Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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." ...
So I react strongly to any claim of singular meaning without evidence that it is so..."
|
The NT teaches that Jesus was a man come in the flesh, only He didn't have sin. Why do you need to add this caveat if sin is not part of the definition of flesh? That is why He is the exception that proves the rule.
I skipped by the OT verses because I am a gentleman and play by gentleman's rules. Igzy skipped the OT in saying that the greek definition for flesh does not mean meat. Because if he had used the whole Bible I could have easily referred to the flesh hooks used by the Levitical priesthood. He defined the parameters, I played by them. Then you jump in and protest what about Genesis. That is not right. You can't have it both ways. Don't piggy back on a discussion and protest what was said, when that is just bogus. Man up and ask "what about the OT?"
Who cares that you are reacting strongly, is this a joke? Unless you have evidence that the NT use of the word flesh does not imply sin and/or death (corruption, etc) then who cares how you react. Get out your concordance and give us the verse that is causing you so much discomfort.