[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seems to me the "problem" lies in semantics and attitudes of certain posters rather than being a bona fide discussion of the truth. God desires, God longs for, God wants, God needs, God seeks, God etc. etc. etc. -- are we not just playing word games here in order to prove Nee and Lee wrong -- one more time?

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs. It is exactly this kind of concept that leads to heretical teachings such as Witness Lee's "four-in-one God". And no amount of provisos, addendums or exception clauses can make them biblical. None of the passages provided have established that God actually needs man. He does not need man to be "represented" (Adam and Eve blew that gig for us in Genesis 3) He does not need man to do a job for him. (for all the details read the Bible). God does not need man to be "expressed" (Only ONE person on earth was/is God's "express image") and God certainly does not need man to be glorified ("I will not share my glory with another")

Don't downplay semantics too much now. Words mean things. If we have any technical questions regarding the semantics of the Bible we might be better off consulting true experts in the field, and not fly-by-night theologians like Witness Lee. And by the way it does not take word games to prove Nee and Lee wrong....it's just a matter of going to the source material itself and maybe consulting some real scholars, theologians and linguistic experts to help us out a bit.