1 Cor. 15:45 - what does it really mean?

OBW · 10-23-2012, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Or is it possible that he had real insight into the proper meaning?

Only if we assume that Paul had a real serious case of ADHD. To suggest that Paul was talking about Jesus, the "second" of the Trinity becoming the Holy Spirit, the "third," then there is absolutely no evidence that this was the topic of discussion. To suggest that Paul meant that is to say that he was busy trying to explain to the Corinthians something about the body they would receive in resurrection. So he used the actual body of the resurrected Christ. While it could be touched and have mass, it also could simply disappear and reappear behind locked doors. Something very "spiritual" about this body. Then suddenly, for about 1/2 of a verse, he sees a squirrel (ala Up) and shouts out an obtuse statement about the trinity that has no foundation in other writings, then returns to his regularly scheduled discussion without another comment on it.

The problem is that the second half of that verse so perfectly describes the reality of the body of the resurrected Christ. It is a spirit. A "spiritual" body as stated just a verse or so earlier. And since Christ gives life, it is life-giving as the inhabitant of that body (one and the same) gives life.

The fallacy in Lee's assertion that it "must be" that Jesus becomes the Holy Spirit is the presumption that because the Holy Spirit has the word "spirit" in the name, that He is the sole possessor of being spirit. God is spirit. The Father is Spirit. The Son is spirit. The Spirit is spirit. It is a form of equivocation to insist that one use must be the same in all cases.

But it is not so. You don't even need a degree in theology to see it.

As for "so much anointing" on any of Lee's speaking, are you sure it was anointing? Might it have just been something new and shiny? Something that tickled our ears with its speciality? It was full of lofty words. It used a lot of spiritual-sounding speech. Those sentence-long, overly adjectivized phrases — were they really something so special in themselves? Or were they designed to give a sense of awe without giving anything solid?