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

[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 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.

[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.

[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."

[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.