Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother, I gave some examples of metonymy and your suggestion is not a metonymy. It is a parallel structure, but there is not the thought of one thing standing for or symbolizing another, as it is in a metonymy. Sorry but you are mistaken in your use of this word.

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics. Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

As to the LC teachings regarding "becoming", I should like to just discuss what Lee taught himself versus what others say that he taught. If you have what someone else taught, such as Ron Kangas, then let us discuss that in particular. There is at this point clearly no simple body of work that might be termed "LC teachings."

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

I agree that it seems that Lee taught that a change in the Godhead occured as a result of the mingled element of humanity being added into divinity and much of that was based upon his interpretation of this verse.

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics. Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

Please do not be like a moderator on the other board and deflect.

You introduced the linguistic term and now you do not care to defend your introduction of it. Please, dear moderator, refrain from such specious argumentation on our holy forum.

Originally Posted by KSA

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

I don't think I disagreed with this.

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

And you are entitled to that opinion and I don't disagree that Lee was loose sometimes on such matters.

However, I was merely questioning whether your suggestion was "more clear language."

I do not think your presentation is clear in any fashion and just makes thing worse than they already were.

Sorry!