“Becoming one flesh” <–> “one spirit with Christ”

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

In the NT I was under the impression that the word flesh always carried the idea of fallen or sinful.

Not so. The Word became flesh. In fact, many of the references in the gospels are not to fallen or sinful flesh. So any simplistic statement about flesh = sinful or fallen is false. Context is important.

Besides, do we presume then that God was designating that when man and woman marry that they become "one fallen" or one "sinful" being? That would be entirely outside of the realm of reasonable reading that that passage.

I am not saying I know what "flesh" means in each and every case. But it is clearly not just some singular thing like "fallen" or "sinful." That is one of Lee's most egregious errors. He too often declared a singular meaning to terms without any consideration for the true meaning in any particular case. Once the single meaning is declared, verses are rewritten and misunderstood.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not so. The Word became flesh. In fact, many of the references in the gospels are not to fallen or sinful flesh. So any simplistic statement about flesh = sinful or fallen is false. Context is important.

Besides, do we presume then that God was designating that when man and woman marry that they become "one fallen" or one "sinful" being? That would be entirely outside of the realm of reasonable reading that that passage.

I am not saying I know what "flesh" means in each and every case. But it is clearly not just some singular thing like "fallen" or "sinful." That is one of Lee's most egregious errors. He too often declared a singular meaning to terms without any consideration for the true meaning in any particular case. Once the single meaning is declared, verses are rewritten and misunderstood.

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. Again the NT says that Jesus was in all things like us except that He was without sin. So yes, flesh also includes the idea of being mortal, corruptible, limited to time and space, etc.

Now the quote you use for me clearly specified the NT, if you follow the conversation my original post did specify the NT exclusively, then Igzy quoted this and responded specifically about the NT, and then I responded to that. Again, specifically limiting the discussion to the NT. Your use of an OT verse is therefore irrelevant to our discussion.

This discussion is about the metaphor of man and woman being joined together as typifying how we are one spirit with the Lord. The use of "flesh" in 1Cor was not referring to Jesus very special and unique status. Our entire discussion has focused on our experience and the meaning of this word. This is the problem with having an ongoing discussion in which people feel free to just jump into in the middle and make their "big" point. The topic of this thread is on "becoming one flesh" <-> "one spirit with Christ" therefore it is about our status and our experience, not the special status of Jesus.

[OBW]

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."

[77150]

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

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.

You definitely have the "survival skills" necessary to post on this forum.

Stick around, you have a lot we could learn from.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You definitely have the "survival skills" necessary to post on this forum.

Stick around, you have a lot we could learn from.

It seems you fellowship with a humble spirit. The fellowship is the reason I would stay around. Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not saying I know what "flesh" means in each and every case. But it is clearly not just some singular thing like "fallen" or "sinful." That is one of Lee's most egregious errors. He too often declared a singular meaning to terms without any consideration for the true meaning in any particular case. Once the single meaning is declared, verses are rewritten and misunderstood.

Not so fast. I remember lots of footnotes and commentary by WL that listed numerous meanings to each word. In fact, I thought that was one of his strengths. To classify this as "one of Lee's most egregious errors" just creates a little holiday drama perhaps?

Flesh does have a negative connotation in scripture, but not always. John purposely says "and the Word became flesh," to counteract some gnostic teachings to the contrary. John's first epistle also emphasizes this. He could have said, "and the Word became sinless man," but he did not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so fast. I remember lots of footnotes and commentary by WL that listed numerous meanings to each word. In fact, I thought that was one of his strengths. To classify this as "one of Lee's most egregious errors" just creates a little holiday drama perhaps?

Not so fast yourself.

I wasn't saying that he never allowed for meanings of some things to be according to context. But too many of the core teachings were based upon something distilled to "simply," "just," or "always" one particular thing. Economy was given one simple meaning that ruled all of scripture. "Flesh" was always sinful. "Unless you abide" set us into abiding and not obeying.

Too much became "simply" something else. It even carried into demanding that we ignore grace and just see Christ. Not pray according to the "formula" (more correctly, pattern) given by Jesus because praying for your own needs is "too low."

And any of the works that Jesus commanded were disdained because only "God's economy" was worthy of being taught, even though scripture never suggests that God's economy is the subject of any teaching. So a "teaching" concerning God's economy that does not exist in scripture (as any kind of teaching, not just Lee's) was his rule for rewriting scripture.

How many times do you recall that because some particular term was used that it automatically meant one specific thing? How many times did this seem to be contrary to what was written? For me, way too many. Yes. Lee did talk about various meanings in some cases. But how often did he return to one very simple version that did not always reflect the meaning of the passage?

I don't care about drama. I care about looking into Lee's errors. The fact that I say he did it many times is irrelevant. Let's look at each one as they come up. I keep finding a pattern. But let's look at them. Here is one. Flesh is not always sinful.

Another. Works are not simply man's effort. (We were cheated from actually obeying Jesus because of this one.)

Another. Everything is not distilled down to "dispensing." (With a wave of the "dispensing" wand, meaning is changed.)

These were among the core of Lee's teachings. Plenty of room to allow secondary and tertiary terms to have all of their normal meanings. Just the core were required to be uniform. And it was taken in without objection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I wasn't saying that he never allowed for meanings of some things to be according to context. But too many of the core teachings were based upon something distilled to "simply," "just," or "always" one particular thing. Economy was given one simple meaning that ruled all of scripture. "Flesh" was always sinful. "Unless you abide" set us into abiding and not obeying.

I don't care about drama. I care about looking into Lee's errors. The fact that I say he did it many times is irrelevant. Let's look at each one as they come up. I keep finding a pattern. But let's look at them. Here is one. Flesh is not always sinful.

Another. Works are not simply man's effort. (We were cheated from actually obeying Jesus because of this one.)

Every teacher and minister has his own slants and emphases which are promoted at the expense of others, that's why I have felt that WL initial ministry was his best because he stayed closer to the scriptures.

But, let's face it, most serious Christians place a negative connotation upon the word flesh. Too many verses have affected their thinking, from the fleshly Corinthians to the Galatian works of the flesh. The word flesh is not always "bad," but mostly it is, and the context is needed to decide the meaning.

I do agree that WL was not balanced concerning "good works." Just about the only Christian "works" that have never been criticized are those times volunteering at LSM. They alone are considered "the Levitical service" and so forth. I have even heard LSM zealots say to brothers, "what are you doing wasting your time building up some little local church."

OBW, you may say you do not care for drama, and only care to look into Lee's errors, but in the process, you do not even allow him the same liberties that other ministers have. Judgment must be fair, whether you agree or not.

But I do wish you a happy new year, and we should return to topic, since this is 77150's first thread.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

we should return to topic, since this is 77150's first thread.

Thank you, you said it more politely than I would have.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, this is getting tedious. Can we move off the endless arguments over the meaning of flesh throughout the entire bible? Can't we come to a basic understanding/agreement on what flesh means in THIS instance - in THIS verse. Then we can proceed on to the actual proposition at hand. I'm a bit rusty on my math symbols, but I assume < - > means "is equal to" or "to be compared to"? Either way could 77150 please replace the math symbol with plain English? ***Actually I just realized that I will have to change the thread title. So 77150 just let us know what the plain English is and I'll change the title when I get a chance.

[77150]

Explain how a couple "becoming one flesh" relates to our being one spirit with Christ