[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. This verse seems to shatter the "three distinct and separate persons in God" orthodoxy. Perhaps not, but sure casts some doubt.

It may cast some doubt in your mind, and in the mind of Witness Lee, but it hasn't for the vast majority of Christian teachers and scholars for the past 2000+ years. So everybody has been interpreting this passage wrong for two millennia, and out of nowhere this Witness Lee fellow got it right. How convenient. How improbable.

But in typical form, WL goes further. Paul says "the Lord is the Spirit." Paul did not say Jesus the Son, but "the Lord." He did not say the Holy Spirit but "the Spirit." Why is that?

Well one good reason is that the apostle Paul wasn't teaching modalism, and he never taught that Jesus Christ, the second of the Godhead, became the Holy Spirit, the third of the Godhead. Witness Lee went further in a lot of things, mostly because he thought he was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle. Who needs to be bound up by all those poor, poor traditional and historic interpretations when you da man! The Bible says WHAT I SAY IT MEANS, GOT THAT MOO COW!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I would also ask, does every mention of the Spirit of God definitively imply "the Holy Spirit?"

Of course not! That's puttin on your thinkin cap Ohio! Now don't stop there...keep going. Since you now admit that the reference to pneuma/spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 is not a definitive reference to the Holy Spirit, what spirit are we talking about? If I was talking to Witness Lee, I would expect to hear "how many spirits are there that give life?" but you're not going to do that to us, are you Ohio?

So back to my question. If this occurrence of pneuma/spirit is not a reference to the Holy Spirit, why not?
-