Quote:
Originally Posted by 77150
Well the "word became flesh" indicates that it became something our hands could handle and our eyes could see. Clearly distinguishing it from a "spiritual body". In addition, the word came in the likeness of sinful man, hence "flesh" yet "without sin". You have picked the exception that proves the rule. After all, the entire metaphor of the snake on a pole which was repeated in John, tells us that the crucified Christ is in the likeness of sinful flesh.
|
But the reference to sin was to "likeness of sinful man" not to "flesh." Just because I found one reference in which flesh is not sinful, you cannot imply that it proves the rule. That is a hollow statement. You must establish that flesh consistently means sinful or fallen.
And you actually skipped right by the one where marriage creates "one flesh." You did not suggest that it actually means "sinful" or "fallen." Instead you state that it is "not referring to Jesus very special and unique status." I would agree. But that statement does not leave "flesh" as "fallen" or "sinful." And it is a different case from "the Word became flesh" so there are now two exceptions. How many do we need to find to expunge the notion that "flesh" is simply "fallen" or "sinful"? Each must be taken separately. Many of them are consistent with that understanding. But it is because the context makes it so, not because of some overriding principle. That is the error of Lee. He declares absolutely that "this the only meaning" and then we required no thought anytime that term or phrase came up again.
So I react strongly to any claim of singular meaning without evidence that it is so. I've seen too much dismissal of contradictory evidence by Nee, Lee and the LRC in general. Nee did it when he said that churches in houses in the same city to which he wrote a letter couldn't mean what it obviously said because there was a one-city-one-church rule already in effect before all the references to church had been taken into consideration. A true case of begging the question — assuming the result that you are trying to prove and reading the results accordingly, even when they otherwise contradict. That means that quickly bringing a "rule" to bear without first taking the current passage at its face is a dangerous act. And Lee did it all the time. And even if you don't subscribe to Lee anymore, your thinking, just like mine, is too often influenced by his "simply's."