" here, congratulations! The Bible uses numerous expressions, but not "humanity." You are "straining dust mites" here. Good for you. Every Christian I know is wrong, but you alone is right.

djohnson · 07-30-2008, 10:15 AM

Ohio no I don't think I'm straining gnats in asking for a working definition of "humanity" and I am surprised that you would think so. Why? Because I am a human and it's complicated. Is Christ's humanity just a matter of his physical body i.e. his flesh? Is that the definition? Because as a human I would find that to be quite superficial and trite. And if it is not the complete definition then what is?

Should we just repeat things by mindless rote or should we ask some questions about it before jumping to conclusions. I choose the latter.

Peter Debelak · 07-30-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio no I don't think I'm straining gnats in asking for a working definition of "humanity" and I am surprised that you would think so. Why? Because I am a human and it's complicated. Is Christ's humanity just a matter of his physical body i.e. his flesh? Is that the definition? Because as a human I would find that to be quite superficial and trite. And if it is not the complete definition then what is?

Should we just repeat things by mindless rote or should we ask some questions about it before jumping to conclusions. I choose the latter.

While not a definition of "humanity," here are some thoughts from Spurgeon:

As He grows up, the very growth shows how completely human He is. He does not spring into full manhood at once, but He grows in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. When he reaches man’s estate, He gets the common stamp of manhood upon His brow. "In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread" is the common heritage of us all, and He receives no better. The carpenter’s shop must witness to the toils of a Savior, and when He becomes the preacher and the prophet, still we read such significant words as these—"Jesus, being weary sat thus on the well." We find Him needing to betake Himself to rest in sleep. He slumbers at the stem of the vessel when it is tossed in the midst of the tempest. Brethren, if sorrow be the mark of real manhood, and "man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward," certainly Jesus Christ has the truest evidence of being a man. If to hunger and to thirst be signs that He was no shadow, and His manhood no fiction, you have these. If to associate with His fellow-men, and eat and drink as they did, will be proof to your mind that He was none other than a man, you see Him sitting at a feast one day, at another time He graces a marriage-supper, and on another occasion He is hungry and "hath not where to lay His head" (C. H. Spurgeon).

Peter Debelak · 07-30-2008, 10:53 AM

dj:

A few more thoughts concerning "humanity" as personified in ADAM (both first and last.

In the first Adam, our desitiny seems something like this:

15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (Romans 7)

In the Last Adam, it is something like this:

Inasmuch as "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5) lived in this world for thirty-three years, He has left "an example, that ye should follow his steps" ( 1 Peter 2:21). He "did no sin," nor should we (1 Cor. 15:24). "Neither was guile found in his mouth," nor should it be in ours (Col. 4:6). "When he was reviled, He reviled not again," nor must His followers. He was weary in body, but not in well-doing. He suffered hunger and thirst, yet never murmured. He "pleased not himself" (Rom. 15:3), nor must we (2 Cor. 5:15). He always did those things which pleased the Father (John 8:29). This too must ever be our aim (2 Cor. 5:9). (Arthur Walkington Pink)

The "elements" of his "humanity" were not virtues, but rather limitations. And yet, His pattern was that God can be manifest even in a life/existence marked by such limitations.

Nell · 07-30-2008, 11:03 AM

Lee Quotes:

Quote:

“…. I am concerned about the influence of today’s religious atmosphere. Due to this influence, many believers care only for superficial things. They may know about the Lamb, the heavenly manna, or even a little about the living water. But when it comes to a message on the compound ointment in Exodus 30, few Christians have any ear. They like messages that tickle their ear, but they do not want to hear things that are deep and weighty.”

---
“I hope that all of us will be deeply impressed with the fact that it is not God’s eternal intention merely to give us a Redeemer, or to supply us with heavenly manna and living water. It is God’s eternal intention that He would reach us as the all-inclusive compound Spirit, as the Spirit who includes divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. All this is blended to form the compound ointment, and this ointment is for the anointing of God’s chosen and redeemed people. Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment. What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? It is a wonderful fact that God has become our Savior and Redeemer. Jesus is Jehovah our Savior, and I appreciate His salvation very much. Nevertheless, the Lamb cannot compare with the Triune God processed to become the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach us, to make Himself one with us, and to make us one with Him. ...”

All --

For now, let's lay aside what Jane said. What about what Witness Lee said???

In a list of superficial things, Lee included the Lamb of God. Is that OK with you?

Reverse these two sentences: "What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment." Nothing? Not even the sacrifice of the Lamb of God? Do you really believe this?

I really want someone to address these two Lee statements.

Nell

Peter Debelak · 07-30-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

All --

For now, let's lay aside what Jane said. What about what Witness Lee said???

In a list of superficial things, Lee included the Lamb of God. Is that OK with you?

Reverse these two sentences: "What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment." Nothing? Not even the sacrifice of the Lamb of God? Do you really believe this?

I really want someone to address these two Lee statements.

Nell

At best, Lee creates a false comparison - as if the Lamb should be "compared" to some "ointment." At worst, this comparison denegrates the eternal place of and glory to the Lamb.

This is just another example of extremism.

I for one, can praise the Lamb as the most worthy one, while appreciating God's continued multifarious wisdom and varied grace in the on-going operation of the Spirit within His people - the Spirit who is God - the same God who incarnated, who was tempted in every respect as I, who hungered and thirsted as a man, who had not place to lay His head, who had to look to the Father's will in all He did. They aren't "comparible." They are compatible, one and the same, all part of the wonderful plan of God to redeem His people, have a home among them and express His glory in them.

Importantly, the "redemption" part - the "Savior" part - that was NOT just a "stage." The cross was not a one-time deal. It is part and parcel of our daily interaction and growth with God in our spirit.

That "cross" could be said to be the central virtue of the Last Adam, even as he lived His human life: the emptying, the constantly looking to the Father's will not His own, etc...

This is just a rambling line of thought, but as I'm writing, I'm contemplating more the definition of "Christ's humanity." Perhaps this is its central feature: while "Adam's humanity" was marked by limitation, Christ's humanity is marked by freedom from that limitation which comes from a life lived under the Father's will and by the cross. That is Christ's "humanity."

Thoughts?

Peter

p.s. Nell, sorry - this wasn't a direct answer to your post, but you spurred my thoughts...

p.p.s. but I will just add, I don't think that "list" was a "list of superficial things."

djohnson · 07-30-2008, 12:00 PM

Peter I guess what I am trying to figure out what it means to be human. The difference between our imperfection and Christ's perfection I think is well established. I am wondering about things like memory, consciousness, cognizance, etc. If this becomes the Holy Spirit after the resurrection does this mean prior to the resurrection the Holy Spirit was ignorant of what was going on in Christ's "humanity"?

YP0534 · 07-30-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

In a list of superficial things, Lee included the Lamb of God. Is that OK with you?

Another remarkably good example of Lee's loose speaking starting down a path that simply does not lead to more of Christ.

We'll never fully appreciate the depths of the mystery of Christ as the Lamb of God.

I don't think Lee actually meant it quite the way it came out but because even as he meant it he was belittling the portions of Christ our brothers and sisters everywhere have enjoyed, I'll object to it without further ado.

I praise the Lord that the saints everywhere can enjoy Him in such ways and I'm certain that their appreciation of such things, if they hold them fast, will ever-increase in depth and weight throughout eternity.

djohnson · 07-30-2008, 12:30 PM

In the western church soteriology has mostly focused on the cross and thus the Lamb of God and tends to be positional and judicial. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition the emphasis is on theosis or subjective and experiencial transformation. They are both equally important to a comprehensive understanding of soteriology.

I admire Lee for looking into the EO and bringing its emphasis to the attention of those unfamiliar with the matter of theosis. That he had to use such arrogance in the process unfortunately takes away from the good he had to offer.

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I know that we have traversed this terrain before. And I've experienced enough to know that my thick-skull requires me to continue traversing it - even hearing the same answers in return - in order to learn...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I was taken aback by this last post, however. Your post centered on one central theme about those who buy into - to whatever extent - the idea of a "processed" God (though I really don't know if I like that language). The implication from your post is that these folks think God is "inadequate." And God needed an "upgrade." And all sorts of other truely abismal views that Christians shouldn't ever ever have and how ridiculous and absurd and hubristic and small such a view is. That's how the post reads. But that is an unfair reading of those (some) who agree, to whatever extent, with the "processed" GOd (again, really don't care for the language).

I have a hard time with this kind of reasoning. It creates a false choice: either agree with me or you think God is inadequate. That may be the choice that my beliefs create and thus is good cause to vigorously reexamine my beliefs. But I hold the beliefs you say create this choice, and yet I don't view God as inadequate in any way. And I certainly don't see myself denegrating Christ's death on my behalf. In fact, I feel that every interation I have in my life, in my family, in my "church life" in my every interaction with God - it revolves around my need for a Savior and ever comes back to His death and resurrection. I don't think its impossible to hold bothbeliefs...

Good afternoon, Peter,

I’m sorry, if my post came across as with “either agree with me or you think God is inadequate” as its message to you. It surprised me that this is what you got from what I wrote.

I admit my tone was too strong for the general audience. I have been round this table before with Paul M so I’m sure my escalated rhetoric had its roots in that. Unfortunately on a public forum this affects others. Sorry. I am not suggesting that every one who believes some version of the processed God teaching denigrates the value of the Lamb, etc. I quoted what Lee said about this (in another post) which shows that He, however, did do this.

My point was that I believe God is innately adequate, therefore, He doesn’t need something added to Him. This is how I read the Bible. Lee says:

“This all-inclusive Spirit is greater than the Passover lamb, the manna, and the living water. In fact, this Spirit is greater than everything else. Nothing can surpass the Triune God undergoing a long process to become the life-giving Spirit.”

I may not understand or be able to explain the intricacies of Gods person and work, but I do understand one big thing. God is the great I AM. He is not the great “I WILL BECOME.” He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is perfect and needs nothing to be added to Him. He does not need to go through a long process to become something. Whatever attempts we make to explain the redemptive work of Christ, we shouldn’t mess with this fact. Lee did. His presentation leaves those he teaches with the idea that the Spirit of God became something else, different than what He was before that “becoming” happened. This is to go too far.

There is no question that Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension are mysterious and wonderful. It is good to think and talk about the wonder of this and what it means to us, but Lee took articulating and explaining the complexities of the redemptive work of Christ to a whole ‘nuther level. He repeated and repeated and repeated his beliefs about these things. No doubt, some of what He said is true, but also, some of it is not. Therein lies the problem. The "not true" part is carefully woven into the true. The above quote is what I see to be crossing the truth line.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps I should have begun with this: “processed,” “added” and all this language can cause God’s beautiful work to be morphed into a “science of dispensing.” It can divert attention from God’s pivotal redemptive act and reduce His desire to walk with us to a process of “intake.” This is an important caution. Keep repeating it over and again. Please.

But the historical fact that some people have been sucked in by a language and an unhealthy emphasis does not automatically negate any and all things they saw as truth in the Word.

I don’t believe I said anything about this negating other things that are true. I think that the reason we must discuss this topic and its “sucking in language” (which includes the term “processed”) with its unhealthy emphases, is because the devil is able to use any deviation from the truth to secure a hiding place or a base of operation in the hearer’s thinking. Any such deviation from truth needs to be pinned down, exposed, and expunged.

The processed Triune God is one of the pillars of Lee’s teachings. Just as Nigel Tomes has recently re-examined Lee's "Satanology," this topic also needs to be deconstructed and the chaff discarded. I am in no way saying I have done or can do this, but I have picked up my shovel. This is a big mountain and it's going to take all our shovels. Some of us have been chewing on this bone for a long time now (on the other forum). Thankfully, God is our Helper to do this. He said that if we seek we shall find. I am seeking the truth about this teaching and I think I’ve reached the knocking stage.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Why didn’t God just go ahead and redeem us, without sending His Son? Was He incapable and “inadequate”? Why was Jesus tempted by the devil before He could be the worthy Lamb? Was He “inadequate” or was that episode just for our reading pleasure?

I’ll go further: why the need for the re-birth? Why wasn’t Christ’s death on the Cross sufficient? It gave me access back to God just as Enoch had. With the Scripture, I also have the Word of God which contains the pattern of Christ, which I can imitate. Why the need for re-birth by the Spirit? And, by the way, in that re-birth, who indwells me? The Spirit or Christ? Or the Spirit of Christ? Or the….

For the record, these aren’t just questions in the wind. The Word has some things to say about them – even if it leaves some things a mystery. Asking these questions doesn’t require creating a “science of God.” It doesn’t require everything to be reduced to little morsels to “intake”. Lee can still be wrong, even if there is something to “humanity” being “added” to God (but really, there needs to be a more Scriptural articulation)

Peter, the slippery slope I was referring to was that of teaching anything that makes the I AM sound like the “I WILL BE” or the I USED TO BE BEFORE I BECAME ... All the questions you posed are related to what God DID for us and how we experience that, not who He IS.

I agree that there needs to be good, spiritual, articulation of all the things we believe about Christ’s redemptive work, and this is not just for mental apprehension in itself, but so that our walks with God and our experience with Him can be helped. How we think about something controls our behavior. (As a man thinketh, so is He.) If we have wrong thoughts (beliefs) about God and how He relates to us and we to Him, this will affect our experience.

Honestly, I believe this is the very reason that the devil has carefully constructed this monstrosity of Lee theology that we tangle with daily like some kind of a killer tar-baby. He wants nothing more than to frustrate our walks with God. His way is to infiltrate Christian teachings with false beliefs, which have been introduced in a way that sound like the truth. (Go back to the garden of Eden for his M.O.) If you want to do case studies in frustrated walks with God, the LC has produced boatloads of such cases. I am involved with one of the most heartbreaking I have seen in a long time right now. They believed and practiced Lee’s processed Triune God teachings, but I can assure you they did not exhibit Christ’s “uplifted humanity.”

I may not be able to understand or explain the ins and outs of new birth, but I believe I have been born again. My deadened spirit has been made alive to God. I am able to walk with Him in an intimate way. I can hear his voice and follow Him. In so doing, I am supplied by His Spirit (who by the way is the same Spirit who walked with Enoch.) We are different from Enoch in that we have been set free from the penalty of sin by believing in the redemptive work while we are still on the earth; however, I think Enoch got the same benefit from believing the promise of God’s salvation that was foretold. He found grace in the eyes of the Lord and God took him. I believe Enoch’s God is the same as ours. I don’t think we got an upgraded model. (No offense meant by this language, that's just an easy way to say it.)

What do you think Christ had that Enoch’s God did not? Ability to sympathize? He had that before He came, we just couldn’t understand this without Him showing us. This wasn’t some newly acquired ability. Longsuffering? Meekness? Gentleness? Love? Joy? Peace? He had all these and showed us He did. One point I can think of is that the Bible says He learned “obedience.” However, I don’t think this means He didn’t have the ability to obey, but He had never had to use His obedience before in the way He did as a man in the flesh.

Just what about Jesus had to be “added” that wasn’t already there when God said “I AM?”

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

And, importantly, asking these questions, and finding some tentative answers in the Word does not necessarily create a slippery slope (e.g. “if you believe that, what’s next – there’s no telling what you’ll end up believing” – as your post implies). Our inquiry is governed by the Word. I believe something because I believe the Word teaches it. Yes, I still have many many years of being Lee-colored glasses to wrestle with, but God has been faithful to show me that I can be freed from those glasses and return to His word. So, the notion that my beliefs will be unrestrained if I “open a door,” is not fair – they will be restrained because the Word circumscribes my inquiries – even when I stray now and again.

I meant “no telling what you will end up believing” about who God is and what has been added to Him, not about every other truth in the Bible.

One problem with Lee’s teaching about the LGS is that it has the potential to leave people with a wrong understanding about how to walk with God. It leads down a path where people lose sight of the fact that they are free moral agents in their walk with God.

Lee’s teaching that Christ’s “uplifted humanity” has been added to the Spirit sets the stage for the devil to deceive us about something very crucial to our experience and that is: how to live the Christian life... Lee says it is by two methods of eating and drinking the LGS and receiving His essence with all these ingredients. Then, automatically uplifted humanity is ours! Wow. Sounds good. But, Lee’s teaching leaves out very crucial things: our freedom to choose and our need to interact with Him personally with meaningful communication.

Will Christ live in us? Yes, but not like some kind of a robot on automatic pilot. Our proper human living does not come as a result of some simple switch on and off methodology. Proper (godly) human living develops as we walk with Him in an interactive way, through untold numbers of conversations with Him, learning at first like a child drinking the milk of the Word and gradually growing to maturity where we learn from the meat of the Word as ones whose senses have been exercised to discern between good and evil. Our mind is key. Our will is key. Satan doesn’t want these parts of our being involved with God.

The Spirit teaches us and directs us, but we have to choose to believe and follow. When we do the Spirit supplies us with the ability to walk accordingly. Healthy teaching will not leave out our conscious part in this.

Lee’s saturation theology omits healthy teaching about our part. It presents us with the Spirit that has all the “proper humanity” we need which can do it all for us if we just take in the Spirit's "essence" and are "organically constituted" with all the ingredients in this compound Spirit. The very closeness of this truth to the biblical truth that Christ is our life is what is so deadly. Christ is our life as we walk and talk with Him and He with us through His Word, not as we get soaked with His essence apart from real interactions with Him about real things.

In the way I just described, Lee’s teaching has the potential to remove the idea of personal accountability. In other words, if we don’t make it to live such a life, then it will be because the Spirit didn’t do his job of living His proper humanity in us.

I regularly hear a brother still under the after effects of Lee’s teaching (after 15+ years, and not my husband in case any wonder J), say exactly this. He says at the judgment seat if he isn’t different it will be Christ’s fault. He doesn’t see himself as a free moral agent and doesn’t believe that his choice (will) plays a part in his progress towards the judgment seat. He believes He needs “life” to do it for him. He calls (moans) on the Lord, so that should be giving Him what He needs. If it doesn’t happen, well it’s not his fault.

All of this seems far away from the discussion about the LGS, but it isn’t. It’s where the rubber meets the road. I don't feel like I have good utterance for what I am trying to share, but you know me by now, I will keep on trying. I am not crystal clear about all of this (obviously) but I am much more in the light than I used to be.

I have not thought one bit about needing to receive the processed Triune God in the past 15 years. Instead, I have had many conversations with Him about matters in hand. He's been talking and I've been learning to listen. I love Him, not ideas about Him. I've seen Him at work in lives around me in amazing ways and have been reduced to tears of thankfulness many times.

I am not here on this forum to win arguments (yeah, right, you say ...

). I really don't care about that. I am here to punch the devil in the nose by the word (what I have learned that I can speak) of my testimony.

I mean no offense to your dear Peter, or anyone, not even Paul M.

Thankful Jane

Nell · 07-30-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Another remarkably good example of Lee's loose speaking ... I don't think Lee actually meant it quite the way it came out ....

I think he meant exactly what he said. These messages were out for 20+ years without him correcting his misstatements or the LSM editor's pen correcting his loose speaking. We all know the LSM editors and their rewriting messages to be unrecognizable when we sat there and heard the message ourselves, in person.

It's up to the speaker to communicate his beliefs to the audience. I don't know about you, but I can't tell you how many times I said to myself "he really didn't mean it that way". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, too.

At this point, I have read enough and heard enough in the past to know that Lee had at least 2 consistencies in his "ministry": 1) contempt for Christianity, 2) an excessive appreciation of his own words over the words of the Bible.

He believed the message of the Lamb of God was superficial, compared to his own teachings. He repeated this theme too many times.

Nell

Peter Debelak · 07-30-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

....I am not here on this forum to win arguments (yeah, right, you say ...

). I really don't care about that. I am here to punch the devil in the nose by the word (what I have learned that I can speak) of my testimony.

I mean no offense to your dear Peter, or anyone, not even Paul M.

Thankful Jane

Dear Jane:

There is no offense. I love these opportunities to be challenged and to challenge, to go too far and not far enough, to get called out and to call out - all through which God finds a way to teach us.

I have a number of thoughts in response to your probing posts, but I must attend to the my little gal... Will respond later.

Peter

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Jane:

There is no offense. I love these opportunities to be challenged and to challenge, to go too far and not far enough, to get called out and to call out - all through which God finds a way to teach us.

I have a number of thoughts in response to your probing posts, but I must attend to the my little gal... Will respond later.

Peter

That's good. Thanks for telling me you aren't offended.

No need to rush to respond. I need a good break from all this meat laden fare

. That little daughter of yours comes first!

Thankful Jane

YP0534 · 07-30-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't know about you, but I can't tell you how many times I said to myself "he really didn't mean it that way". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, too.

Nell, I try to give all of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt all of the time, even when I'm clear that they are way off. People say and do some pretty wacky things in the name of Jesus and I know they usually mean well in it, even when the results are frankly harmful. I can definitely understand if some people's patience has become exhausted in a certain case, but I thought I was pretty clear in what I said in objecting to his statement as I (and apparently others) understood it. I'm sorry if you thought that objection wasn't worded strongly enough for some reason. Your objection to my objection is noted.

Thankful Jane · 07-30-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

He believed the message of the Lamb of God was superficial, compared to his own teachings. He repeated this theme too many times. Nell

Yes, He did. He started by putting down the "low gospel" of Christianity which was Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (the Lamb). I am ashamed that I ever accepted this thought.

Did you ever hear W. Lee say "I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified?" I didn't.

What he continually exalted is apparent, as you said: his teachings. Look how many he led to worship at the altar of his teachings which bear the LSM logo. The chorus was growing louder and louder while I was there "Brother Lee said" "Brother Lee said." Now that chorus is dominant and those who will not worship at the altar of Lee according to the edict of the One Publication are "slain."

My heart gets really heavy thinking about all this. I helped build that kingdom and brought many to serve at the altar of Lee who are still there today.

Lord, have mercy on all of us, that we all might be ready to join that mighty chorus shouting "Worthy the Lamb." Deliver us from evil. Deliver us from idols. We don't want any one of your children to stand before you in shame. Help us, Lord, and do so quickly.

Open our lips and fill this earth with the saving message of the cross. May we lift high the name of Jesus. Rescue us from every deceptive high teaching that exalts itself against true knowledge of You. Help us to bring all of our thoughts into captivity to your obedience.

Save, Lord, as our King, hear us when we call.

Peter Debelak · 07-30-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

One problem with Lee’s teaching about the LGS is that it has the potential to leave people with a wrong understanding about how to walk with God. It leads down a path where people lose sight of the fact that they are free moral agents in their walk with God.

Thankful Jane

Some disjointed thoughts in response:

Every truth has two sides. Experience can cause us to come down more heavily on one side versus the other. My experience has cause me to come down heavily on both sides – at different times – and thus I am continually open for the Lord to caution me, to redirect (and that, often through others).

I want to relate a quick story that ties in with what you have said here about our free agency:

About two years ago I had a brief correspondence with one of the BBs. I wrote with many searching questions. He responded with a lengthy and tender response. But one of the things he said in his reply was “I sense some angst in your tone.”

I was immediately offended, but after much consideration before the Lord, I realized he was right. I was FULL of angst. Not “angst” in the black-wearing, Mohawk-having, rebellious-for-its-own-sake sort of teenage “angst” – but rather in the sense of “angst” spoken of by Soren Kierkegaard: a deep-rooted spiritual condition of fearing one is failing in his responsibilities to God. It is a condition unique to free beings.

I have felt this angst in two separate directions – one which mirrors the emphasis that you bring and one which cuts the other way.

First, I felt as though so many of the teachings – particularly those related to deputy authority etc… - had stolen my individual accountability to God –or actually, that I had freely handed it over to others. I had lost my personal accountability and relationship with God. I have said before, as you do now, one of the biggest detriments of many of the LC teachings and practices is that it trains a believer to hand over his/her responsibility and accountability to God.

The other sort of “angst” is really just that condition of which Paul speaks in Romans 7: the deep sense that you utterly cannot do it. You know God’s requirements, you think that you are putting your whole person into them, and you do the exact opposite. So debilitiating.

Have you ever read Nee’s “The Overcoming Life”? I can’t read it. I am such a wretched Christian when I read it. I know too well my lack, my weakness, my failings. My inabilities to love, to forebear. My conscience slaps me around daily. And I can’t change. Perhaps I am one of the derelicts God just can’t work with…

In the midst of this angst, I cannot tell you the encouragement that comes from knowing that the Spirit that indwells is the same God who lived the human life in the midst of the same limitations and weaknesses that befall me. Christ went through all of those experiences, not just so that he could have “standing” before the Father as our advocate, and not just so that we could read about Him and imitate His example. I can’t just “imitate.” I don’t know how to pull myself up by my bootstraps. Fortunately, it is not I, but Christ who lives in me! This does not absolve me of accountability and engagement with God in this life He has given me. On the contrary, He calls and I respond. But it is His Son in me that responds. I must work out my own salvation. But He is both the willing and the working.

It is important for my subjective going-on (if only because I have a weak faith), to know that the power of the Spirit who indwells me is the power of One who has experienced the limitations and weaknesses which constrict me but who prevailed nonetheless.

I can believe all of this and still reject the mechanistic “eating” teaching which can steal away a believers individual relationship and responsibility to God.

It really shouldn’t be a secret for any of us whether we are failing our responsibility to God. It is know – not by the underlying doctrines – but by the fruits. I’ve held correct doctrines, but misapplied them in my life. The fruit? None. There have been times when Lee-style “eating” has filled me with a joy that just emminated. Most of the time, it is the constant interaction with God – real questions, opening up, considering, reading His word thoughtfully and with questions to Him – which produce good fruit in my life. Knowing what the fruits should be is a lot like the law which convicts. When our life is not full of fruits (I don’t mean in any narrow sense) – that is opportunity to return to Him, to question, to let Him expose our hearts, our practices, our assumptions about Him. Insodoing, He does transform me – by the indwelling of the One who has already done it.

None of that requires nor refutes Lee’s “eating” doctrines. The “processed God” stuff and the “eating” doctrines are separate.

I have no problem dropping the terminology. But there is an identity between the Spirit and Christ which goes further than traditional “person” distinctions: one which explains that, though it is the Spirit that indwells me, I can still be assured that the One who indwells me is the same one who was able to obey God regardless of the limitations, weaknesses and temptations of the human life. That is the One who fulfills God’s requirements, not me. And He does so as I live my life with Him, not simply through "mechanisms" and "intake".

I have more thoughts, but I think that's enough for now. Grace to you,

Peter

Nell · 07-30-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Nell, I try to give all of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt all of the time, even when I'm clear that they are way off. People say and do some pretty wacky things in the name of Jesus and I know they usually mean well in it, even when the results are frankly harmful. I can definitely understand if some people's patience has become exhausted in a certain case, but I thought I was pretty clear in what I said in objecting to his statement as I (and apparently others) understood it. I'm sorry if you thought that objection wasn't worded strongly enough for some reason. Your objection to my objection is noted.

YP--

You were very clear. I didn't think anything about your objection and its wording. I understand your point of view. My objection is stronger, but that's me. I liked your post...no objections...just the voice of moderation. I'm the one who came across too strong and I'm sorry.

Nell

OBW · 07-31-2008, 11:06 AM

"Every truth has two sides."

Are we really sure this is true? Lee said it all the time. He even built some interesting doctrines because of the supposed duality of everything.

But can we truly say that every truth has two sides? Does that lead us to seek for something in truth that may not be there? Are we presuming another side and therefore compelled to find and analyze it no matter how outrageous it may be?

I'm not saying anything about any particular post. I'm directly questioning this LC "axiom of truth." The problem with axioms is that they are stated as true, but you cannot prove it, you can only see the result as consistently true. Is this axiom really true? Are all of the "other sides" that Lee came up with actually true, and is it correct to always assume that there must be another side?

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

Peter Debelak · 07-31-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

"Every truth has two sides."

Are we really sure this is true? Lee said it all the time. He even built some interesting doctrines because of the supposed duality of everything.

But can we truly say that every truth has two sides? Does that lead us to seek for something in truth that may not be there? Are we presuming another side and therefore compelled to find and analyze it no matter how outrageous it may be?

I'm not saying anything about any particular post. I'm directly questioning this LC "axiom of truth." The problem with axioms is that they are stated as true, but you cannot prove it, you can only see the result as consistently true. Is this axiom really true? Are all of the "other sides" that Lee came up with actually true, and is it correct to always assume that there must be another side?

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

Interesting catch, OBW. Honestly, I truly can't recall having picked this up - certainly not as a basic premise - in the LC (which doesn't mean it didn't happen). This is something I have been considering since my time out of the LC.

Yes, I think a thread on this would be helpful (at least to me). I would be interested in hearing the LC teaching on this (who knows, even though I don't remember it, perhaps it slipped into my subconscious after so many years and I need to address it). I can share with you some of the thoughts I've been pondering as of late on this issue of the two-foldness of truth...

Peter

p.s. btw, I'm not sure I agree even with myself that every truth has two sides - but that's not what you're challenging anyways (if i read you correctly)...

OBW · 07-31-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I truly can't recall having picked this up - certainly not as a basic premise - in the LC

I agree that it may be hard to pin down. But Lee kept using it as if it was simply an assumed fact.

Recently, someone pointed to some of Lee's teachings during the mid/late 80s where he said that chaos always followed the ministry. I'd never heard that one. But I read a little of it and it is even buried in there.

I know I spent several years speaking of the two sides to so many things even after leaving the LC as if it was simply a good assumption that there always was. I may not have been officially taught that, but I was taught it unofficially. I can hear it now. "If Lee didn't actually teach it, then it's just your own fault."

I know that he constantly said there were two sides to so many things. Some of them were clearly true. And I'm not sure that there is some place where he says in absolute terms that every truth has two sides. But every time he pointed to something with two sides, he would say the fact of the two sides in such a manner that we should have expected it — as if it should be assumed.

djohnson · 07-31-2008, 11:44 AM

As I recall from reading Lee's work he did use this as a basic premise in his teaching and to confirm his position he referred his readership/audience to a booklet entitled: The Twofoldness of the Divine Truth by Robert Govett.

Cal · 07-31-2008, 12:07 PM

I think this belief in twofoldedness led Lee to see symmetry where the Bible didn't support it. Like believing because God indwells our spirit then Satan must indwell our flesh; and that since God became man then man must be becoming God. That tendency to want to see symmetry permeates Lee's theology.

djohnson · 07-31-2008, 12:37 PM

Igzy I agree and am happy this issue has come to the surface.

It appears Lee used this idea to deflect challenges to his positions. He would take a position and then when challenged would claim that he was referring to the other side of a truth which the challenger was apparently ignorant of. Of course with this idea as a tool he could never be wrong.

Peter Debelak · 07-31-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think this belief in twofoldedness led Lee to see symmetry where the Bible didn't support it. Like believing because God indwells our spirit then Satan must indwell our flesh; and that since God became man then man must be becoming God. That tendency to want to see symmetry permeates Lee's theology.

I understand what you're saying here -and I agree that Lee had a thing for "symmetry" - but that is somewhat different than the "twofoldness of truth" that I was envisioning.

As an example of what I'm talking about is: Paul says, do not say "I of Paul" and yet also refers to himself as a spiritual father.

Twofoldness of truth I would say are just the paradoxes of truth: that is, two things on the same subject which appear contradictory but which are not - they are compatable, even if we can't fully grasp the compatibility.

Another one: we are told to "work out our salvation," except that Christ is both the "willing and the working" in us.

I'm not sure these sorts of paradoxes are in the same vein as Lee's penchant for symmetry...

Thoughts?

Peter

p.s. perhaps a new thread? there are still matters on the Last Adam etc... that I don't want to get lost in myriad of posts on other subjects

Nell · 07-31-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

I'm not sure its "worthy",

but it doesn't need to be on this thread. Mike, it's your catch.

Nell

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Lee used the word "humanity" but what did he and what do those in the LCS and apparently some who left mean when they use this term? What are they taking about?

The "humanity of Jesus" includes the following:

incarnation
human living for 33-1/2 years
persecutions and sufferings
crucifixion
death on the cross
burial
resurrection
ascension

All of these "humanity of Jesus" was allegorized in Exodus 30 with the four spices added to the olive oil. The olive oil signifies the Spirit that was not yet in John 7:39. The four spices signify the "death and effectiveness of the death" and "resurrection and power of the resurrection" of the Lord Jesus.

With the "humanity of Jesus" added to the Spirit that was not yet in John 7:39, John 20:22 has resulted for the Lord Jesus to breathe the Holy Spirit into the discples becoming Him as their eternal life. In John 20:22 the Lord Jesus was no longer "became flesh" (John 1:14) but "became a life-giving Spirit (1Corinthians 15:45). We no longer know the Lord Jesus in the "flesh" now but "a life-giving Spirit" because "Now, the Lord is the Holy Spirit."

The addition of the "humanity of Jesus" to the Spirit has made the Holy Spirit as the "all-inclusive Spirit". By this, our love is no longer our own love but the love of Christ; our peace is no longer our own peace but the peace of Christ, our humility is no longer our own humility but the humility of Christ, etc. Therefore, God's attributes now became our human virtues!

KSA · 08-01-2008, 12:34 AM

What you listed is not exactly humanity. None of the people experienced incarnation. Does it mean they are not human or their humanity is deficient? Herein lies the problem, it seems in LC they have no clear understanding of what humanity is (maybe it is the reason they sometimes act so inhumane?).

Humanity is that human nature that comprises spirit, soul and body. In His incarnation Christ partook of humanity. He was human just like us. And when we received the Spirit, we did not receive any additional humanity.

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

What you listed is not exactly humanity. None of the people experienced incarnation. Does it mean they are not human or their humanity is deficient? Herein lies the problem, it seems in LC they have no clear understanding of what humanity is (maybe it is the reason they sometimes act so inhumane?).

Humanity is that human nature that comprises spirit, soul and body. In His incarnation Christ partook of humanity. He was human just like us. And when we received the Spirit, we did not receive any additional humanity.

KSA,

How can you say "incarnation" is not part of the "humanity of Christ"? How can the Word become flesh without incarnation? I cannot follow your logic here.

The very "humanity of Christ" that we have received has mainly to do with the human living, persecutions, sufferings, and "death and resurrection" of the Lord Jesus as allegorized in Exodus 20. My earlier post is so simple to read and understand but you have chosen not to receive the message.

Only with the Holy Spirit added to the "humanity of Christ" we are able to experience the very life and nature of Christ in us. The "humanity of Christ" is the UPLIFTED HUMANITY that we do not possess before we were regenerated. This is the very reason, why the "humanity of Christ" was added to the Holy Spirit in order for us to receive the Holy Spirit as breathed to us in John 20:22. Thereby, we who have been regenerated now possessed the very life and nature of God, PLUS THE "HUMANITY OF CHRIST".

Please refer to your earlier post where you have provided us a link to read. The author of that article was not denying the prior existence of the Spirit and the aftermath standing of the Holy Spirit because of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Read it for your self.

KSA · 08-01-2008, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

KSA,

How can you say "incarnation" is not part of the "humanity of Christ"? How can the Word become flesh without incarnation?

Very easy! Incarnation is not humanity, it is the process of getting humanity. Do you see the difference?

humanity |(h)yoōˈmanitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the human race; human beings collectively : appalling crimes against humanity.
• the fact or condition of being human; human nature

OBW · 08-01-2008, 04:54 AM

There are surely cases where the same word has two meanings, but that is not the same as two sides to truth. For example, we use the word "salvation" to refer to initial regeneration, but also to refer to aspects of sanctification. That does not give "salvation" two sides, but simply discussed two different uses of the word.

It is possible that much of the talk was more about symmetry rather than two-foldedness. But they are actually related.

And there probably are places where there are two aspects, or sides, but where those sides are not contradictory, just different. For example, there are several of the terms surrounding salvation/justification/sanctification which are used both as facts and as ongoing processes. That is not really two different sides but the acknowledgment that on one hand we have received a deposit of that item while on the other hand we are growing in it as a trait. It is not a true contradiction or opposing side, but is the completeness of the term.

I think that Lee spent too much of his mental energy looking for and teaching symmetry, two sides, etc., in such a manner that he looked for it where it was not, or found things that were not really related and created a symmetry or a connection that could be passed off as two sides. For this reason, I think that we should always question those teachings that already exist and also resist the urge to follow in his footsteps in expecting this two-sidedness or symmetry.

YP0534 · 08-01-2008, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is possible that much of the talk was more about symmetry rather than two-foldedness. But they are actually related.

Can one of our local Greek scholars perhaps say a word about the grammatical structure \men...de...de...de...\ for our readers?

I'm basically familiar with the concept of multiple "on the other hands" but I'm not sufficiently qualified to teach on this and to my understanding it may explain why a duality approach to issues is often close but not quite right.

Thanks!

Ohio · 08-01-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think this belief in twofoldedness led Lee to see symmetry where the Bible didn't support it. Like believing because God indwells our spirit then Satan must indwell our flesh; and that since God became man then man must be becoming God. That tendency to want to see symmetry permeates Lee's theology.

Igzy, I had always attributed this tendency towards "symmetry" to WL's experience as an accountant, attempting to balance out debits and credits.

Ohio · 08-01-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Herein lies the problem, it seems in the LC they have no clear understanding of what humanity is (maybe it is the reason they sometimes act so inhumane?)

Interesting thought KSA.

It definitely seems that the more one is "absolute for the program" the more "inhumane" he becomes.

I would sure like to know the statistic of how many children who were raised in the program, yet today want nothing to do with it?

Peter Debelak · 08-01-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Can one of our local Greek scholars perhaps say a word about the grammatical structure \men...de...de...de...\ for our readers?

I'm basically familiar with the concept of multiple "on the other hands" but I'm not sufficiently qualified to teach on this and to my understanding it may explain why a duality approach to issues is often close but not quite right.

Thanks!

YP:

Could you give us an example of where this structure occurs?

Thanks.

Peter

YP0534 · 08-01-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Could you give us an example of where this structure occurs?

I made a pretty good study of it years ago and at that time I was mostly impressed with, oh, isn't that interesting?
I found a few old posts that explain better than I can:

Quote:

Re:MEN-DE-DE in John 16:9-11
DWILKINS[at]ucrac1.ucr.edu
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:36:20 -0700 (PDT)

Sorry that no one got back to you, Jonathan, but now you'll probably have a
full plate. The NASB does use "and" for the two DE's. MEN...DE contructions
can be hard to translate into smooth Eng because of the subtlety of the Greek.
The (probably) most literal approach is "on the one hand...other hand", but
this soon becomes tedious and sometimes downright awkward (Tavia's example in
"Fiddler" is a comic example). Most of the time I leave MEN untranslated and
use "but" for DE if there is a strong enough contrast, but sometimes there is
not, hence the translations you mention (the NASB has "and" because of the
strong commitment to literal translation, but the result is probably not as
smooth as the other translations). As to whether the MEN...DE...DE makes a
difference in the Greek--it undoubtedly does, and the ideal translation (which
sometimes just isn't possible) would reveal the difference without reading
poorly in Eng.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/0365.html

See also:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/0361.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/0364.html

A lot of times, due to the awkwardness of the resultant English translation, these sorts of multi-distinctional considerations are sort of glossed over. Not sure that's always such a good idea. But neither am I presently qualified to be a translator either!

djohnson · 08-01-2008, 09:49 AM

PaulM KSA has sufficiently pointed out that what you refer to as "humanity" are really events on a historical narrative time line. These are not humanity.

I think you should ponder this matter deeply. I believe it is worthy of serious thought. Not only to understand theological issues but to understand ourselves.

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Very easy! Incarnation is not humanity, it is the process of getting humanity. Do you see the difference?

humanity |(h)yoōˈmanitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the human race; human beings collectively : appalling crimes against humanity.
• the fact or condition of being human; human nature

KSA, when did the Lord Jesus become man or human?

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

PaulM KSA has sufficiently pointed out that what you refer to as "humanity" are really events on a historical narrative time line. These are not humanity.

I think you should ponder this matter deeply. I believe it is worthy of serious thought. Not only to understand theological issues but to understand ourselves.

Thanks, djohnson...

Perhaps, the following excerpts from Brother Witness Lee's "The Christian Life" will clearly define the humanity of Jesus --

Quote:

IX. THE COMPOUND SPIRIT—THE SPIRIT OF GOD
COMPOUNDED WITH CHRIST'S DIVINITY, HUMANITY,
DEATH AND ITS SWEET EFFECTIVENESS,
AND RESURRECTION AND ITS FRAGRANT POWER

The Spirit of God has been compounded. This is typified by the compound ointment in Exodus 30:23-25. This ointment is a compound of olive oil with myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, and cassia. The olive oil signifies the Spirit of God with divinity, myrrh signifies Christ's death, cinnamon signifies the sweet effectiveness of Christ's death, calamus signifies Christ's resurrection, and cassia signifies the fragrant power of Christ's resurrection. The one hin of olive oil also signifies the unique God, and the four spices of the plant life signify man, the creature of God. This, of course, refers to the humanity of Jesus, or to the Man Jesus. Thus, the compound Spirit is the Spirit of God compounded with Christ's divinity, humanity, death and its sweet effectiveness, and resurrection and its fragrant power. The one hin of olive oil compounded with four kinds of spices becomes a compound ointment for anointing.

Myrrh was used in ancient times to reduce the suffering of death. Cassia was a repellent used to repel snakes and insects. The power of Christ's resurrection is a real repellent. When you live in His power of resurrection, the devil and all the demons will flee away. We can have this experience when we are enjoying the infilling and the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ. When we are filled with the Spirit of Christ, we have the resurrection.

Thankful Jane · 08-02-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Thanks, djohnson...

Perhaps, the following excerpts from Brother Witness Lee's "The Christian Life" will clearly define the humanity of Jesus --

Sorry I can't be in on this discussion for the next few days, but here's my quick two cents worth that maybe someone else can run with:

Spices added to oil to make it fragrant (those were spices by the way) Mixing in spices does not change the oil one bit. They just give off their own fragrance. A compound in science is something that is created out of different elements to make an entirely new substance with unique new properties. A mixture is putting elements together that still retain their individual properties. There is no such thing as a compound Spirit. This is Lee's concoctive interpretation. Wish I had more time. Besides the fact that he is wrongly interpreting this mixture to be a "compound," there is no basis in scripture for such an interpretation that the Spirit of God was later improved upon. You keep insisting that John 7:37-39 is such, but we have already shown that Lee's interpretation of the John 7 verses is faulty.

Out of time.

Thankful

djohnson · 08-02-2008, 09:55 AM

PaulM Christ's death does not = His humanity. Do you not understand the difference? His death is something that happened. It is not him.

KSA · 08-02-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

KSA, when did the Lord Jesus become man or human?

I wonder what you meant by this question? It really amuses me that you try to defend that "incarnation" is part of humanity. Even introducing "out of time", "in eternity" argument is not gonna make it easier for you.

Paul Miletus · 08-02-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sorry I can't be in on this discussion for the next few days, but here's my quick two cents worth that maybe someone else can run with:

Spices added to oil to make it fragrant (those were spices by the way) Mixing in spices does not change the oil one bit. They just give off their own fragrance. A compound in science is something that is created out of different elements to make an entirely new substance with unique new properties. A mixture is putting elements together that still retain their individual properties. There is no such thing as a compound Spirit. This is Lee's concoctive interpretation. Wish I had more time. Besides the fact that he is wrongly interpreting this mixture to be a "compound," there is no basis in scripture for such an interpretation that the Spirit of God was later improved upon. You keep insisting that John 7:37-39 is such, but we have already shown that Lee's interpretation of the John 7 verses is faulty.

Out of time.

Thankful

The Word says "an ointment compound" --

Quote:

Exodus 30
25And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

The Spirit in John 7:39 "was not yet" because the Lord Jesus Christ was not yet glorified. Afer the Lord Jesus Christ's glorification through death and resurrection, as well as ascension, the Spirit was no longer the Spirit of God with divine essence, but now became the Spirit of Jesus Christ, indicating the humanity of Jesus Christ was added to the Spirit.

Quote:

The Spirit was first the Spirit of God, possessing only the divine essence. But after God in the Son became a man and died on the cross, passing through death and resurrection and entering into ascension, the Spirit became the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19), compounded with God's essence and Jesus' humanity and His death and resurrection. The Spirit no longer has just the divine essence, but now has, in addition, Jesus' humanity with the death of Christ, the effectiveness of His death, the resurrection, and the power of His resurrection.

Paul Miletus · 08-02-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I wonder what you meant by this question? It really amuses me that you try to defend that "incarnation" is part of humanity. Even introducing "out of time", "in eternity" argument is not gonna make it easier for you.

I believe we are talking regarding the "humanity of Jesus Christ", right? and not my humanity, nor your humanity, nor any other man's humanity? Am I right?

Paul Miletus · 08-02-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

PaulM Christ's death does not = His humanity. Do you not understand the difference? His death is something that happened. It is not him.

This is ridiculous!

If Mr. ABC died, then he has experienced death and according to my understanding with your statement, Mr. ABC was not the one who died?

KSA · 08-02-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I believe we are talking regarding the "humanity of Jesus Christ", right? and not my humanity, nor your humanity, nor any other man's humanity? Am I right?

Was Jesus' humanity different from ours? I think you confuse two things - substance and action. Humanity is substance, not action. For example, you can take wood, cut it, polish it, glue it, and produce a table. Cutting, polishing and gluing are actions applied to wood, but they are not wood.

djohnson · 08-02-2008, 11:14 PM

An event and the experience of an event are two different things PaulM

So we agree the Lord Jesus experienced death. So where in his being was that experience retained? E.g. memory or...?

Paul Miletus · 08-02-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Was Jesus' humanity different from ours? I think you confuse two things - substance and action. Humanity is substance, not action. For example, you can take wood, cut it, polish it, glue it, and produce a table. Cutting, polishing and gluing are actions applied to wood, but they are not wood.

Jesus Christ's humanity is a perfect humanity. Our humanity is a corrupted humanity. This is the very reason the humanity of Jesus Christ needs to be added to the Spirit of God (John 7:39) and upon the glorification of the Lord Jesus He would be able to enter into us (John 20:22) and receive Him as a life-giving Spirit (1Corinthians 15:45). In this way, our corrupted humanity will be replaced with the UPLIFTED HUMANITY. This "uplifted humanity" is the "all-inclusive Spirit" or the "life-giving Spirit" or the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" that has mingled in our spirit. The Word says --

Quote:

1Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

By this...

Quote:

2 Corinthians 5
17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Hallelujah! Amen!

cityonahill · 08-18-2008, 05:27 PM

It is unbelievable how Lee's teaching can make the most simple passages in the bible the most complicated! (which enables only his works and publications to decode them...)

To understand this verse alone one must read it in the context of verses 44-49:

The contrast here between the natural body and the spiritual body follows from their two representatives in (vs. 21-22). One is the first Adam who had a naturally body (of dust-Gen 2:7) and through whom a natural body is given to his descendants. The other is the last Adam, Christ, the life-giving spirit (John 5:26) Who through his death and ressurection will at the second coming give his redeemed people a spiritual body similar to Christ's ressurected, glorified body!(LK 24:36-43, php. 3:21, 1 John 3:2)

This passage gets me excited!

This is our hope and future! There is not much to debate here...

cityonahill · 08-18-2008, 05:32 PM

Those of you who question when Jesus entered into humanity and what that really means...

have you ever heard of DOCETISM It is an age old heresy that Ignatius of Antioch and others debated in the first few centuries of Christianity. Be careful in regard to making the humanity of Jesus more complicated than it really was.

07-24-2008, 03:16 AM	#1
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine. 1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third. 2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here. Any thoughts?

07-24-2008, 07:49 AM	#9
SpeakersCorner Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 273	I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this. What is important in bringing this matter up is that metonymy is figurative language. If this verse is figurative then we must not take it as literal ... in which case the 2nd person of the trinity did not literally become the 3rd. He became it in figure in some way. I'd like both of you to speak more on this matter. It isn't just a linguistics sidewater; it matters. SC P.S. I just re-read one of your above posts, KSA, and now I think I'm more clear on what you are calling metonymy. To wit: the "spiritual body" is the metonymy -- that is, the figure -- for the "life-giving spirit." Or is it the other way around? I'm still confused, I guess. At any rate, it just doesn't seem like a case of metonymy because neither term is a handy metaphorical shorthand for the other as far as I can tell. Last edited by SpeakersCorner; 07-24-2008 at 07:55 AM.

07-24-2008, 12:25 PM	#11
Peter Debelak I Have Finished My Course Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Avon, OH Posts: 303	Some thoughts: In Paul's reasoning in this chapter, he seems to identify the following objects/process: 1) a "seed" 2) "death" of that seed; 3) which manifests in a "body" which matches the nature of that seed see verses 36, 38 (as well as the thought of entire chapter). In the case of the LAST ADAM, I would match these items up with: 1) "a life-giving spirit" is the "seed" which, 2) by Christ's death 3) manifested as a "spiritual body" Similarly, for us, the "seed" is the "life-giving spirit" received at regeneration which manifests as a "spiritual body" for us after our death. Not sure if there's any metonymy going on here, but I don't think so - these terms aren't "stand-ins" for eachother. They are related, however, in this narrative and metaphor Paul is using. Thoughts? __________________ I Have Finished My Course

07-24-2008, 08:11 PM	#13
Shawn Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 54	The Two Becomings When brother Lee expounded these verses, the scriptural support was based on the word "became," that was also used in John chapter 1 to describe the Word becoming flesh. It was my understanding that the first becoming occurred in incarnation and the second becoming took place in our Lord's ressurrection; not that the trinity changed, but that God's access to man has changed with the Lords ressurrection. I wonder how KSA's ideas support or refute this understanding? Is the last Adam becoming the life giving Spirit figurative or actual? Explaining this will help me to understand the last few threads. Thanks, Shawn

07-25-2008, 02:20 PM	#18
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	There’s been a lot of discussion (ignoring the metonymy thing), but I think that KSA has basically hit the mark. Every time I read through the whole of these verses, I see Paul explaining something about how we will be resurrected. It really is not about Christ. He is merely using the example or parallel of the first and last Adam. If Paul’s intent had been to make a radical statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, he would not have buried it in this manner. It would have been the forefront of what he was saying, not simply part of the discussion of how we frail humans will be resurrected. Surely the Christ as flesh and blood was separate from mankind. But after resurrection, flesh and blood were replaced by the spiritual. Now the Christ that gives life is doing so spiritually. Just as God is spirit, but not exclusively the Holy Spirit, so also Christ is spirit. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-25-2008, 08:17 PM	#21
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	OBW I agree with your assessment. To take half a verse out of context as Lee did to support his theory about God being processed is sloppy scholarship. If exegesis work is reduced to this level we can take half verses from over the bible and string them together to support anything we want. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-25-2008, 11:51 PM	#22
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	Is it really fair to say that Lee's doctrine regarding the life-giving Spirit is solely based upon 1 Cor. 15:45b? What about his coordinated appeal to John 7:39 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18? I mean, you could almost leave 1 Cor. 15:45b out altogether to get to the same place Lee got in citation of these other two verses. I'm observing that there seems to be an ease of ditching Lee's teaching regarding 1 Cor. 15:45b simply because it was Lee's teaching and diverged from mainstream orthodoxy. That's your choice, I suppose, but it seems like maybe there's at least a possibility of some discarding of the baby with the bathwater in that approach. Personally, I'm not all that impressed with academic credentialing, particular with regard to religious academia. No offense meant to anyone here but neither traditional study nor extra letters behind your name makes you any better able to know God or God's Word than the rest of us poor layman peons. I'd like to pose this question for your honest consideration: has anyone looked elsewhere, say in the volumes of the Early Church Fathers, for support for Lee's teaching on this point? I believe there's something to be said about being cautious in embracing wholeheartedly the results of Post-Nicene theological formulations for the same reasons I view academic credentials as of limited utility in knowing the truth of God. Further, I'm pretty sure if I dug around enough I could find at least a few with theological cred of some kind to corroborate Lee's reading of this verse. (For instance, see the discussion beginning on p. 322 in http://books.google.com/books?id=CEkyo7Wb7hgC) I'll be honest with you. My cursory review of general Christian literature on this verse mostly seems to demonstrate people struggling to avoid the conclusion that Lee so gleefully reached. There are of course a few who dogmatically declare that it cannot mean any such thing, but most seem to see what it rather clearly says and then in honesty feel they have to struggle with its meaning within the confines of traditional orthodoxy. I'll note in this context that the "Open Letter" scholars do not directly address this one as an issue, although they are generally critical of Lee's theology on related points (such as implicit patripassionism and modalistic phraseology.) I'm not really advocating for Lee's position here, although I do hold it, or at least something similar, myself. I just don't think any of us should become those who likewise deal loosely with things in an attempt to overthrow whatever looseness we have been burdened and bound with. It seems too easy for us to become what we hate. If it makes someone happy to speculate concerning a Christ whose life-giving spirit is meaningfully distinct from the Holy Spirit who is the third Person of the Trinity, that is of course your right, but I won't follow that myself. According to my experience, that is a corrosive doctrine that will eventually leave you without any reality. I think there is something infinitely profound to be learned about God's purpose and work in verses such as John 1:14 and 1 Cor. 15:45. God's entry into human history and His accomplishments while among us are what infuse us with the interest to take up this topic at all. If the the Word that became flesh has not in turn become the life-giving Spirit, I'm pretty much done with Him, I'm afraid. I have the joy to participate in the living God in His assembly. I have no more use for an orthodox creed than I do for a statue of the Buddha. Of course, as they say in the commercials, your mileage may vary. __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

07-26-2008, 04:29 AM	#23
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	A further word on context. I just wanted to additionally mention, since it has not been expressly mentioned yet in this discussion, that the section is clearly mainly concerned with Paul's teachings regarding resurrection of the mortal body in apparent refutation of those who might deny physical resurrection. Thus, the discourse focuses on the fact we should know that our spiritual bodies in resurrection are to be far different from our soulish bodies in death. Please note that the contrast is not between spiritual and physical bodies, but between spiritual and soulish. Thus, we know that God formed the physical body out of the earth, breathed into the nostrils of that, and Adam became a living soul, which is obviously something distinct from, although connected with, the now-animated pile of dirt. So, to the extent that there is a parallel structure here, how can we handle all these elements with proper care? The suggestion, according to the whole context, is not only that our spiritual bodies will be different in kind from the soulish bodies in resurrection, but indeed that we are the now-animated pile of dirt as the Body of Christ by the operation of the life-giving Spirit. We surely cannot ignore that He breathed into the disciples after resurrection and told them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22... __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

07-26-2008, 06:21 AM	#24
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	YP your post #22 demonstrates the problem. 1 Cor 15:45b doesn't say the it says a. But if you repeat something over enough times as Lee did then in people's heads a can change to the. Here is the argument Lee made: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Therefore 1 Cor 15:45b refers to the Holy Spirit. Here is my argument: can there be two Holy Spirit's? No. Did the Son change form after the resurrection? Yes. Was this change demonstrated for 40 days on earth? Yes. Can the Son change form without becoming the Holy Spirit? Yes. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-26-2008, 08:54 AM	#26
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	YP we are discussing 1 Cor 15:45b and the verse we are discussing uses a not the so I would say it is quite a big distinction since after all its the bible. The first discipline of an exegete is to exegesis the verse within the context it was written textually. Stringing a few half verses together to form a theological position makes the bible subject to us instead of us subjecting our minds to it. Please allow me to offer another comment. One of Lee's supposedly revolutionary theological breakthroughs was that the Triune God lives in us. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit live in me then why would the Son have to become the Holy Spirit? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-26-2008, 10:55 AM	#28
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Dear YP0534, All of us that embraced Lee's teaching believed that Christ became the Life-giving Spirit. He told us that the LGS (life-giving Spirit) had something new added to it, that is, Christ's resurrected humanity. So the question then becomes: is the Life-Giving Spirit different from the Holy Spirit? What say you? Thankful Jane

07-26-2008, 12:48 PM	#30
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Lee Math! YP in John 4 it says God is spirit. Are you suggesting that God who is spirit is not life giving? If God is life giving then that would mean the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who are all spirit are life giving. The idea that the Son has to become the Holy Spirit otherwise there would be two Spirits is Lee math. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-26-2008, 03:13 PM	#32
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Then why did you mention it in your post YP? If the whole Triune God is life-giving then why the issue about there having to be two Spirits? The Son does not have to become the Holy Spirit and neither are there two Holy Spirits if He does not. In other words the Son is a life giving spirit without becoming the Holy Spirit. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-26-2008, 07:30 PM	#34
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	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. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-27-2008, 07:31 AM	#38
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	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. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-27-2008, 11:08 AM	#40
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	I think this commentary from John Gill will add to our discussion: ...now he is made "a quickening spirit"; which some understand of the Holy Spirit, which filled the human nature of Christ, raised him from the dead, and will quicken our mortal bodies at the last day; others of the divine nature of Christ, to which his flesh, or human nature, was united; and which gave life, rigour, and virtue, to all his actions and sufferings, as man; and by which he was quickened, when put to death in the flesh, and by which he will quicken others another day: though rather I think it is to be understood of his spiritual body, of his body, not as it was made of the virgin, for that was a natural, or an animal one; it was conceived and bred, and born as animal bodies are; it grew and increased, and was nourished with meat and drink, and sleep and rest; and was subject to infirmities, and to death itself, as our bodies be; but it is to be understood of it as raised from the dead, when it was made a spiritual body, for which reason it is called a "spirit": not that it was changed into a spirit, for it still remained flesh and blood; but because it was no more supported in an animal way; nor subject to those weaknesses that animal bodies are, but lives as spirits, or angels do; and a quickening one, not only because it has life itself, but because by virtue of the saints' union to it, as it subsists in the divine person of the Son of God, their bodies will be quickened at the last day, and made like unto it, spiritual bodies; also because he lives in his body as a spiritual one, they shall live in theirs as spiritual ones: and so the apostle shows, that there is a spiritual, as well as an animal body; that as the first man's body, even before the fall, was an animal or natural one; the last Adam's body upon his resurrection is a spiritual and life giving one, as the Syriac version renders it...

07-27-2008, 11:12 AM	#41
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-27-2008, 12:18 PM	#45
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-28-2008, 06:39 AM	#49
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	PaulM is there such a thing as a Spirit who is not all-inclusive? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-28-2008, 07:08 AM	#50
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	DJ, Are you suggesting that the Spirit is fully inclusive of everything and there is not a separate “all-inclusive Spirit”? I banish you to the LSM dungeon to work the printing presses for the rest of your life!! All kidding aside. This LC lexicon of alternate terminology for normal things needs to be ripped-up one term at a time. It is a blight on any possible oneness. Keep up the good work. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-28-2008, 07:15 AM	#51
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	I think it is time for us to discuss John 7:37-38, "the Spirit was not yet". W.Lee's pheumotalogy was not based on 1 Cor. 15:45 exclusively.

07-28-2008, 08:48 AM	#52
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Good idea KSA! Just as we have discovered that there is a big difference between teaching that the Lord Jesus "became THE life giving Spirit" - (an erroneous teaching/interpretation that the Greek word *PNEUMA* here refers to the Holy Spirit, when a different article "A life giving spirit" was used) - so here again we see the jumping to an erroneous conclusion in interpreting John 7:39. In this case Witness Lee has intentionally brought an erroneous teaching to the table, and this time it was not by changing an article from "a" to "the", rather his interpretation is erroneous because he intentionally leaves out the completed thought of the author as given in the original language. There is a very good reason that most translators completed the author's thought for us English readers by adding the word "given"...."the Spirit had not been given". The reason is, that to us English readers, the phrase "not yet", if left in it's uncompleted form in English, conveys the meaning that the Holy Spirit either did not exist, or did not exist in a completed state. When one does even a cursory check to the sentence construction in the Greek, it is more then obvious that the complete and correct translation is "the Spirit had not been given". Please take a look at the sentence structure as clearly laid out in Greek: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...version=KJV#39 Also, here is a partial list of all the reputable translations of John 7:39 KJV (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) NIV By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. ESV Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. NASB But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet {given,} because Jesus was not yet glorified. RSV Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. ASV But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet [given]; because Jesus was not yet glorified. Webster (But this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

07-28-2008, 11:00 AM	#54
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	So who is saying that "we're done with the topic"? KSA can speak for himself, but I understand that he thought that it would be profitable to keep the thread moving along, so to speak. My post was on topic. I addressed the verse that the moderator was suggesting we address. KSA is correct, there are a number of verses that Witness Lee used in support of his teaching that the Lord Jesus became the Holy Spirit. YP, would you care to address what I have posted, or maybe just give us your take on how this verse fits in with this crucial teaching? __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

07-28-2008, 11:09 AM	#55
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	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.

07-28-2008, 12:44 PM	#58
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Lee also said: “Do our opposers believe that there are two Spirits who give life, the Holy Spirit and the life-giving Spirit? It is heretical to teach that there are two life-giving Spirits, two Spirits who give life.” (W. Lee, Bound Life-Study of I Corinthians, p. 617) As I have shown with his own words in the previous post, what Lee actually did was teach there was another Spirit which could give life that was produced on resurrection day, one which never existed before in the universe. He did this after declaring boldly at another time that anyone who taught there were two spirits who could give life was teaching heresy. There is no need for us to say this is heresy. Lee stands self-condemned. Thankful Jane Last edited by Thankful Jane; 07-28-2008 at 12:58 PM.

07-28-2008, 01:14 PM	#59
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Ok YP, very well then. I'll stick with 1 Cor 15:45 a little while if you promise to play nice I must say that your "a banana - the banana" illustration is really like comparing apples to oranges I am sure that you would agree that every time the word pneuma is used, is is not always referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, you are quite mistaken regarding the usages of articles in biblical Greek. Many times they do indeed make a substantial and meaningful difference (you see I didn't sleep through every one of those classes in my 3 semesters of biblical Greek) Anyway, I will still continue to beat the drum of the orthodox view of the Trinity as stated by so many of the early church fathers and a number of the early creeds and now by the vast majority of evangelical/orthodox Christianity - To wit... Our God is one. Our God is three Persons, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit who are equal in substance, holiness power and glory. As I think I may have stated before...God is one is a way that we cannot fully comprehend or understand...He is also three is a way that we cannot fully comprehend for understand... What He is not (or should I say what He does not do) is CHANGE. One Person of the Godhead does not "become" one of the others - No way, No how. God does not even "change economically" or "in His economy for His move on earth" any more then He changes essentially. This IS the crux of the matter as far as I can see. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 Last edited by UntoHim; 07-28-2008 at 01:26 PM.

07-28-2008, 03:17 PM	#67
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Let's take a look how Darby translated this.. Thus also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit. I think the way Darby translates this verse gives the English reader a clear sense of what was originally conveyed in the Greek. I would note that he used a small "s" for spirit here as well. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

07-28-2008, 06:59 PM	#70
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Shawn what is "humanity"? "The Lord in his humanity..." what does that mean? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-29-2008, 02:13 AM	#72
Shawn Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 54	Hi TJ, I only have a few minutes, so here goes. The most important thing for one who can receive Jesus as their Savior is that it does not require a change; ie I do not have to change myself to be acceptable to God, only ask forforgiviness and recieve the free gift of salvation. All other religions require change. Concerning the lifegiving part of the spirit, we are looking at two sides of the same coin; yes there has always been the life giving spirit, but to you and I we could only receive this life after the Last Adam. Maybe there is some significance to the small "s" as others had mentioned? Grace to you sister! Shawn

07-29-2008, 09:39 AM	#74
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	PaulM do you mean that the Father and the Son became the Holy Spirit after the resurrection? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-29-2008, 11:46 AM	#75
Peter Debelak I Have Finished My Course Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Avon, OH Posts: 303	I personally think the crux of the disagreement here again boils down to the language Lee used and the emphases he employed – rather than on whether he was patently wrong/heretical/etc… God is spirit. Always has been, always will be. Its how he does that cool thing of being everywhere at once. The Son of God, (aka the “second Person” of the Trinity), has eternally existed and has eternally co-existed with the other “two Persons” of the Trinity. Same with the Holy Spirit (aka the “third Person” of the Trinity). But God was not, in eternity past, human. He was not “flesh.” Nor did humanity have any “divinity” as such. When Christ came in the flesh, he brought divinity into humankind. But he was flesh – which meant he was limited spacially. His being had defined limits of time and space. God had never experienced this before. So, we should be careful about how broad we make the scope of statements like “God is unchangeable.” It doesn’t make that phrase incorrect to say that it has a particular scope. Further, the actual experience of a human life, a life of temptation and of limitation, was never “part of” or experienced by God prior to Christ’s incarnation and life. When Christ incarnated, humanity and divinity were merged – but only in this physical being, Jesus, as he walked and moved on earth in time and space. In resurrection, humanity – personified by ADAM – was merged with divinity as spirit, not just in the Person of Jesus, the physical being in time and space. No “entity” came into existence that was not already existing. There was just something that was “added” to that entity, which is spirit. There can be unintended adverse effects of using this language, but I think it is apt to say God went through a “process” and that humanity was “added” to God. What that means to me is that I do not have a High Priest that cannot be touched with a feeling of my weaknesses. Inside me is God – God as Spirit. It’s the same God who took on human form and went to the cross for me. Does that confound the second and third persons of the trinity? I don’t know. But the scripture hasn’t given me any commands not to “confound persons,” so I am not too concerned. Its just what the Bible seems to be teaching. As always, I’m open to being taught, reproved, corrected, or instructed differently. . Peter __________________ I Have Finished My Course Last edited by Peter Debelak; 07-29-2008 at 11:49 AM.

07-29-2008, 04:07 PM	#78
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	I keep hearing people discuss the "humanity" of Christ. Would somebody please define this for me? Thanks! __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-29-2008, 05:59 PM	#80
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Nell both Peter and Arizona in their post recent posts on this thread used this term. I assume there is some connection with the topic of 1 Cor 15:45b otherwise they would not have brought it up. I'm just wondering what the definition is so I understand the conversation. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-29-2008, 07:53 PM	#82
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	In case some think I am too much in saying that Lee thought his teaching took a higher place than the Lamb of God, consider the following statements made by Witness Lee in the Exodus messages: “…. I am concerned about the influence of today’s religious atmosphere. Due to this influence, many believers care only for superficial things. They may know about the Lamb, the heavenly manna, or even a little about the living water. But when it comes to a message on the compound ointment in Exodus 30, few Christians have any ear. They like messages that tickle their ear, but they do not want to hear things that are deep and weighty.” Excuse me? The Lamb is a “superficial thing?” Messages about the Lamb “tickle the ear,” but not Lee’s compound spirit messages? Those are deep and weighty? “I hope that all of us will be deeply impressed with the fact that it is not God’s eternal intention merely to give us a Redeemer, or to supply us with heavenly manna and living water. It is God’s eternal intention that He would reach us as the all-inclusive compound Spirit, as the Spirit who includes divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. All this is blended to form the compound ointment, and this ointment is for the anointing of God’s chosen and redeemed people. Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment. What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? It is a wonderful fact that God has become our Savior and Redeemer. Jesus is Jehovah our Savior, and I appreciate His salvation very much. Nevertheless, the Lamb cannot compare with the Triune God processed to become the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach us, to make Himself one with us, and to make us one with Him. ...” Right. And that is why in Revelation we hear the voice of many waters proclaiming, “Worthy the Compound Spirit!” “Worthy the processed Triune God!” “Even the Lamb of God cannot compare with this!” I repeat, Lee proclaimed: “Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment. What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb?….the Lamb cannot compare with the Triune God processed to become the all-inclusive compound Spirit…” ? Spend some time thinking about these statements. I'm thankful that I didn't make them and that I don't believe them. Thankful Jane ... while your at it consider how much time we all spend discussing these exalted teachings of Lee in comparison to the time we spend exalting the Lamb of God. This should sober all of us. Where is CountMeWorthy when you need her? She's probably off somewhere warming up for that thunderous chorus in the heavens by proclaiming, "Worthy is the Lamb!" I think I'm going to join her. Last edited by Thankful Jane; 07-29-2008 at 08:22 PM.

07-29-2008, 08:22 PM	#83
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Lee used the word "humanity" but what did he and what do those in the LCS and apparently some who left mean when they use this term? What are they taking about? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!