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

[77150]

1. What does it mean when God said that Adam and Eve would become “one flesh”.

2. How does this understanding relate to our being “one spirit” with Christ.

Igzy asked me to give my understanding of “becoming one flesh” in Post #216 Good Lee/Bad Lee. To do that I will be using scientific references.

So I think I should start with crystal structure. The molecular structure of an element determines the crystal shape it grows into. It is an amazing concept to me since you can make almost any shape out of Lego’s yet we can look at a large crystal and tell precisely what the crystal shape is of the molecule that formed that structure. My favorite example is Pyrite, better known as Fool’s Gold. Pyrite forms big giant cubic crystals. Since the molecular structure of Pyrite is not a cube one would think that this example disproves the law. However, if you look closely at the cubes you can discern little lines on each face. These lines show that one face is not symmetrical with another. As a result you can still determine the symmetry of the Pyrite molecule and it is indeed identical to the actual symmetry. Pyrite is called a pseudo morph, rather rare. The reason I like this so much is that the actual crystal structure of Gold is a cube, so fool’s gold doesn’t just mimic the color, it also mimics the crystal structure.

Likewise I believe that the reason we see so many types and shadows of the spiritual reality in the Bible, in human history, and in creation is somewhat akin to this. All of creation springs from God’s word, the reality we see in the natural realm is built on and based on this word. In the same way that I can determine the symmetry and shape of a molecule by looking a crystal, we can determine spiritual realities by looking at types and figures.

Therefore, the things that make Adam and Eve one flesh are types and figures of spiritual realities because all things were made by the word and apart from the word nothing was made that is made. So that answers question 2, all I have to do now is answer question 1.

First, I believe something special happens when a man and woman are joined together and this special union is referred to by God as “becoming one flesh”.

A few years ago I read an interesting study. They put a female mouse into a cage with two male mice. Each of the males was tied up and kept in separate “rooms” of the cage. The female mouse could travel freely between the two rooms. The female mouse mated with both mice but in the end spent all of her time with the first mouse she had mated with. I think the Bible refers to this as “first love”. Apparently the biologists have determined that experience is imprinted on the brain in such a way that you prefer that first love. I think this is part of what God is referring to, something special happens in that first love, fornication is therefore contrary to the design of God. I think this is also something that Paul was referring to. Going to a prostitute or committing fornication prior to marriage would damage the relationship, likewise going afterwards would confuse the relationship. Likewise in the Bible there is a lot of warnings and commandments to avoid idols. Idolatry is something that is very damaging spiritually. This can also explain why people who were saved in the LRC and then subsequently left the LRC continue to talk about the LRC on sites like this.

However, there is another process that takes place that doesn’t really become apparent for many years. The brain has “mirror neurons” which cause us to mirror in our brain facial expressions and body movements that we see, voices we hear, mannerisms, expressions, etc. So if you are married and spend a lot of time with your spouse you will unconsciously mirror expressions. This will literally be etched into your face. We have all seen boys that seem to unconsciously mimic their dad, or an old couple whose faces look remarkably similar. Paul talks about beholding and reflecting the glory of the Lord. Therefore I think it is very reasonable to think there is a spiritual reality to mirror neurons. This shows that spending time in the presence of the Lord will change you, it will change your expressions, your mannerisms, your words, your speech.

But the act of sex has far more consequences than fornicators wish to admit. Half of all the DNA in your body does not belong to you. Our Body is a host of a myriad number of organisms. Many of these we could not live without which is why taking antibiotics can have very negative consequences. I don’t know how to categorize them as to are they my body or not, but I would certainly say that these organisms are part of my flesh. Now when I have sex with my wife these organisms in me and the ones in her have an opportunity to mingle and to also create new organisms. As a result, STDs can be transmitted by sex, but also, after years of marriage I and my wife are host to pretty much the same organisms. Certainly this is part of becoming one flesh, this also explains Paul’s use of this rule to forbid fornication. In a monogamous society it is impossible to have epidemics of AIDS. You might have a couple who through their union created the HIV virus which subsequently killed them both, much to the confusion of the medical world. But how would this be transmitted? The virus would kill itself when they died. On the other hand a prostitute can be viewed as a laboratory in which every day organisms are being mingled with other organisms creating new organisms. Each prostitute would represent the sum total of all unions she had ever had. Add to this that many of her partners had gone to other prostitutes and the numbers quickly become mind boggling. So the person who goes to a prostitute and says “it was only one time” Paul would respond to and say “what, know ye not that your are one flesh with her?” If she represented 100 unions you didn’t do it once, you did it 101 times. If some of her unions were with people who had visited other prostitutes then maybe it is 1,000 unions or 10,000 unions. With the invention of “sex tours” it is not unreasonable to think that a prostitute could represent 1,000,000 unions. Your flesh expresses and makes a record of everything you do. Likewise I think that your spirit also expresses all that you have done spiritually. Hence the “new age” stuff about everyone worshipping the same God just with different names is to my mind, extremely dangerous.

There was an interesting study done on the brain. They put two test subjects into two rooms about 20 feet apart. The rooms were completely isolated from one another in both sight and sound. However each person wore a funny hat with a unique magnetic field. They were both connected by the same magnetic field. Both were put in the dark for 20 minutes while their brain waves were monitored. In one room a light was shined on the subject from the left after 5 minutes for only a few seconds. Then 10 minutes later it was shined on the same subject from the right. At these two instances the brain waves of this subject spiked, but strangely, they spiked for the other person as well. When asked what they were thinking about they said they had seen a light, first from the left, and then later from the right. The point is that there is a magnetic field over the whole world and brain signals are electrical. There is some anecdotal evidence that our brain can literally be tuned to those around us. No doubt, talking with someone, sharing interests, living together could all cause us to be “tuned” together, but even unconsciously at an organic level it seems the body does this. The Bible says “we have the mind of Christ”. No doubt reading the word helps tune our minds to Christ, but I have had other strange experiences of “tuning my mind” to Christ. When I was first saved I was spending hours a day reading the Bible. I remember during this time I was fellowshipping and someone asked where a particular verse was. I was able to very precisely tell them the chapter and verse. What was weird is that I had not read that book of the Bible yet. The verse had been mentioned in a previous meeting, but the memory was not from the meeting. The only way I was able to explain this to myself was that the word of God is a person, if you spend time with that person you get to know them, the whole person.

In conclusion I believe that God’s use of this expression “become one flesh” and Paul’s use of this expression both refer to something that is far more than “like minded” or “united”.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 77150

In conclusion I believe that God’s use of this expression “become one flesh” and Paul’s use of this expression both refer to something that is far more than “like minded” or “united”.

Far more... what? Far more mystical? Far more neato? Probably so. But what's the application beyond intimate union?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

Idolatry is something that is very damaging spiritually. This can also explain why people who were saved in the LRC and then subsequently left the LRC continue to talk about the LRC on sites like this.

I'm not really into material science or rodent mating habits, but this last sentence jumped out at me. How in the world do you go from mousy love to idolatry to leaving the LRC and posting on this forum?

Slow down there fellow!

Can we discuss this further or are you just trollin' us?

Let me introduce myself. I spent my 30 best years in the LC, actively serving the Lord and the church. I left because I saw bullying on every level of the Recovery. I came to LC forums because, as Paul Harvey used to say, I learned the "rest of the story." What I witnessed in the LRC, concerning the adulation of WL, was the closest thing to idolatry that I came to.

Please explain.

[Guest2]

Im not an LCer,

But I have some educated background and the extrapolation from science, sex to one flesh and its logic doesnt add up.

How do you go from STD's, body fluids to one body?

First you need to break down what is a body

Human body consists of the following
Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and "electricity (memories)"
There is no soul nor "conciousness" in science.
So having sex is just exchanging fluids and electricity. Thats all
Your DNA will never change through sex. Viruses can kill you, you can get cancer. But thats not YOU.

Just because I get a cold doesnt mean that cold is me and I become one with the virus. It is a foriegn object which is why your white cells attack it. So I dont see the whole argument with STD's and how it makes you become one flesh.

Empty mindless sex doesnt join you to that person. If I wipe your memory and you have no recollection of this occurance are u still one? What makes you one? This mystical connection that was mingled when you had sex?

Infact, the best way to become one with your partner is to turn canniblistic. Then if I fully eat my partner, I am her and she is me?

I dont know man, but whatever your logic is its scary.

When you add religions Point of view. I.E soul, will, concioussness then we have a discussion about one flesh.

Physically, one flesh you will not become. So please stop using "science"

Ask Frankenstein.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not really into material science or rodent mating habits, but this last sentence jumped out at me. How in the world do you go from mousy love to idolatry to leaving the LRC and posting on this forum?

Slow down there fellow!

Can we discuss this further or are you just trollin' us?

Let me introduce myself. I spent my 30 best years in the LC, actively serving the Lord and the church. I left because I saw bullying on every level of the Recovery. I came to LC forums because, as Paul Harvey used to say, I learned the "rest of the story." What I witnessed in the LRC, concerning the adulation of WL, was the closest thing to idolatry that I came to.

Please explain.

Trolling you?! It has been well documented that trolls hate christians, besides Hans Christian Anderson there was a recent documentary done on trolls in Norway. So how could a troll pick a name that means "praise the Lord" that doesn't make sense. Besides, not to offend anyone, but trolls are pretty stupid creatures.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me introduce myself. I spent my 30 best years in the LC, actively serving the Lord and the church. I left because I saw bullying on every level of the Recovery. I came to LC forums because, as Paul Harvey used to say, I learned the "rest of the story." What I witnessed in the LRC, concerning the adulation of WL, was the closest thing to idolatry that I came to.

Please explain.

Now this is interesting. You could read this and assume that the reason you are posting here is not because the LRC was your first love, but because you have learned "the rest of the story". Except that explains why you left the LRC, not why you are posting here. So simple question, was the LRC your first love? (Perhaps before you learned the whole story?) After all you have posted quite a bit here, what is driving you to do this?

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Far more... what? Far more mystical? Far more neato? Probably so. But what's the application beyond intimate union?

When I think of "intimate union" I don't think of the word "flesh". To me the word "flesh" seems much more like "meat". Second, I don't think Paul was condemning fornication because of the relationship aspect.

You come up with intimate union and relationship, but look at the choice of words and the context, it just doesn't work for me.

I think two people becoming one is a marvelous experience that many people never experience.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Leomon

Im not an LCer,

But I have some educated background and the extrapolation from science, sex to one flesh and its logic doesnt add up.

How do you go from STD's, body fluids to one body?

First you need to break down what is a body

I never said they become one body, the Bible says they become "one flesh". When we use the word Body we think of a complete entity, when we use the word flesh it can refer to a pound of meat. So the fact that two people have the same genetic material within their body would by definition mean they have the same "flesh" or that their flesh is one.

If I have the same mannerisms, expressions, appearance, thoughts, etc. and it turns out that I have them as a result of key organic features built into the human body, then to me that is very interesting. Why is it necessary to have these features? It proves the expression "my better half" is more than just a saying. It also proves that when God said he created them male and female and called their name Adam that He really did create a corporate being that was designed from the get go to be part of a whole.

[Guest2]

Originally Posted by 77150

I never said they become one body, the Bible says they become "one flesh". When we use the word Body we think of a complete entity, when we use the word flesh it can refer to a pound of meat. So the fact that two people have the same genetic material within their body would by definition mean they have the same "flesh" or that their flesh is one.

If I have the same mannerisms, expressions, appearance, thoughts, etc. and it turns out that I have them as a result of key organic features built into the human body, then to me that is very interesting. Why is it necessary to have these features? It proves the expression "my better half" is more than just a saying. It also proves that when God said he created them male and female and called their name Adam that He really did create a corporate being that was designed from the get go to be part of a whole.

I dont know if using science to describe "becoming one flesh" is the right way to go.

Fer me all I was trying to say is that its pointless to try and use science to define becoming one flesh or one body or whatever.

Twins have the same genetic identity (DNA) but it doesnt make them one body. Its the soul, their personality, and the forbidden word "natural being" that makes them who they are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

Trolling you?! It has been well documented that trolls hate christians, besides Hans Christian Anderson there was a recent documentary done on trolls in Norway. So how could a troll pick a name that means "praise the Lord" that doesn't make sense. Besides, not to offend anyone, but trolls are pretty stupid creatures.

Lots of Christians "troll" the web. We have seen a few here. Some trolls are even "smart."

Who picked a name that means "praise the Lord?"

Lots of "Christian" things just don't make any sense.

Anyways, care to comment about how you went from mousy love to idolatry to leaving the LRC and posting on this forum?


And welcome to the forum!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

Now this is interesting. You could read this and assume that the reason you are posting here is not because the LRC was your first love, but because you have learned "the rest of the story". Except that explains why you left the LRC, not why you are posting here. So simple question, was the LRC your first love? (Perhaps before you learned the whole story?) After all you have posted quite a bit here, what is driving you to do this?

Thanks for asking. I did love the Recovery, WL and the LC's. For the most, part I still do. It was really the Lord who was/is my first love. He led me to the LC, and I left the LC to find Him again.

I learned much while posting here. Sometimes I ask myself what am I doing here.

One reason is that many who have left the LC, due to serious abuses and errors, have kept silent, especially the ones from greater Ohio. They were trained to be quiet, and "leave like a gentleman," and they did. But that policy is only self-serving for bad leaders. I am thankful that some brothers like John Ingalls have documented the reasons for their departure. Saints need to know the truth so that they can make informed decisions. WL and his cadre of minions should be accountable for how they have treated and mistreated God's children.

That said, I still love WL and all the saints.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lots of Christians "troll" the web. We have seen a few here. Some trolls are even "smart."

Who picked a name that means "praise the Lord?"

Lots of "Christian" things just don't make any sense.

Anyways, care to comment about how you went from mousy love to idolatry to leaving the LRC and posting on this forum?


And welcome to the forum!

77150, use a phone, you'll figure it out

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 77150

When I think of "intimate union" I don't think of the word "flesh". To me the word "flesh" seems much more like "meat". Second, I don't think Paul was condemning fornication because of the relationship aspect.

You come up with intimate union and relationship, but look at the choice of words and the context, it just doesn't work for me.

I think two people becoming one is a marvelous experience that many people never experience.

So marriage, also known as husband and wife becoming one flesh, has nothing to do with intimacy and relationship?

Beam me up, Mr. Moderator.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 77150

I never said they become one body, the Bible says they become "one flesh". When we use the word Body we think of a complete entity, when we use the word flesh it can refer to a pound of meat.

Unfortunately for that argument, the NT was written in Greek, not English. Flesh in the Bible usually means one of three things.

• The human body.
• Humanity.
• Fallen humanity.

It never means meat. The word became flesh means the word became humanity, not the word became meat.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unfortunately for that argument, the NT was written in Greek, not English. Flesh in the Bible usually means one of three things.

• The human body.
• Humanity.
• Fallen humanity.

It never means meat. The word became flesh means the word became humanity, not the word became meat.

In the NT I was under the impression that the word flesh always carried the idea of fallen or sinful. So if it is referring to "the human body" it would include the idea of sin. So, to become "one flesh" can also mean that the two bodies now carry the same corrupting influence.

The word flesh also, in my understanding, does not carry a spiritual connotation whereas the word Body can. The word flesh always refers to something you can touch and see, whereas the word Body does not. If God had said "they become one body" then clearly He would be referring to something we can't see. In that case a spiritual or relational interpretation would be much better supported.

My point was that you should not substitute the word "Body" for "flesh". The word flesh carries a distinct ("biblical") meaning. For someone who seems so clear on following key principles in deciphering the Bible it is strange to me that you would so easily overlook the substitution of the word Body for flesh. You even appear to be justifying its use in your post?

Secondly, the context of 1Cor is clearly using this word of the two becoming one as a plain word to prove there is a lasting and permanent damage done to your flesh in joining to a prostitute (you are sinning against your own body). This lasting and permanent damage has subsequently been proven scientifically. The unknown is not that a visit to a prostitute will leave an indelible mark on your flesh, what is unknown is if this is the only mark that it will leave.

There are many ways to make two things "one". If both bodies now carry HIV would that make them one? Certainly that understanding would be in line with Paul's condemnation of fornication and the reason he gave.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What am I Batman?

Riddle me a riddle ...

Well I suppose "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord" will include Batman and the Riddler. Touche.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

No, Ohio, he doesn't.

rayliotta

Since you both tend to answer questions with riddles, I only noted the similarity.

What's with the tag line -- "Poster is no longer a Christian" -- is that like saying you are no longer a part of God's family? Once we are born into a family, that's not something we can change.

[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.

[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 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."

[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 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.

[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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

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

The Bible explains for us. We do not need modern science (which none of the original writers/recipients had at their disposal) to explain these wonderful mysteries. We will be much better off using the Bible to interpret/explain the Bible.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since you both tend to answer questions with riddles, I only noted the similarity.

Not a riddle, really, just a picture.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's with the tag line -- "Poster is no longer a Christian" -- is that like saying you are no longer a part of God's family? Once we are born into a family, that's not something we can change.

Guess you'll have to ask your friend Nigel about that one.

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Bible explains for us. We do not need modern science (which none of the original writers/recipients had at their disposal) to explain these wonderful mysteries. We will be much better off using the Bible to interpret/explain the Bible.

Using the Bible WL concluded there was an organic relationship, Igzy concluded that this was overblown and that it was really relational.

How do you then explain 1Cor 6, according to Igzy they don't really become "one flesh" in the sense of being "one Body" because if one dies the other still lives. Instead he interpreted this word concerning oneness to be something relational.

The scientific studies I mention demonstrate that it is not merely relational. I am not arguing that there is not a relational oneness, instead I am pointing out that in many different ways there is clearly and indisputably an organic oneness. Also, this organic oneness can happen almost instantaneously as in the transmission of STD's, but it also is a process in which the two become one over time. Mirror neurons will cause your facial expressions, body language, even voice to mirror your spouse. Over time the two of you will have the same expression. Again, this is clearly a function of relation since the closer the relation the more the mirror neurons will operate, but it is also something that is organic.

How does this relate to our "being one spirit with Christ". First it demonstrates that having a single experience of Christ will forever mark your spirit with that experience. It also shows that over time, as we behold Christ, we will be changed from one glory to the next. This process, is clearly a function of our relation with Christ, but is also an organic process.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's with the tag line -- "Poster is no longer a Christian" -- is that like saying you are no longer a part of God's family? Once we are born into a family, that's not something we can change.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Guess you'll have to ask your friend Nigel about that one.

I definitely prefer plain, straightforward, honest, yet at the same time, kind and considerate communication. How can I be expected to ask Nigel or, for that matter, to know specifically what he has written about some topic you are thinking about?

Like I said before, I'm just not smart enough to pick up on hints like this. There is also far too much room for misunderstanding.

But I do wish you a happy and joyful new year.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

How does this relate to our "being one spirit with Christ". First it demonstrates that having a single experience of Christ will forever mark your spirit with that experience. It also shows that over time, as we behold Christ, we will be changed from one glory to the next. This process, is clearly a function of our relation with Christ, but is also an organic process.

77150, it's very hard to have any compromising discussion on this forum that is focused on any of WL's favorite topics. I agree with you that "one flesh" is more than just "relational," but neither do I agree with much of WL's more "scientific" commentary on the "one spirit," which has become very impersonal and expunges relationships from the equation. For example, WL's most ardent followers can regularly hype the "one spirit," yet at the same time back-stab brothers they have known for years.

I prefer to look at ministry actions and the fruit of one's teaching, rather than to merely analyze teachings. In this regard I differ somewhat from many posters here. WL's teachings covered a wide spectrum of the Bible, building mainly upon Brethren theology. Much of his spoken ministry was also edited at LSM. Much of WL's written teaching, taken by itself, is not inherently bad, but taking his spoken words, coupled with behind the scenes activities, gives his written words whole new meaning.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

77150, it's very hard to have any compromising discussion on this forum that is focused on any of WL's favorite topics. I agree with you that "one flesh" is more than just "relational," but neither do I agree with much of WL's more "scientific" commentary on the "one spirit," which has become very impersonal and expunges relationships from the equation. For example, WL's most ardent followers can regularly hype the "one spirit," yet at the same time back-stab brothers they have known for years.

I prefer to look at ministry actions and the fruit of one's teaching, rather than to merely analyze teachings. In this regard I differ somewhat from many posters here. WL's teachings covered a wide spectrum of the Bible, building mainly upon Brethren theology. Much of his spoken ministry was also edited at LSM. Much of WL's written teaching, taken by itself, is not inherently bad, but taking his spoken words, coupled with behind the scenes activities, gives his written words whole new meaning.

This thread is really an offshoot of "Good Lee/Bad Lee" in which I understood the thesis to be an attempt to find some underlying doctrinal failing as the cause for the bad behavior. I did not follow the whole thread and perhaps I am missing a lot, but I did question Igzy on one of his statements and this grew out of that discussion.

I think the effort to find underlying causes for the LRC to go astray is a very profitable endeavor. This is why I read that thread and even entered into the discussion.

However, my conclusion is that this particular effort to tie what are essentially common behaviors among sinful, fallen man, to a particular erroneous doctrine suggests to me that the real question is "why was I duped?" and even "Was I duped?"

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

Using the Bible WL concluded there was an organic relationship, Igzy concluded that this was overblown and that it was really relational. .

First of all, Witness Lee used a lot unbiblical language in his teachings. Many times his “conclusions” were apparently based upon his own imagination and human reasonings. Secondly, he had a strong tendency to overemphasize things, especially certain theological notions that he invented himself. Such is the case with this matter of our “organic” connection to God. Yes, we have an organic connection with God, which is most vividly illustrated in the parable of the vine and branches in John 15. However Lee certainly went beyond what is taught by the Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Igzy can speak for himself (and I’m sure he will), but I think the problem he has with this proposition is not as cut and dry as you might think. No regular reader of the Bible would deny there is an “organic” aspect to our connection with God. This may be a more a matter of overemphasis more than a matter of organic versus relational. Actually, I don’t see these two as antithetical at all -- not saying that is what anybody here is claiming that they are, it’s just that it appears that way in reading some of 77150’s posts.

How do you then explain 1Cor 6, according to Igzy they don't really become "one flesh" in the sense of being "one Body" because if one dies the other still lives. Instead he interpreted this word concerning oneness to be something relational.

Here you continue to force a black and white choice between taking this statement literally or “not literally”(my choice of words). The simple fact is that we do not need to go that far with every single verse in the Bible. The Lord Jesus did not teach in this manner, and He, of course, is the gold standard when it comes to teachings. He used parables. He used stories. He even used hyperbole and figures of speech. Now the apostle Paul was not far behind – he may be considered the silver standard. Nevertheless, he also used hyperbole and figures of speech, along with many other literary tools. A good Bible student (not to mention Bible teacher) will take into consideration the use of all these tools. This is to say nothing of the problematic scientific art of translating the ancient biblical languages into English.

The scientific studies I mention demonstrate that it is not merely relational. I am not arguing that there is not a relational oneness, instead I am pointing out that in many different ways there is clearly and indisputably an organic oneness…

If God wanted us to take modern scientific knowledge into consideration, the New Testament would have been written in the 20th century and not in the 1st century. We must take into consideration what the 1st century writer was trying to convey, and what the 1st century reader would have likely understood. This is not to discount that the Word of God has timeless value and meaning, only that if we are going to be good students of the Word there are methods to getting at the two of the most important goals of biblical interpretation – what was meant at the time of the writing, and what could it mean for us today. Sometimes these turn out to be one in the same, other times not.

How does this relate to our "being one spirit with Christ". First it demonstrates that having a single experience of Christ will forever mark your spirit with that experience. It also shows that over time, as we behold Christ, we will be changed from one glory to the next. This process, is clearly a function of our relation with Christ, but is also an organic process.

I have no basic problem with what you have written here. “He who joined to the Lord is one spirit” – This is both organic and relational. I think the problem comes in with how Witness Lee turned the whole thing, every rhyme and reason, into a purely hyper-physical, almost automatic function. This is why he used the example of eating and digesting food so much – it’s how he looked at spiritual things. The simple truth is that spirituality is both organic and relational. Maybe they are more of the same thing than they are something different….if that makes any sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

However, my conclusion is that this particular effort to tie what are essentially common behaviors among sinful, fallen man, to a particular erroneous doctrine suggests to me that the real question is "why was I duped?" and even "Was I duped?"

This is the question confronting many who risk knowing the truth about the Lee family. For many it is too difficult to even consider, because to conclude that one has been "duped" is to be called "poisoned" and negative by others.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But I do wish you a happy and joyful new year.

You too...

[OBW]

So let's look at the science.

Originally Posted by 77150

A few years ago I read an interesting study. They put a female mouse into a cage with two male mice. Each of the males was tied up and kept in separate “rooms” of the cage. The female mouse could travel freely between the two rooms. The female mouse mated with both mice but in the end spent all of her time with the first mouse she had mated with. I think the Bible refers to this as “first love”. Apparently the biologists have determined that experience is imprinted on the brain in such a way that you prefer that first love. I think this is part of what God is referring to, something special happens in that first love, fornication is therefore contrary to the design of God.

This clearly is the design of God. I will not state otherwise. But it is not because of the "flesh." It is a psychological pattern. And every time we try to go against this designed pattern, it damages the pattern. Those that continually cheat eventually have problems with the "first love." Or their first love was just an experiment in high school with someone they didn't really love. They eventually break the mental link between sex and love and relationship and none of it matters.

But it is not about "flesh." There are some places where "flesh" is used to represent the fallen desires of the heart — something not physical. But none of it, done right or wrong, makes us a single "flesh" in the physical sense.

Originally Posted by 77150

The brain has “mirror neurons” which cause us to mirror in our brain facial expressions and body movements that we see, voices we hear, mannerisms, expressions, etc. So if you are married and spend a lot of time with your spouse you will unconsciously mirror expressions. This will literally be etched into your face. We have all seen boys that seem to unconsciously mimic their dad, or an old couple whose faces look remarkably similar. Paul talks about beholding and reflecting the glory of the Lord. Therefore I think it is very reasonable to think there is a spiritual reality to mirror neurons. This shows that spending time in the presence of the Lord will change you, it will change your expressions, your mannerisms, your words, your speech.

And your examples are perfectly clear. We have a psychological makeup that tends toward uniformity. If we are around someone who says "yada yada" a lot, eventually we say it. It does not make us one flesh with them, although in some ways we might be "one."

Originally Posted by 77150

But the act of sex has far more consequences than fornicators wish to admit. Half of all the DNA in your body does not belong to you. Our Body is a host of a myriad number of organisms. Many of these we could not live without which is why taking antibiotics can have very negative consequences.

I would agree that the sex act is more than many want to admit. As mentioned above, it is more than an act of physical gratification. It is best when pure. They can't explain it away.

But my body has only my DNA. Other organisms that may be within me, from viruses, to the strep that is alway present, to the E coli in our bowels; all the "pro biotics" that people are now trying to drink in, etc., are not our DNA. We may have a need for them, or at least some of them. But that does not make them us. I recently read of studies in which enemas made from small amounts of fecal matter from individuals with desirable characteristics were used to infuse individuals with something lacking that ultimately resulted in a cure for certain kinds of things far beyond irritated bowel syndrome or any other problems with the digestive system. But that does not infer that what was introduced became part of the actual person, just part of the environment in which the person lives. Our environment is more than the air around us. It includes much within us. But it is not us. It can be changed.

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

1. ... Yes, we have an organic connection with God, which is most vividly illustrated in the parable of the vine and branches in John 15.

2. ...No regular reader of the Bible would deny there is an “organic” aspect to our connection with God. This may be a more a matter of overemphasis more than a matter of organic versus relational.

3. Here you continue to force a black and white choice between taking this statement literally or “not literally”(my choice of words). This simple fact is that we do not need to go that far with every single verse in the Bible. The Lord Jesus did not teach in this manner, and He, of course, is the gold standard when it comes to teachings. He used parables. He used stories. He even used hyperbole and figures of speech. Now the apostle Paul was not far behind – he may be considered the silver standard. Nevertheless, he also used hyperbole and figures of speech, along with many other literary tools. A good Bible student (not to mention Bible teacher) will take into consideration the use of all these tools. This is to say nothing of the problematic scientific art of translating the ancient biblical languages into English. [/COLOR]

4. I have no basic problem with what you have written here. “He who joined to the Lord is one spirit” – This is both organic and relational.

5. I think the problem comes in with how Witness Lee turned the whole thing, every rhyme and reason, into a purely hyper-physical, almost automatic function. This is why he used the example of eating and digesting food so much – it’s how he looked at spiritual things. The simple truth is that spirituality is both organic and relational. Maybe they are more of the same thing than they are something different….if that makes any sense.[/COLOR]

1. Thankyou
2. Thankyou
3. I think you missed one of my posts. I made it clear in that post that this word is used both metaphorically and literally. Never did I deny that there was a relational aspect to "becoming one flesh". The only issues I took were with the statement "this verse cannot be read literally" and that there wasn't an organic aspect to the oneness.
4. Thankyou
5. You may be right. Still I find it very strange that a website called "local church discussion" seems so focused on "WL discussion". Has anyone created a thread "Good LC/Bad LC"?

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If God wanted us to take modern scientific knowledge into consideration, the New Testament would have been written in the 20th century and not in the 1st century. We must take into consideration what the 1st century writer was trying to convey, and what the 1st century reader would have likely understood. This is not to discount that the Word of God has timeless value and meaning, only that if we are going to be good students of the Word there are methods to getting at the two of the most important goals of biblical interpretation – what was meant at the time of the writing, and what could it mean for us today. Sometimes these turn out to be one in the same, other times not.

The Scientific age began prior to the writing of the NT in Greece. The Greek language conveys the thoughts and concepts of the Scientific process. Many believe that this is why the NT was written in Greek and what Paul was referring to when he said "in the fullness of time" (at least in part).

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Surely you agree with Paul that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation. I assume that you also agree that not all people on this earth are Christians, so in talking to them about God they may be more open to listening to a discussion about the creation instead of taking the Bible as the word of God.

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Again, I assume you agree with these verses that the creation was made by the word of God. Therefore the creation testifies of its creator, it must also testify of the Word of God.

Hebrews
11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I realize that this is a matter of faith, but if you exercise your faith you will see that the things of creation which we can see are actually revealing things that framed them, the word of God, which we cannot see.

Even Jesus taught that the stones would testify of Him.

Luke
19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

So why would you say that God or Jesus or Paul did not intend for us to listen to the testimony of Pyrite, or Gold or mice, or even a small virus? They are all part of the creation and they all testify of the creator and of the word of God which framed them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

So why would you say that God or Jesus or Paul did not intend for us to listen to the testimony of Pyrite, or Gold or mice, or even a small virus? They are all part of the creation and they all testify of the creator and of the word of God which framed them.

Great points.

I really hope you can survive those posters here who, at times, and I have to include myself too, are really frustrating to those former members, thinking of ZNPaaneah, KissTheSon, SpeakersCorner, YP0534 and others, who just got tired of having every post challenged that does not appear to hate WL "adequately."

[UntoHim]

I said "modern scientific knowledge".... you simply ignored what I said and went on about your merry way giving us too much information that really cannot help us in working with your original proposition and the questions that surround it.

Yes, modern science has uncovered all sorts of information regarding the nature and function of God's vast creation. So? We only have so much time and space here on this forum to link any of this to any particular discussion. As the moderator I have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't think most of the readers really want to explore all the intricacies of small viruses, enemas and the cure for irritated bowel syndrome.

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I said "modern scientific knowledge".... you simply ignored what I said and went on about your merry way giving us too much information that really cannot help us in working with your original proposition and the questions that surround it.

Yes, modern science has uncovered all sorts of information regarding the nature and function of God's vast creation. So? We only have so much time and space here on this forum to link any of this to any particular discussion. As the moderator I have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't think most of the readers really want to explore all the intricacies of small viruses, enemas and the cure for irritated bowel syndrome.

What is your definition of "modern"? To me this criteria does not make sense.

I have read the rules regarding posting. The scientific references were not "off topic" they in fact were only in the post that defined the topic. They were not irrelevant as it was the only way I could make my point. I have not "flooded" the site with scientific references. I do not see any violation of the rules and have no intention of being regulated by additional "special" rules that only apply to me. If that means I am no longer welcome to post so be it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 77150

Using the Bible WL concluded there was an organic relationship, Igzy concluded that this was overblown and that it was really relational.

How do you then explain 1Cor 6, according to Igzy they don't really become "one flesh" in the sense of being "one Body" because if one dies the other still lives. Instead he interpreted this word concerning oneness to be something relational.

You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic.

The same goes for couples. Although there might be an organic aspect to the relationship, the personal is the most important, leading aspect.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic.

The same goes for couples. Although there might be an organic aspect to the relationship, the personal is the most important, leading aspect.

So then your point was: Proverbs 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.