I am aware of his play on concepts.
Besides, using this comparison Paul shows Jesus as God: 1 Cor. 15:45-47 : 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Oh boy, what was he thinking!? As I read these verses, I am pulling my hair out. Now, Paul is known for his linguistic acrobatics, but even after reading them a hundred times over brings the same reaction in me. Let's look at it line for line.
Did Christ become a life-giving spirit? According to Paul he did. Did Christ not pre-exist man? According to Paul (this time) he did not. According to Paul, the earthly came first. Well, then Paul could not believe that Christ is God, because he clearly suggests the "life-giving spirit" was made after Adam! In other words, Adam pre-existed Christ. Yet in Colossians 1:15 he says that Christ is the "first-born of all creatures!"
Verse 47 is interesting, because later copies (including Textus Receptus that served as the "mother copy" for KJV) add the word Lord (Greek: ho kyrios), thus reading "the second the man, the Lord from heaven" which does not appear in the older manuscripts.
From 1 Cor 15:45-47 it sounds as if Paul believed, Jesus was a creature made in heaven in a spiritual form, yet in Galatians 4:4 he says he "came into existence (Greek: ginomai) of a woman, under the law."
Here is what the Church teaches: Jesus Chris is a single and unique hypostatic union of the divine and human, both natures being united inseparably and seamlessly, yet unconfused, each being 100%. In his divine nature, Christ pre-existed the world eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as one God, who is a spirit. In his human nature, Christ is a 100% human being, like the rest of us, with a human soul and will, who suffered passions, died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead.
The eternal Word of God "took on flesh" (became 'incarnate" or "enfleshed") as his second nature, developed as any normal embryo in the womb and, and was born of a virgin, not just "a woman." Her virginity is extremely important, actually essential in Christian theology, but apparently not to Paul.
The flesh the Word became is not the flesh of his mother (unless you subscribe to Immaculate Conception) because his humanity was not stained by the "original sin" but was like that of Adam before the Fall. The question, then, is whence came the flesh? According to the Bible, the flesh comes form the dust, not from heaven. But Paul says otherwise.
And did Christ not have a human will and spirit which he gave up at the moment of his death like all humans do? Certainly this was not the life-giving spirit Paul is talking about!
All in all, looking at 1 Cor 15:45-47 I don't see anything that mainline Christianity believes about Jesus Christ. It's that emperor-without-clothes thing. Everyone sees the emperor has no clothes, but everyone is pretending he does. Why do people do that?
Yes, in the sense that we are born dead in our sins and then later are given life by Christ.
Did Christ not pre-exist man?
No, and Paul knew that. Here Paul was looking at Christ's actions, not His existence.
Well, then Paul could not believe that Christ is God, because he clearly suggests the "life-giving spirit" was made after Adam!
Here Paul doesn't say anything about the issue of Christ being "made" or when He existed compared to anyone else. He spoke of Christ's actions compared to the timing of the lives of Christians.
Yet in Colossians 1:15 he says that Christ is the "first-born of all creatures!"
Yes, and we must be careful not to misinterpret Paul as suggesting that Christ is created. Christ is described as "first-born" in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; and Revelation 1:5. Taken together, these describe the preeminence of Christ, not that He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible. There is a fuller explanation in Got Questions?.
Here is what the Church teaches: Jesus Chris is a single and unique hypostatic union of the divine and human, both natures being united inseparably and seamlessly, yet unconfused, each being 100%. In his divine nature, Christ pre-existed the world eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as one God, who is a spirit. In his human nature, Christ is a 100% human being, like the rest of us, with a human soul and will, who suffered passions, died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead.
Yep, I agree with all of this. I don't believe the issue of Christ having or not the ability to sin interferes at all with your statement. Christ was absolutely tempted just as we are, but did not sin. I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
The eternal Word of God "took on flesh" (became 'incarnate" or "enfleshed") as his second nature, developed as any normal embryo in the womb and, and was born of a virgin, not just "a woman." Her virginity is extremely important, actually essential in Christian theology, but apparently not to Paul.
I fully agree with this too, but so did Paul. He knew the story and it's a very long stretch, imo, to say he ever wrote anything contradicting the idea. Even if we translate it "born of a woman" it is very conspicuous that Paul would not mention the (human) father at all. Usually children were spoken of as being children (or the son) of the father only. That's also how the genealogies read almost exclusively. This doesn't prove my point, but it does lean. :)
And did Christ not have a human will and spirit which he gave up at the moment of his death like all humans do? Certainly this was not the life-giving spirit Paul is talking about!
That's right, only the Divine can give spiritual life.