[TruthTalk] The door to understanding
I'm sure it does David. They always have a waiting list so are pretty strict about attendance and they will drop ppl who miss too many meetings. When I had to go to Australia I could look in their book and find meetings over there to attend. Same with every State in the Union and since everyone has the same lesson on the same week - it works. To complete the whole series takes 7 years. I am in my 4th year. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have never attended BSF and did not even know what it was until Judy and John talked about it. I don't even know if it exists around here in my community. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance MuirTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:16 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding Bible Study Fellowship. Judy attends. (I think David's family attends also.)- Original Message - From: Dean MooreTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: February 14, 2006 17:53Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding cd: I am not sure where you got this twisted version of our statements that have been taken out of context- but you are incorrect.By the way who is the BSF? - Original Message - From:To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 2/14/2006 1:25:44 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding Let's talk "cult," shall we? I am taking this list to the local BSF. Wonder what they will say !! It will describe a person I am dealing with who believes the following: 1. Adam and Eve were spirit beings before the fall -- their flesh being changed afterwards. 2. Christ is not the "eternal " Son of God. 3. Christ was of human flesh for only 3 1/2 years. 4. Christ was not the physical descendent of David - only in some spiritual sense. 5. Christ was not "God on earth" during His ministry. 6. The "Trinity" is false doctrine. 7. God is male and has a penis. 8. God illuminates His disciples to the extent that discussion and books are not necessary. Because of this "illumination," the understanding of acripture can be "received" from the Spirit without fear of being wrong. Those who have this Spirit cannot be mistaken when it comes to the Bible and what it means to say. And those who disagree with this are false teachers and need to be opposed. 9. The old law is binding and continues to be something we must obey. I would add to this list -- but I am sure this will be sufficent .Dean, you and Judy are the very definition of "cult!!" but nice try. And what do you want to bet that BSF will not agree? By the way - you are the one who has set the tone for this response. This is the fruit of your ministry. Accusing me of preaching the occult is not going to fly. jd l message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] .Amen Dean,JD I figure you were thinking of Proverbs 11:14b when you wrote what you say below ie: "in the multitude ofcounsellors there is safety" However the "counsellors" referred to in Proverbs ARE those of God's Word orthe Biblical text as you call it. They all say the same thing by the same Spirit and this is the counsel in whichwe find safety. Groupthink?? Anathema!! On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:cd: A very good definition of the birth of a cult John. No one truth to live by but group thinking-No standards to point our error if the group agrees with the present circumstance-I can see why your group don't like preaching such as David does-the one is dominated by the many as his voice is lost in the power of the mass. JD writes:In the biblical concept of the churchI see an avenue for continuing revelation, and if not revelation, certainly interpretation or understanding. If you will, it is in the counsel of many that our understanding of the biblical text is expanded and/or confirmed. How important, it is, then, that the church continue to meet in forums such as this -- whether virtual or physical. A community of Being reveals Himself to a community of Believers and it is out of this communal reality that our understanding of God and His t houghts is borne. jd --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The door to understanding
Lance obviously has a very active and prolific imagination David. I have disagreed with youabout a point or two and have yet to receive even a hint of "veiled threats or warnings" Apparently we live in two different dimensions (Lance and I, that is) judytFrom: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Veiled threats and warnings? What are you talking about? David Miller. From: Lance MuirTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:23 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding I believe that cd DM may be confusing intimidation with authority. I see this more from DM with those less than veiled threats warnings directed at those who dare to disagree with him. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: February 14, 2006 18:23Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding Secondly, I never said that the group defines God. Such is a lie and I am tired of it. cd: Do you remember my replying "What if they decide He is a calf? Others do-I am not lying John-but I forgive you. I do not care what you said. Do you understand that comment? I am talking about what I said, Dean. I am talking about what you said of MY comment. And nothing in MY comment spoke of a group defining God. Any comment to the contrary is a lie, at this stage of the discussion. Plain and simple. You think the "church" is all about common folk and bosses, apparently. The fact that the counsel of many is of no value to you as you read and "study" the written word is more than obvious. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From:To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 2/14/2006 5:58:59 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding Dean !!! Would you p[lease slow down and proof read you comments. Read this out loud and you will see what I mean. . cd: Judy the most concern that prompted my below reply to John was his earlier statement of the God is who the group decides He is-tie that to his lower statement and you have a cult. Secondly, I never said that the group defines God. Such is a lie and I am tired of it. cd: Do you remember my replying "What if they decide He is a calf? Others do-I am not lying John-but I forgive you. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Judy the most concern that prompted my below reply to John was his earlier statement of the God is who the group decides He is-tie that to his lower statement and you have a cult. John wrote:I see an avenue for continuing revelation, and if not revelation, certainly interpretation or understanding. If you will, it is in the counsel of many that our understanding of the biblical text is expanded and/or confirmed - Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 2/14/2006 7:28:31 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding .Amen Dean,JD I figure you were thinking of Proverbs 11:14b when you wrote what you say below ie: "in the multitude ofcounsellors there is safety" However the "counsellors" referred to in Proverbs ARE those of God's Word orthe Biblical text as you call it. They all say the same thing by the same Spirit and this is the counsel in whichwe find safety. Groupthink?? Anathema!! On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:cd: A very good definition of the birth of a cult John. No one truth to live by but group thinking-No standards to point our error if the group agrees with the present circumstance-I can see why your group don't like preaching such as David does-the one is dominated by the many as his voice is lost in the power of the mass. JD writes:In the biblical concept of the churchI see an avenue for continuing revelation, and if not revelation, certainly interpretation or understanding. If you will, it is in the counsel of many that our understanding of the biblical text is expanded and/or confirmed. How important, it is, then, that the church continue to meet in forums such as this -- whether virtual or physical. A community of Being reveals Himself to a community of Believers and it is out of this communal reality that our understanding of God and His t houghts is borne. jd --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.
No, "anyone" is not included - only those who come with the right heart attitude. God hides things from the "wise and prudent" and reveals them to babes. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I assume you to be using say/mean synonymously, Dean? Anyone can open the bible in order to see what it says, can they not? From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 2/15/2006 7:22:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Does 'your church' teach them right Dean/David? What, pray tell, is present within your discipling that one would find lacking in the other churches? cd:We teach them what the Bible says-I have found that to be lacking in many churches Lance. ' - Original Message - From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 15, 2006 07:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. cd: Hear,Hear! and Amen David. [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 2/14/2006 9:00:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Dean did prove his point with this passage. The passage teaches that Scripture is profitable for these things. Your characterization that Dean has authority to go out into the world pointing fingers of judgment is false. It only exists in your mind. The 1 Cor. 5 passage deals with how to deal with sin within the church. It does not forbid us from testifying to the world that its deeds are evil. It tells us not to judge them. In other words, I don't take up stones and stone homosexuals, I don't kill abortionists, I don't kill adulterers and murderers, etc. The 2 Tim. passage applies to Street Preaching because we preach to many believers out there, and we are causing them to be the men of God that they should be. If the church was training them right, we wouldn't have to. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. You pass out scripture as if you have proven your point!! . Virtually none of the scripture I have seen you quote has much to do with any of the discussions in which they are used. This is a case in point. The Canadian Bishop says this: "It ain't up to you Dean, to 'allow' a fool to continue in her/his folly. My goodness, just look at TT!" and you quote a passage that speaks of the innate value of scripture and has NOTHING to do with giving you "authority" to go out into the world pointing fingers of judgment as if you are getting something done for the Lord. In fact, I Cor 5:11-13 tells you NOT to do what you do. Finally, Dean, this II Tim passage not only says NOTHING in defense of what you do as a SP (and even on this forum), it is information given "that the man of God " might be complete. The reproof and correction mentioned in this passage is directed AT THE MAN OF GOD THAT HE MIGHT BE THOROUGLY FURNISHED and NOT anyone in the world Finally, you miss the point when Lance says "My goodness, just look at TT!" Do you miss his point? Your agenda has done nothing in a positive way for this forum. Nothing. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/14/2006 7:18:26 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. It ain't up to you Dean, to 'allow' a fool to continue in her/his folly. My goodness, just look at TT! cd: That is not what the Bible says Lance.This has been given many times you should study it. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 14, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/13/2006 10:38:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. the Judge himself actually judges ppl with understanding, gentlemen--he engenders understanding with wisdom and righteousness as he goes, as he renders truth truthfully among us who know him--the stark contrast of your spirits methods provoke me (to comment:) (in this context:) cd Such as-"I can understand why you committed adultery with that women-she is beautiful". No clear rights and wrongs -no strong stance against sin-Satan must love this religion as there no fear involved Gary. Yes, one must use wisdom and understanding if remorse is
[TruthTalk] The door to understanding
e this Spirit cannot be mistaken when it comes to the Bible and what it means to say. And those who disagree with this are false teachers and need to be opposed. 9. The old law is binding and continues to be something we must obey. I would add to this list -- but I am sure this will be sufficent . Dean, you and Judy are the very definition of "cult!!" but nice try. And what do you want to bet that BSF will not agree? By the way - you are the one who has set the tone for this response. This is the fruit of your ministry. Accusing me of preaching the occult is not going to fly. jd l message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] .Amen Dean, JD I figure you were thinking of Proverbs 11:14b when you wrote what you say below ie: "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" However the "counsellors" referred to in Proverbs ARE those of God's Word or the Biblical text as you call it. They all say the same thing by the same Spirit and this is the counsel in which we find safety. Groupthink?? Anathema!! On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: A very good definition of the birth of a cult John. No one truth to live by but group thinking-No standards to point our error if the group agrees with the present circumstance-I can see why your group don't like preaching such as David does-the one is dominated by the many as his voice is lost in the power of the mass. JD writes: In the biblical concept of the church I see an avenue for continuing revelation, and if not revelation, certainly interpretation or understanding. If you will, it is in the counsel of many that our understanding of the biblical text is expanded and/or confirmed. How important, it is, then, that the church continue to meet in forums such as this -- whether virtual or physical. A community of Being reveals Himself to a community of Believers and it is out of this communal reality that our understanding of God and His t houghts is borne. jd -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:49:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every single item on the list is an argued belieffrom either you or
Judy Taylor.
You don't like it because when it is all put together, it is rather
embarrassing.
The "cult" thingy is written all ofver this type of [listed]
thinking.
You can counter with a list of weird beliefs of any of us on the
left. Let's see -- maybe I can help.
Jd and friends actually believe this drivel:
1. Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the earth.
AE were created in God's image which is not
dust; the Creator is transcendent.
2. Christ is the eternal Son of God.
What scripture is the above based on? Only begotten
Son - yes. Eternal Son??
3. Christ Incarnate was God on earth.
Then why did he say "Why call me good?" There is only
one that is good and that is God?"
Was he double minded or possibly insane?
4. God the Father did not have sexual relations with Mary.
No kidding??
5. Jesus came in the same flesh as all of mankind and was like us
IN EVERY
RESPECT.
In which case he must have been born in sin and
iniquity and he would have to have had a redeemer himself.
6. The Old Covenant has been made obsolete.
God's moral law is not obsolete; you will be judged
by it in the Last Day
7. God is not a sexual being. "Father" is a function of God, an aspect of
His
self-revealing
economy.
Only to one overtaken by lust. A father is much more
than biology - good ones are rare.
8. We learn of the mind of God through the spirit-led process
of maturity.
The Spirit of God reveals the mind of God - Jesus
amazed the religious leaders at age 12.
and he according to your teaching was "just like you
in every way"
Pretty weird, huh ?!!!
You can say that again.
--
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bible Study Fellowship. Judy attends. (I think
David's family attends also.)
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 14, 2006 17:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to
understanding
cd: I am not sure where you got this twisted version of our
statements that have been taken out of context-but you are
incorrect.By the way who is the BSF?
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/14/2006 1:25:44 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door
to understanding
Let's talk "cult," shall we? I am taking this
list to the local BSF. Wonder what they will say !! It
will describe a person I am dealing with who believes the
following:
1. Adam and Eve were spirit beings before the fall --
their flesh being changed afterwards.
2. Christ is not the "eternal " Son of
God.
3. Christ was of human flesh for only 3 1/2
years.
4. Christ was not the physical descendent of David
- only in some spiritual sense.
5. Christ was not "God on earth" during His
ministry.
6. The "Trinity" is false doctrine.
7. God is male and has a penis.
8. God illuminates His disciples to the extent that
discussion and books are not necessary.Because of this
"illumination," the understanding of acripturecan
be"received" from the Spirit without fear of being
wrong. Those who have this Spirit cannot be mistaken when it
comes to the Bible and what it means to say.
And those who disagree with this are false
teachers and need to be opposed.
9. The old law is binding and continues to be
something we must obey.
I would add to this list -- but I am sure this
will be sufficent .
Dean, you and Judy are the very definition of
"cult!!" but nice try. And what do you want to bet
that BSF will not agree?
By the way - you are the one who has set the
tone for this response. This is the fruit of your
ministry. Accusing me of preaching the occult is not going
to fly.
jd
l message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.Amen Dean,
JD I figure you were
Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.
Ppl didn't have to sin "before the cross" either JD. Otherwise Jesus would not have told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you" We are ignorant of these things because we cling to mens doctrines that do not equate sin with destruction and death so ppl like you give those in need the false assurance that they can continue on and God still loves them while they are being destroyed. On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:57:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Excellent demonstrationof proof-texting (again.) Your quote of John 5:14 -- when was the indwelling spirit given taht enables us to "sin no more?" Before or after the cross? jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/15/2006 12:17:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. this has an NT ring to it that has nothing to do with JC and hisfollowers cd: Which Bible are you reading Gary? It has every thing to do with sin,don't be belligerent. Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:20:28 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..street preachers tell others (lost people) that a certain sin..is wrong Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding
You have no idea what the "it" I am speaking of is -
quite obviously - so I wouldn't
be crowing about anything to do with me or BSF if I
were you JD lest you be found
to be a liar. Just keep laughing until the men in
the white coats arrive
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:13:35 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy speaks of BSF and tells us "it works"
LOL
I will be amending my list through the weekend. Official BSF
appraisal of said
beliefs will be shared with this forum. Should be
interesting. Again -- Judy's
name will not be used. This is not about her, it is about her
doctrine.
jd
From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sure it does David. They always have a waiting
list so are pretty strict about
attendance and they will drop ppl who miss too many
meetings. When I had to go
to Australia I could look in their book and find
meetings over there to attend. Same
with every State in the Union and since everyone
has the same lesson on the same
week - it works. To complete the whole series
takes 7 years. I am in my 4th year.
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have never
attended BSF and did not even know what it was until Judy and John
talked about it. I don't even know if it exists around here in my
community.
David Miller.
- Original Message - From: Lance MuirTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:16 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to
understanding
Bible Study Fellowship. Judy attends. (I think David's family attends
also.)- Original Message - From: Dean MooreTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
February 14, 2006 17:53Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to
understanding
cd: I am not sure where you got this twisted version of our statements
that have been taken out of context- but you are incorrect.By the way
who is the BSF?
- Original Message - From:To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 2/14/2006
1:25:44 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding
Let's talk "cult," shall we? I am taking this list to the
local BSF. Wonder what they will say !! It will describe a
person I am dealing with who believes the following:
1. Adam and Eve were spirit beings before the fall -- their flesh
being changed afterwards.
2. Christ is not the "eternal " Son of God.
3. Christ was of human flesh for only 3 1/2 years.
4. Christ was not the physical descendent of David - only
in some spiritual sense.
5. Christ was not "God on earth" during His ministry.
6. The "Trinity" is false doctrine.
7. God is male and has a penis.
8. God illuminates His disciples to the extent that discussion
and books are not necessary. Because of this "illumination,"
the understanding of acripture can be "received" from the Spirit without
fear of being wrong. Those who have this Spirit cannot be mistaken when
it comes to the Bible and what it means to say. And
those who disagree with this are false teachers and need to be
opposed.
9. The old law is binding and continues to be something we must
obey.
I would add to this list -- but I am sure this will be
sufficent .Dean, you and Judy are the very definition of
"cult!!" but nice try. And what do you want to bet
that BSF will not agree?
By the way - you are the one who has set the tone for this
response. This is the fruit of your ministry. Accusing me of
preaching the occult is not going to fly.
jd
l message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.Amen Dean,JD I figure you were thinking of Proverbs 11:14b when
you wrote what you say below ie: "in the multitude ofcounsellors
there is safety" However the "counsellors" referred to in Proverbs
ARE those of God's Word orthe Biblical text as you call it. They
all say the same thing by the same Spirit and this is the counsel in
whichwe find safety. Groupthink?? Anathema!!
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:cd: A very good definition of the birth of a cult John. No
one truth to live by but group thinking-No standards to point our error
if the group agrees with the present circumstance-I can see why your
group don't like preaching such as David does-the one is dominated by
the many as his voice is lost in the power of the mass.
JD writes:In the biblical concept of the churchI see an
avenue for continuing revelation, and if not reve
Re: [TruthTalk] God's Judgment
Looks like neither of you have read the prophets, or books in the Bible such as Lamentations where God's own ppl are literally "judged by fire" Yes He is merciful and longsuffering but even God haslimits; also we are to adjust to His understanding gentlemen since we are the ones in need ofa new heart and a renewed mind; He has already done all He is going to do. Todays gospel? Repent or perish On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:46:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It appears there are two judges -- The Judge and The Impostor. If judgment has to do with bringing ppl into the relationship [and such is the only judgment presented to the modern day saint], the judgment is easily assessed. Drive them [the ppl] away and the judgment is not of God. "Impostor" is the only remaining conclusion.jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Judge himself actually judges ppl with understanding, gentlemen--he engenders understanding with wisdom and righteousness as he goes, as herenders truth truthfully among us who know him--the stark contrast of your spirits methods provoke me (to comment:) (in this context:) On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:24:23 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .. the Moderator smugly postures himself the same way as you do,Bro; e.g.: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:21:13 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "..not to [separate the two G]would make one prone to error. Error #2" On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:12:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 12, 2006 15:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. you copied and pasted...from another site without actually going to it ^^^ On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:05:09 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: intrinsically, below, [ above]you've postured yourself to(be) Judge [in public insinuating what you want ppl to think--which in truth is not'witholding judgement'] On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:13:46 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have withheld judgment || - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. then, like the Moderator,you also Judge ppl in yourfinitudewithin v narrow human limits (with perfection, of course) On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:12:57 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I did not understand, and still don't understand, is why Gary did not post the other information on that page.
Re: [TruthTalk] God's Judgment
As different as the old God is from your own specialized new god JD Why is His Law which is holy, just, and good, such a threat to you? I find this a curiosity. Since God's law reflects His nature and character. How can one profess to love Him and ATST reject His Word? You explain. The Words Jesus spoke were the Father's. The standard for a new covenant believer is higher than that of the scribes and pharisees under the Law - So your doctrine of "sin covering grace" will not stand under scrutiny JD. Jesus fulfilled God's Law and we are also to fulfill it through Him .. and this is not - He does it and we get the credit while still in our mess. It is He gave us the example and we follow "in His steps" to do likewise. judyt On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:06:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, the Good News -- and it is so different from the Old Law !! Wow!! You have no idea which is Old Testament and which is New Testament. You do not see the Cross as that which ends the Law through fulfillmentand Begins the administration of Grace apart from Law (there has always been grace, of course.) Any who are addicted to some habit of sin before you get to them is clearly lost afterwards.You, my dear, are the new Judyizer !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks like neither of you have read the prophets, or books in the Bible such as Lamentations where God's own ppl are literally "judged by fire" Yes He is merciful and longsuffering but even God haslimits; also we are to adjust to His understanding gentlemen since we are the ones in need ofa new heart and a renewed mind; He has already done all He is going to do. Todays gospel? Repent or perish On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:46:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It appears there are two judges -- The Judge and The Impostor. If judgment has to do with bringing ppl into the relationship [and such is the only judgment presented to the modern day saint], the judgment is easily assessed. Drive them [the ppl] away and the judgment is not of God. "Impostor" is the only remaining conclusion.jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Judge himself actually judges ppl with understanding, gentlemen--he engenders understanding with wisdom and righteousness as he goes, as herenders truth truthfully among us who know him--the stark contrast of your spirits methods provoke me (to comment:) (in this context:) On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:24:23 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .. the Moderator smugly postures himself the same way as you do,Bro; e.g.: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:21:13 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "..not to [separate the two G]would make one prone to error. Error #2" On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:12:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 12, 2006 15:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. you copied and pasted...from another site without actually going to it ^^^ On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:05:09 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: intrinsically, below, [ above]you've postured yourself to(be) Judge [in public insinuating what you want ppl to think--which in truth is not'witholding judgement'] On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:13:46 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have withheld judgment || - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. then, like the Moderator,you also Judge ppl in yourfinitudewithi
Re: [TruthTalk] Which God?
Are you looking for a fortune teller Lance? My guess would be that some are inhabited by religious spirits rather than the Holy One and that doctrines of men have blinded their eyes while giving them a false peace which tells them that walking in God's ways and striving to enter the narrow gate that leads to life is legalistic. judyt On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:01:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dean:As to the 'God/god' of the Bible:Why is it, Dean, David, Judy, Perry, that all 'believers' don't, while inhabited by the same Holy Spirit, come to the same conclusions re:The 'God/god' of the Bible? through that selfsame Bible?Do some sin against that Spirit? IFF 'believers' then, how does this take place? From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/13/2006 9:41:58 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. 'inspections' rankamong prerequisites for Satan to 'appear' (lookin' like jt's God to you) cd: Using wisdom in the inspection knowing some need to be taught-one would be a fool not to watch.By the way-this is in the Bible-you know the big book with 66 smaller books inside.Yes, it is the same God as Judy, David,and Perry has but not the samegod as you guys have-I cannot find yours in the Bible Gary.He acts and thinks differently them what the Bible saysours does.Disharmony throughout the Bible is strong with your god. 1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:46:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/13/2006 10:35:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:17:48 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why[does] Satan appear as a angel of light [partic to fruit inspectors] cd: HuH?Say what?
Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding
.Amen Dean, JD I figure you were thinkingofProverbs 11:14b when you wrote what you say below ie: "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" However the "counsellors" referred to in Proverbs ARE those of God's Word or the Biblical text as you call it. Theyall say the same thing by the same Spirit and this is the counsel in which we find safety. Groupthink?? Anathema!! On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: A very good definition of the birth of a cult John. No one truth to live by but group thinking-No standards to point our error if the group agrees with the present circumstance-I can see why your group don't like preaching such as David does-the one is dominated by the many as his voice is lost in the power of the mass. JD writes: In the biblical concept of the church I see an avenue for continuing revelation, and if not revelation, certainly interpretation or understanding. If you will, it is in the counsel of many that our understanding of the biblical text is expanded and/or confirmed. How important, it is, then, that the church continue to meet in forums such as this -- whether virtual or physical. A community of Being reveals Himself to a community of Believers and it is out of this communal reality that our understanding of God and His thoughts is borne. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] God's Judgment
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jesus fulfilled God's Law
and we are also to fulfill it through Him .. and this
is not - He does it and we get the credit while
still in our mess. It is He gave us the example
and we follow "in His steps" to do likewise. judyt
Really !! This will make no difference to
you, I am sure, but it does to me: I Cor 1:30 "But of Him
you are in Christ Jesus, who became for
us widom from God -- AND righteousness AND sancitification AND
redemption." HE is all of this FOR US.
He is all this for us ONLY as we walk after the
Spirit JD which means we walk as he walked in obedience
to the Father.
In Eph 2:15-16 we are told that the reconciliation accomplished in Christ
ABOLISHED the enmity that is the law of
commandments contained in the ordances. This is the same
"Law of Moses" that Peter tells the
council at Jerusalem is a burden greater than any could bear !!
(Acts 15:5-11).
The ordinances had to do with the Levitical
Priesthood - not God's moral law JD. You need to read Hebrews
more closely and ask God to show you the
difference.
The old covenant is declared to be [already] OBSOLETE
and passing away in Heb 8:13.
Yes the sacrifices and feasts are now history; we
have one eternal sacrifice which replaces them.
And when did this happen? AT THE CROSS (Heb
9:15.). Christ lived and died under the law of His
Father.
We live and die under the law of Christ.
And the law of Christ fulfills the law of His Father
so tell me what is the difference?
A Spirit filled Paul writes to a Spirit filled Christian church and
argues that if righteousness came by Spirit filled folk obeying the law,
then Christ died needlessly (Gal 2:21.)
A Spirit filled John wrote that "Sin is transgressing
the law" So tell me JD, how does one transgress what
has been completely done away with. If it is
gone already then how can one transgress against it? (1 Jn 3:4)
I know you have done away with God's law JD; but it
does not look to me like God has.
You and those on this forum who buyinto your doctrine can offer no
hope to those addicted to sin
(aren't we all !!!??)
No we are not all addicted to sin. You speak
for yourself only JD. I die daily to sin and live by the faith of the
son of God who loved me and gave himself for
me. I am dead to sin and alive to righteousness.
because you have no clue as to the difference between law and
grace. When you guys get through with your "explanation,"
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE !!
I have a different definition of grace than you do
JD. For me it is not a cloak for sin - it is the ability through
the power of the cross to overcome sin. Grace
gives us the power to do as we should and to love the unlovely..
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As different as the old God is from your own
specialized new god JD
Why is His Law which is holy, just, and good, such
a threat to you? I find this a curiosity. Since
God's law reflects His nature and character.
How can one profess to love Him and ATST
reject His Word? You explain. The Words
Jesus spoke were the Father's. The standard for
a new covenant believer is higher than that of the
scribes and pharisees under the Law - So
your doctrine of "sin covering grace" will not
stand under scrutiny JD. Jesus fulfilled God's Law
and we are also to fulfill it through Him .. and
this is not - He does it and we get the credit while
still in our mess. It is He gave us the
example and we follow "in His steps" to do likewise.
judyt
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:06:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, the Good News -- and it is so different from the Old Law
!! Wow!!
You have no idea which is Old Testament and which is New
Testament. You do not see the Cross as that which ends the Law
through fulfillmentand Begins the administration of Grace apart from
Law (there has always been grace, of course.)
Any who are addicted to some habit of sin before you get to them is
clearly lost afterwards.You, my dear, are the new Judyizer
!!
jd
From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks like neither of you have read the
prophets, or books in the Bible such as Lamentations where
God's
own ppl are literally "judged by fire"
Yes He is merciful and longsuffering but even God haslimits; also
we
are to adjust to His understanding gentlemen
since we are the ones in need ofa new heart and a renewed
mind; He has alrea
Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.
ONLY when they consistently walk in the light as He is in the light .. On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:32:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [*in JCsjudgement, hisbrethren bothalready do have] will have happiness beyond understanding -- On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:21:13 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/12/2006 3:09:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Who isrequired to attend your Judgment? [*] cd: ..expand on this Gary so that I can clearly understand you On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:21:13 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - || cd: To define the differences between the lost and the brethren is not splitting hairs G On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:20:44 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:.."believers" didn't misteat women the so-called christians did.
[TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.
Lance, the problem it appears is with your definition of "believer" As to the assumption below - I for one would say YES. Believers have certain fruit in their lives and it is not the kind you describe here. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]David: Am I to assume that YOU would be incapable, excellent researcher that you are, of making a legitimate case FOR the maltreatment of AT LEAST those three groups I mentioned by believers? Am I to assume that, over the course of the last 20 centuries, believers have not, regularly and, over a protracted period of time, treated other believers in an ungodly/unbiblical manner? Should you actually say to the former 'yes Lance, I'm incapable of doing so' and, as to the latter 'no Lance, I as a believer never have, no member of my immediate family ever has and, no group of believers I know of ever has' then I shall do what I can to demonstrate otherwise. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: February 12, 2006 15:17Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Lance, the problem is that the 'woman bashing' that you read into it is from a false stereotype that has been programmed into your mind from this present world system. This mindset is actually a delusion, a deconstruction of something real into something that is not real. It is the spirit of Anti-Christ. This is the same problem I have preaching on campus about homosexuality, or having a sign that says, "help prevent homosexuality." With such a message of hope to help the homosexual, I am immediately typecast into being a hatemonger and homophobe. Why? Because the bigotry and false stereotype that has been programmed into the minds of others, that anybody who believes that homosexuality is immoral or preventable is filled with hate. Did you even read the context of Tertullian's message here? Please look it up. If you need me to do the homework for you and paste the text here or provide a link, let me know. Please consider his context and his audience. He was speaking to REBELLIOUS women, whose heart it was to alter the Creator's work upon them, by dying their hair yellow, and wearing black eyeliner, and foundation makeup, and braiding the hair, and wearing jewelry and ornaments, fine clothes of purple, etc. This is a GENDER issue. Men generally speaking are not prone to spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make themselves attractive in this way. Why do the women do it and not the men? There are several explanations. Tertullian was giving his perspective, based in Scripture, a passage from the book of Genesis which all seem to accept as Scripture, and text from the book of Enoch, which Tertullian accepted as Scripture but realized that not everybody did. In the context in which he spoke this, I have no problem with him speaking a reproof to women in this way, reminding them of Eve's sin and how their deception about this wearing of makeup is similar. He gave a historical backdrop, and his reason for all of this was not to suppress women, but to elevate them. He was contrasting the condemned and cursed condition and linking the wearing of makeup to this with the gospel believing liberated woman, who is promised the same dignity of men in the resurrection, a seat from which to judge the very angels that taught the women to wear makeup and do other things besides. Even if you think his reasoning has problems, you should not misrepresent him as being somebody who was mistreating women or as someone engaged in 'woman bashing.' The only way this idea has any way of flying is if it is lifted out of context and misrepresented as you and Debbie have done by sharing these quotes in the way that you did. I think you do this out of ignorance, but the problem is that you are probably even ignorant of the fact that you do it in ignorance. That is the problem with delusion. You don't know that you are actually believing a lie. David Miller. - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. IFO could read more than a little 'woman bashing' herein, David/Dean. I don't believe that either of the two of you would as, IMO, you both adopt a more traditionalist understanding of the role of men/women..husbands/wives. - Original Message - From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 12, 2006 08:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Thank you David for this. [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 2/11/2006 9:37:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. Lance wrote: And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying thatChrist did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we areafter salvation not before salvation. As a born again believer I have fleshand blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child ofAbraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to becomemore Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become aheathen. Exactly ... A good example of his separation from sinners and the fallacy of all the "buddy/brethren" talk before the cross (other than the disciples that is) can be seen at the time of the passover in Jerusalem we are told that "many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did" but get this "But Jesus DID NOT commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (Jn 2:23-25) But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not sayinghe wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down to thelowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had noclaim on Him. Sure does; what was in man wasn't in Him that's for sure ie: Jesus tells his disciples "Hereafter I will not talk much with you 'for the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14:30). Obviously he had something in the rest of mankind but NOTHING IN HIM. No Adamic cursed nature to have to overcome and no 'iniquities' of the fathers. Satan had absolutely no ground in him. We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side ofthe coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken - Amen; the Romans 5 One for all and all for one formula is also off base. I don't see Jesus praying for the whole world before he becomes one for all. Do you Dean?? So it is not as automatic as your doctrine makes it appear. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you arenot hearing Bill properly. He did answer your question. Many heresiessprang up and those who wrote in the first few centuries after the Biblicalwriters addressed these heresies. You personally don't understand this becauseyou are not well read in the church fathers. Also, the Biblical writers were not negligent about the relationship of Jesus and the incarnation. There is at least as much about that as thereis about his Divinity. That is why Christianity divided so much overexactly who Jesus was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying toclaim that the other side is lying about what the coin actually looks like. Hold a coin up right now, Judy. Describe its face to yourself. Then haveyour husband describe the tail side. Do this while you both are looking atthe same coin. Do you both describe it the same way? No. Why? You areboth looking at different sides. That's what you and Bill are doing in this conversation. Please TRY to hear what Bill is saying. He is usingBible. Deal with that David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Amen Dean!!
That too. There is so much that indicates Jesus
is not as orthodoxy paints Him. I want reality
I don't want him to be less than or more than God's
Word reveals. I want to know the Truth that
will make me/us free.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:03:07 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of
understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is
good." statement of Chris..
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Dean, I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the
flesh was not God in the flesh. This is a very serious
matter.
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Taylor"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I invite you to read again Peter's sermon in
Acts 2.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:01
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
That does not surprise me.
I did answer the question. Paul was not
addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity.
That heresy sprang up later. John addresses
it.
No Bill - I didn't write it as a
challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is
that
Jesus came to do good and to heal all who
were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him.
Looks to me like Paul could just as
easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case
or
is that too difficult in
Greek?
I certainly do believe that God was with him,
Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill
Then why doesn't Paul say that in the
book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of
Kings"
and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk
that way amongst men.
cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of
thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God
idea.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net,
and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned
for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed
to be clean.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying thatChrist did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we areafter salvation not before salvation. As a born again believer I have fleshand blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child ofAbraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to becomemore Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become aheathen. Exactly ... A good example of his separation from sinners and the fallacy of all the "buddy/brethren" talk before the cross (other than the disciples that is) can be seen at the time of the passover in Jerusalem we are told that "many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did" but get this "But Jesus DID NOT commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (Jn 2:23-25) But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not sayinghe wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down to thelowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had noclaim on Him. Sure does; what was in man wasn't in Him that's for sure ie: Jesus tells his disciples "Hereafter I will not talk much with you 'for the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14:30). Obviously he had something in the rest of mankind but NOTHING IN HIM. No Adamic cursed nature to have to overcome and no 'iniquities' of the fathers. Satan had absolutely no ground in him. We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side ofthe coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken - Amen; the Romans 5 One for all and all for one formula is also off base. I don't see Jesus praying for the whole world before he becomes one for all. Do you Dean?? So it is not as automatic as this doctrine makes it appear. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you arenot hearing Bill properly. He did answer your question. Many heresiessprang up and those who wrote in the first few centuries after the Biblicalwriters addressed these heresies. You personally don't understand this becauseyou are not well read in the church fathers. Also, the Biblical writers were not negligent about the relationship of Jesus and the incarnation. There is at least as much about that as thereis about his Divinity. That is why Christianity divided so much overexactly who Jesus was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying toclaim that the other side is lying about what the coin actually looks like. Hold a coin up right now, Judy. Describe its face to yourself. Then haveyour husband describe the tail side. Do this while you both are looking atthe same coin. Do you both describe it the same way? No. Why? You areboth looking at different sides. That's what you and Bill are doing in this conversation. Please TRY to hear what Bill is saying. He is usingBible. Deal with that David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
It's not and what's more you can be "as you say" assumed and still be unhealed. Every worldly person is not headed for heaven Megohmrod or whoever you are. Nothing is written in the flesh of your heart that you don't accept and embrace ie: Love Him and do what he says - which of course means repenting and turning from darkness and error - All of these formulas you have are just that. Formulas. God deals with ppl on a personal basis and yes he judges nations and groups also. On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me? RD http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
How very deceiving ... No, Jesus is the covenant and we get in on it if invited ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:19:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Typical Augustinian response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could fall. 1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as to determine which state Christ appeared in. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me? RD http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
Really Lance? Then you don't have a wedding garment because your old flesh is not going anyplace but into the ground. Your outer man is perishing as we speak On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:41:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
[TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or
not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are
attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the
religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is
not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they all
had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their
bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the
children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not
saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed
were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of
one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of
anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'-- This
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed
to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the
orthodox fathers.
It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you
don't have ananswer?
The text says "for God was WITH him".
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was he so negligent about the sperm of
David and the incarnation?
Because he was not addressing heretics.
Bill
From: Judy Taylor
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
His death was the victory not His
life.
Why then all the fuss about his human nature?
Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a
big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the
same
especially since one of their fathers came up
with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust
all
doctrine to fit that
don't we? Lord
forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own
Word contradicts him.
Would it have mattered if he had sinned while
living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the
whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just
a slab of meat hanging on a tree.
He is not a package Bill. He is a person -
one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell
ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus
Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm
of David and the incarnation?
May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf
Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural,
Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and
Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill
Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the
tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the
keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good
and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with
him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have
said "for he was fully man and fully God".
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you
Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord...
From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No,
I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only
weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that
flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my
view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that,
while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us.
His death was the victory not His
life.
From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state
for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not
to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for
victory. You might want to rethink that one,
Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak
through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in
the flesh" (Rom 8.3).
cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was
only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of
that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports
my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not
His life.
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered
by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about
what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and
in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the
"iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ,
the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam
is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of
Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body
as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red
rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos (from
which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of
David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net, and
is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to
be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
What subject is that?
I don't see anything written here by G so I am not sure
what subject you are on.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:35:07 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the
subject?
From: Judy Taylor
I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are
mostly incomprehensible
I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the
time to spend trying and figure them out.
Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he
will help ...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would underline
Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be
holy?? The Lord said to my Lord??
Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I
did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the
subject?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of
anti-christ
Bill writes:
It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ.
He is the second Adam precisely because he is of
Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at
all. John tells us that it is
anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe
spirit of rebellion.
You are wrong about this Bill and you
are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any
physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not
the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to
introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old.
Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality
is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real.
You don't know what kind of flesh he
had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is
not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex
and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that
he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to
Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than
the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that
"Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why
not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus
and another gospel?
Please take heed the words
ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My
angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and
the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev
22.16
I would underline
Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root
be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord??
Bill-- This message has been
scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed
to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to
be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of
Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the
flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity
and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying
that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the
"iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed
of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also
Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out
the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
----- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to
him for righteousness. His sperma who
thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John
8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual
seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not
walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so
please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos
(from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring')
of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man --
he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic"
material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to
Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to
seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is
Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sen
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
If we can be adopted as sons into the household of God - why can't God the Word be adopted into humanity as the "son of man?" You are locked into a position you can not prove either way JD. How so, when the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:28:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either Jesus is the Christ of God through the blood line of David or He is nothing at all. You "spiritualize" all references to the genealogy of Christ, making the Old Testament record of no purpose when it comes to the positioning of the Messiah. It is a shame that you make Him to be something less than what He and the scriptures claim !!! jd -- Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit Why is the flesh connection so important to you Bill? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same? From: Judy Taylor He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was not (see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the "iniquities of the fathers" also?? I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved?? Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to. The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: &qu
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
What I deny JD is the sperma connection and this is
because of the curse of death on all mankind.
He came into this world holy - He is the Lord of
Life. Why are you so hot to make him into your image?
My church leadership and BSF would do no such
thing. The days of hunting down and killing those who
do not agree with the "religious elite" are long gone
JD - Oh except for the radical right on TT
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:42:27 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are so many aspects to this argument ... offered by
Judy. But, for my money, the point driven home by Bill concerning the
blood-line of the Messiah is more without debate than the others (me
included.) Judy makes fun of Bill's gospel ("your flesh and
blood gospel ...") and, at the same time, plays the role of heretic,
denying that Jesus is a descendentof David (and the
other!!!).Her church leadership and those at BSF would escort her
to the door if they knew she wasteaching such error.A
real shame.
jd
--
Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You major on the minors Bill because this is of
paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel
However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to
declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence.
"For ye see your calling brethren, how that not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are
despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor
1:26-30)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that
they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and
find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we
live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a)
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us
to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according
to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ...
(Acts 2.29-30)
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:12:34 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While you are busy "spiritualizing" the story of Jesus, you overlook (or
worse) what Paul is actually saying. You quote Gal 3:29 which
says "And if you belong to Christ, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING,
heirs according to promise" and ignore the words of 3:16 "Now the
promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to
seeds" as if referring to many, but rather to ONE, "and to your seed,"
that is Christ."
No big deal JD; I understand that Abraham's seed is
Christ.
If Jesus Christ is not [actually] a descendant of Abraham, we have
no access to the blessings of the Father FOR ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING ARE IN (eis)
CHRIST.
You don't get in Christor spiritual by being a
descendant of Abraham .. You get there by faith.
By abiding in Him and allowing His Words to abide in
you because His Words are spirit and they
are life - the flesh profits nothing
Again, you reference 3:29 and ignore 3:26-27 which speak of our immersion
INTO (eis) Christ. We are
the offspring of Abraham ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN (eis)
CHRIST. It isheretical to argue otherwise.
We are Abraham's offspring by faith
The very foundation of the Christian Blessing in centered in the fact of
the lineage of Christ. Our existence as disciples is not
juxtaposed to the positioning of the Christ, as you would have us believe
(making Christ, in fact, unnecessary). Rather, our relationship
with God the Father as adoptive sons is secured and exists IN (eis)
Christ. His position, His lineage, His blood-line is,
therefore, a critical circumstance in the biblical
account.jd
Making Him unnecessary?? I don't know what is
going on in your head JD but itdefinitely has nothing to
do with anything I am speaking of.. and a carnal
bloodline has nothing to do with anything. The blood of
the eternal covenant is where it is at.
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam
is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of
Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body
as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red
rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos (from
which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of
David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net, and
is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
lory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory" No, indeed!! It is Paul and John.n bsp; It is they who claim that Jesus came and accomplished "in the flesh" without bothering to tell their readers there is more than one kind of "flesh." No they didn't JD, you read your own doctrineinto the text that is written. It wasn't even his flesh that took on theheaviest burden in spite of Mel Gibson and his vivid imagination. Scripture tells us that "It pleased the father to see the suffering of his soul" Blood (as in Jewishgenealogy) doesn't mean blood. Flesh(as in theflesh of Christ) doesn't mean flesh. Son of God doesn'tmean He isDeity. Son of Man doesn't meanhe is Man. And how do we know all this? Judy Taylor !! She is the one (and the only one) who makes the necessary connections in scripture and presents us the "truth" of Christ. Asinine !! jd Take a deep breath and count to ten JD and then think about what you write long and hard. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we can be adopted as sons into the household of God - why can't God the Word be adopted into humanity as the "son of man?" You are locked into a position you can not prove either way JD. How so, when the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:28:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either Jesus is the Christ of God through the blood line of David or He is nothing at all. You "spiritualize" all references to the genealogy of Christ, making the Old Testament record of no purpose when it comes to the positioning of the Messiah. It is a shame that you make Him to be something less than what He and the scriptures claim !!! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit Why is the flesh connection so important to you Bill? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same? From: Judy Taylor He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was not (see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the "iniquities of the fathers" also?? I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org S
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you are not hearing Bill properly. I don't agree David. Bill wrote: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. None of the above is so. Jesus is not the second Adam for any of the reasons above What's more he did not come to resurrect the old creation. He came to institute a new one. I have never denied that Christ came in the flesh so the above accusationis that ofa lying spirit. Also I am weary ofconstant accusations of heresy. He did answer your question. Many heresies sprang up and those who wrote in the first few centuries after the Biblical writers addressed these heresies. You personally don't understand this because you are not well read in the church fathers. So did Paul, he warned that wolves would spring up in sheep's clothing even from the people he was addressing and that they would get a following. No I have not read the writings of the church fathers extensively but I have read enough to know that they conflict not only with the word of God but with each other - IMO they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I am not promoting gnosticism or any other ism. Everything I write can be cross checked in God's Word for those who want to take the time and trouble. Also, the Biblical writers were not negligent about the relationship of Jesus and the incarnation. There is at least as much about that as there is about his Divinity. That is why Christianity divided so much over exactly who Jesus was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. I can't accept that he was both in the way that Bill, JD, and others describe. He could not have a fallen Adamic nature and be a fitting sacrifice for sin. How can one born in iniquity atone for same? Why is this so difficult to grasp? Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying to claim that the other side is lying about what the coin actually looks like. Hold a coin up right now, Judy. Describe its face to yourself. Then have your husband describe the tail side. Do this while you both are looking at the same coin. Do you both describe it the same way? No. Why? You are both looking at different sides. That's what you and Bill are doing in this conversation. They are totally different coins David. One flesh the other spirit. They always lust one against the other. Please TRY to hear what Bill is saying. He is using Bible. Deal with that. I am using Bible also David which fact is totally ignored. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:30 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the orthodox fathers.It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you don't have an answer?The text says "for God was WITH him". On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. BillFrom: Judy Taylor On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity" and I believe the rcc teaches the sameespecially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust alldoctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbid making Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection -- not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean: sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has th
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:25:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself --and thisbecause neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject.Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While yousometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christwas borna genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it.You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element ofconfusion inyour claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was notborn of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve. Bill Jesus IS the second Adam - how is it you can not read the plain words of scripture? "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor 15:45-49) Oophs~! I may have quit too soon, he goes on to write "Now this I say brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" As I see it, the problemyou are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity. Corruption is never in solidarity with incorruption .. see above. You are not understanding the ways of God. And so, I do believe that Christ's human naturewas common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and thisbecause he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. If humans are unable to sanctify themselves Bill - Why does God constantly tell them to do just that under the law and also in the New Covenant? But it took humanflesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his fleshto have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean,our kinfolk;nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight.But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity. Bill Covenant means that the flesh dies Bill - His was layed down on a sinner's cross at Calvary for us; ours is to be a living sacrifice that is layed on the altar daily. I think you people are obsessed with humanity - a word that I have yet to find in either OT or NT. From: Dean Moore cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin?Thanks bro. - Original Message - From: Taylor His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill - Original Message --- If Jesus was not of
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as
you are Bill.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:02:41 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have explained this numerous times, Judy. Reread my post
of a few days ago pertaining to the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of the
Atonement for starters. By the way, thanks for being honest. This should
clarify any confusion Dean may have had about being in agreement with you in
regards to Christ being a geneticdescendent of David et al.
Bill
---From: Judy Taylor
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the
womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to
the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in
iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you
saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited
the "iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make
it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted
to him for righteousness. His sperma
who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in
John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or
"spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that
Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that
Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006
5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your
faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the
second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try
to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it
was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the
shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so
to speak. The seed of Abraham are
the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not
bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is
getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. No Bill - I didn't write it as a challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is that Jesus came to do good and to heal all who were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him. Looks to me like Paul could just as easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case or is that too difficult in Greek? I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill Then why doesn't Paul say that in the book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk that way amongst men. cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actually believe that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical. He came in our likeness JD - not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is unbiblical. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways? What I am saying is that God will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone has to adjust it won't beHim. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described. So? Are you telling me that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the pre-flood folk the ones who died - all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to them? In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito And you need to get a theology that agrees with scripture without the use of JudyLogic. I speak of the Gk text and you deny it without any grammatical reasons -- without ANY reasons whatsoever. I quote a scripture and you tell us , "Oh, that scripture doesn't apply because the writer had a differenct problem in mind." No way of making my point when you hornor your own oipinion above that of scripture and the greek text. My beliefs are based on scripture JD, excuse me if I don't see them through a grid of men's teachings. By the way -- did you ignore my challenge? The fact of the matter isthis --- your theology would not be allowed in the church you attend or the BSF you brag of attending. You can shut me up on this one, ral easy.I will write what I believe. You submit it to your pastor and the BSF leadership. Put up or shut up, Judy. What new craziness is this JD? I am not going to anyone with this mess; I did not ignore anything. I answered your so called challenge - you just don't read very thoroughly. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Yet without sin says it all JD but you will not accept
the obvious
We are born in sin and the iniquities of our
fathers
He is born without sin
He is holy because his father isthe Holy
Spirit
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:27:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dean, did you answer this post that Judy has decided to argue? I
was hoping for your answer.
Judy -- You are the one who used "adoption" in reference to
Christ being the Son of Man. I believe you wrote that yesterday. I
dealt with the idea of "likeness" in a previous post, either last evening or
today. Apparently you chose not to answer it.
Suffice it to say that I am either like you or I am you. There is
no other way of talking about it.You leave off "in every respect"
and in so doing, twist the biblical accountto your purpose.
We all know what you believe.
You have chosen to ignore my challenge -- which means the obvious
to me.
Et al -- the result of this discussion has been very
beneficial. It has given me a much stronger sense for what is
critical in this discussion, namely the blood-lineage of Christ, the
importance of the confession that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, a deeper
appreciation for the meaning of "Son of Man." I better
understand why Matthew began his gospel with the genealogy and why he singled
out David and Abraham.And, I must say that I appreciate Col
1:19-23and Gal 3 even more than before. The Col passage for
what it tells us about the mission of Christ; the Gal passage for making
it clear just exactly where our blesssings lie (within Christ).
Anyway -- thanks to those who offered a contribution.
jd
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JD writes:
Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is ,
ontologically speaking, and what one does?
I do. That "he was made to be like us in every
respect" is a statement of the essence of His being.
He can not possibly be same as us in the
essence of His being and wholly God at the same time.
No kidding !! But His
humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not
actually
believe that he was the Son of
Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally
unbiblical.
He came in our likeness JD -
not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you
trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is
unbiblical.
If this were possible there would be no
savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and
sin.
Can't have it both ways JD.
Can't have what both ways?
What I am saying is that God
will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone
has to adjust it won't
beHim. He says "I am the Lord, I change
not"
It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or
whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk
text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a
sense of obligation. Christ, according
to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every
respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of
obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us,
but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect
!!
Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die
for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he
knows the feeling of our
infirmities.
Malarkey ?? Spoken like a
true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this
- the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I
have described.
So? Are you telling me
that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the
pre-flood folk the ones who died -
all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to
them?
In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather
than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human
is without question and is accepted by ma
[TruthTalk] Free Speech
I don't believe you do understand Lance. What's more here you go again with the accusations re name calling. What names?? David is describing a scenario in FL that you were/are not a part of and now you are the expert. Do you understand the freedoms in the US Bill of Rights Lance? Do you see any hypocrisy in ppl who want to parade every perversion in the public square but fiercly and violently reject any mention of morality, God, and truth? When I was Christine's age I trusted everyone and she has been raised in a loving and protective environment. What reason would she have to see every person as a poisonous snake where is your empathy Lance? From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] David: You live in a "free" country. IFO don't object to that which you, Christine et al engage in. I just believe that you ought to brief her on what to expect. Snakes bite, David. Poisonous snakes kill, David. Are you so thoroughly unaware of condition of your own nation, David? You, along with Judy, seem easily to resort to accusations and name calling when running short of legitmate arguments, David. We understand, David. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] My reaction is not surprise, Lance. I consider their action to discpline Christine to be outrageous and illegal. You should feel the same way. It is a clear case of discrimination, and at the bottom of the letter is written, "an Equal Opportunity Institution." What hypocrisy! You ought also consider Christine's young age. She does not expect this kind of hatred from people who claim that we should love and tolerate everybody. She does not expect the lies and falsehoods. So as a father, I also deal with her weeping and hurt over this. You respond with callousness and a completely inept ability to understand the issues involved. You also seem to believe the false reports and false characterizations. You often remind me of the hypocrite Christians who object to us. Just today, I was with Kevin Deegan in Tampa. About ten of us were standing on the sidewalk. We were waiting there to regroup with some others. A man came out from a house nearby and began to tell us that we were on private property and he wanted us to move on. He did not want to see the banners. At first I said that this was public property, not private, but we would be moving along very soon. Then I was prompted by the Spirit to deliver a message. I raised my hands, pointing toward heaven to Jesus, and I raised my voice in preaching style and said, "Sir, Jesus says that if you are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of you on the day of judgment when you stand before him on that day." He ignored me at first, so I said it again. Then he looked at me directly, and so I said it a third time as I looked him directly in the eyes. Then he asked me why I was dressed up, telling me that I should look like him and have beads around my neck and a drink in my hand. I said, "there is nothing wrong with looking nice, is there?" He agreed that I looked nice, and I smiled and walked over and shook his hand. As I talked with him a little, he warmed up and I placed my hand on his shoulder in a loving way and asked him if I could pray with him. He said sure, but it was not necessary because he was fine. I said, "you are fine?" "Yes," he said, "I am a minister, a Presbyterian ordained minister of the gospel." Suddenly I knew why I was so motivated to tell him that Jesus would be ashamed of him if he was ashamed of us standing out in front of his house. What kind of Christianity is this? I know you hate my little anecdotes which you take to be so full of pride, but I just had to tell you this one because in many ways, this man makes me think of you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech No Judy, that is not my meaning. DM's post seemed to indicate surprise over the school's response. Why? When one enters the 'fray' one ought to expect persons to contest her point of view. She is a woman and, peer to many who don't like what she is doing. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 11:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Are you intimating that Christine is "harmful" because she speaks the truth in a public setting Lance? Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of learning ie: "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. From: Judy Taylor I, for on
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I don't think so Lance; I see you as the one with the eye problems. You come across on TT as one withoverweening pride but the reality is that you are someone with very low self esteem. You appear to haveassurance but it is not the assurance that comes through abiding in Him and having His Words abide in you. On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:30:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do! She does! You cannot see. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: ... those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Hmmm - I'd be interested to go back two thousand years - wonder how John the Baptist or even Jesus Himself would fare in your economy Lance? Ask yourself what it is in you that seeks to malign God's servants and take a strong stand in favor of the enemies of all righteousness? On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:29:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All right then, David, I'll drop "getting in the face" and insert pomposity, theologically ill-founded, legalistic and, self-righteous. Oh thou that callest another hypocrite...! From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take offence and retaliate. Are you going to say the same thing if someone were to kill me? You don't seem to understand the difference between speech and unlawfulness. Let me clarify a little about this "getting in the face." This is a FALSE characterization. I am not going into someone's house and standing between them and the movie they are watching and yelling at them. I am standing in a public area and inviting discussion and discourse. They are free to walk away if they are not interested or think that I'm a nut. Lance wrote: David. You, on some occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife (I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.) LOL. Now that's funny. Actually, I don't use a midwife. I deliver my children without a midwife, just me and my wife in our home. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking Bill: "Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance orsimilitude" A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it resembles one. Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, Romans 8:3) From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members-for victory. Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He is the second Adam. Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together inheavenly places in Christ Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to speak now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have within our bodies a sinful nature. We must die to that sinful nature daily, even as Jesus did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus struggled against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life ofself denial. To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and women of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a pig, and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never got dirty when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest that their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty. Well, maybe he is insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and condescension he underwent to save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for victory. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Real cute Lance, about on par with the "dancing trinity" On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Preach this at the University of Florida, Super Bowl and Mardis Gras, David. New signs/t-shirts "THE ZIRCON JESUS" From: Judy Taylor It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking Bill: "Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance orsimilitude" A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it resembles one. Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, Romans 8:3) From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members-for victory. Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He is the second Adam. Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together inheavenly places in Christ Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to speak now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have within our bodies a sinful nature. We must die to that sinful nature daily, even as Jesus did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus struggled against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life ofself denial. To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and women of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a pig, and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never got dirty when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest that their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty. Well, maybe he is insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and condescension he underwent to save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for victory. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. --"Let your speech be always with g
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Lance, one thing I have learned about you is that you do not pay attention, your pre conceived ideas rule in your own mind. I have said over, and over, and over and over that I do not consign ppl anywhere. This is not my call to make and so far as I am concerned as long as there is physical life there is hope. I have seen our own son, once a rebel now hungry for God's Word with God giving him understanding (which if you had known him before you would also say is a miracle). By the same token I am not presumptive enough to declarewho is and who is not a "family member" - (In God's Kingdom family that is). This call is also His and will happen in His time when Heseparates the sheep from the goats. In the meantime the wheat and the tares willgrow together since there appears to be a lot of confusion and little or no discernment and discipline in the present day professing Church. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] David: Does "provoked to respond this way" (employing an "acerbic tone" with accompanying critical and, itself provocative language, which critiques beliefs/persons which another holds dear) entail SIN(NING)? Do you, David, on occasion do the same thing on TT or, elsewhere? "Come on guys" ?? You sound a little like Rodney what's his name."Family" disputations over matters of substance may entail more than "an apology to Jesus", David. Just ask Judy as she regularly consigns ppl to "the pit" who are themselves "family members". From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: January 27, 2006 17:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. I'm not sure we all read Judy in the same way, Lance. What I mean is that her "acerbic tone" might seem a little more acerbic to you than it does to me. What I wonder is if you and others recognize that she has been provoked to respond this way. I also wonder if you think that Bill's tone also was a little sharp. Come on, guys, let's get back to meaningful discussions rather than judging one another. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see
you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also
perceive no humility at all, none of any kind,
intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on
(of course DMnot included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't
give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and
your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Debbie Sawczak
For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of
view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering.
She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with
intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D
From: Taylor
What kind of person could you be, Judy,if
you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to
have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see
the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their
business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you
might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour
denial.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies
for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop
contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions.
It is insulting to me -- although I know it was
not intentionally so-- that you would suggest
that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a
sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:)
and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine,
then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the
same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us
all.
ATST Bill it is insulting to me
- (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim
that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when
scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same
yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam.
And so I was hoping that
out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside
your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open
yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as
difficult as that may be.
Let go of truth out of some
misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is
more mature than to fall for this.
I know, for example, that John is getting
frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The
truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And
while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which
perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am
also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the
issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not
something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all,
because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on
this very important doctrine.
It is written Bill - the
last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the
Bank.Believing them is the
problem.
Why would you want to malign
Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place?
I would like to suggest that you take a
similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease
off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of
mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you
don't. Dean, I'll try to post a
response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope
you will consider my request. Sincerely,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006
7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Imagination run amock Lance .. You have seen things that are not there, they are constructs of your own imagination. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on over a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've "demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak, David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take offence and retaliate. You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife(I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.) Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance, why are you putting Judy on trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24 AM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at all... D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:04 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT self-interpreting. As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding, the scriptures are to be "understood" rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns it off or on according to the condition of the heart. God is not mocked MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures. We will see whent he Lord returns which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who think they are "true" today He will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness" It's only as we abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow way and headed toward the strait gate. Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the Scriptures)? Yes IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised in the Scriptures themselves. It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots of books before he fell down before the Lord on the Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not afterwards. From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me.
You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The
difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes
from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and
caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather
than carried away with themselves. God is funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself from some
and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly
ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than
others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail
to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that
sleepest"
From: Judy Taylor
You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I
see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also
perceive no humility at all, none of any kind,
intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going
on (of course DMnot included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't
give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and
your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
From: Debbie Sawczak
For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point
of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering.
She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with
intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D
From:
Taylor
What kind of person could you be,
Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature)
you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding.
You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to
keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't
alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were,
though, you will prove once againyour denial.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my
apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would
stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to
conclusions. It is insulting to me --
although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would
endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know
Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough
to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you
doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we
can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us
all.
ATST Bill it is insulting
to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make
the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful
nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven
(the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second
Adam.
And so I was hoping
that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set
aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and
open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view
-- as difficult as that may be.
Let go of truth out of some
misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean
is more mature than to fall for this.
I know, for example, that John is getting
frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate.
The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a
while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a
"fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have
not been sp
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:14:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read
the recent posts concerning Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's
many misadventures or, to have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some
of the logic that underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts
and accompanying signage to some "sinful" event, condemn those in attendance
and, thereafter give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying
surprise.Now, that's a bit of a charicature but, just a
bit.
I've been reading them this morning Lance
.. What is wrong with the following scenario apart from telling
ppl
to go to hell which I seriously doubt they
say - Makes no sense to put your life on the line for ppl you are
wanting
to go to hell does it? The rest is
true, their souls are condemned and their morals are corrupt and being
gay
is a sin. Today's street preachers
are speaking to ppl who are living in gross darkness.
We detest Miller's message and deplore his tactics, but this incident
leaves much to be questioned about selective free speech. Plaza preachers tell
us to go to hell on a daily basis. They shout that our morals are corrupt and
our souls condemned. They claim that their religion triumphs over others. And
many of them insist that being gay is a sin. These preachers disrupt our lives
every day. Some of us jump into the debate. Others watch with morbid
curiosity. Most simply ignore the fuss. Very few are convinced.
From: Judy Taylor
Imagination run amock Lance .. You have
seen things that are not there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on
over a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum.
You've "demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an
apology for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts.
Gimmeeabreak, David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself,
along with your offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get
in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry
when these groups take offence and retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some
occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a
midwife(I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice,
deliver a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans
discernment.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you
know.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006
6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted
her many times to the fact that if she takes this position, then
everybody who disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must
not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at
all...
D
From: Lance Muir
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27,
2006 9:04 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw:
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message -
From: Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention ie G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from them is mostly their opinions (of others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians and/or critical onesconcerning myself and many times DM. DS does produce a little essay now and then which is well written but still centers aroundher and her opinion ... Do they live out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine this? On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also? From: Judy Taylor Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation' concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did you forget that? That was HIS revelation- not mine. My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and pleasant. Have you failed to read, from all of the aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rscould 'see'. As Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad guys' 'lock and load'. I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't call them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking like "witch of Endor?" Where is this gift inNew Covenant economy? From: Judy Taylor Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention ie G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from them is mostly their opinions (of others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians and/or critical onesconcerning myself and many times DM. DS does produce a little essay now and then which is well written but still centers aroundher and her opinion ... Do they live out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine this? On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also? From: Judy Taylor Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:40:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some might draw a comparison between the 'witch
of Endor" and you but, I'd not place myself alongside such, Judy. You do
appear to have some sort of 'gift' for wrong descriptions of many on TT.
I can't recall describing anyone on TT,
let alone many.
These back-and-forthis this morning JT, are
simply an informed opinion regarding you.
Now, now Lance - what is it you have been
saying about DM esteeming himself and his own opinions, tut,
tut??
I've said this often of you. You strike me as a
profoundly genuine; deeply committed believer. You are, IMO, in bondage to
your "rightness".That, IMO, is downright sad.
Well Lance, I have to follow my own
conscience. Lord forbid that I would hang my eternal destiny on any man's
opinion ... including my own because these are not the ones that count ie:
"Beware when all men speak well
of you"
From: Judy Taylor
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation'
concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'.
Did you forget that?
That was HIS revelation- not
mine. My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and
pleasant.
Have you failed to read, from all of the
aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rscould 'see'.
As Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the
'bad guys' 'lock and load'.
I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't
call them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking
like "witch of Endor?" Where
is this gift inNew Covenant economy?
From: Judy
Taylor
Very hard to tell Lance because noone you
mention ie G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from
them
is mostly their opinions (of
others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians
and/or critical onesconcerning
myself and many times DM. DS does produce
a little essay now and then which is well written but still
centers
aroundher and her opinion ... Do they
live out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to
determine this?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you
(bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I
see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO
believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little
bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication
that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also?
From: Judy
Taylor
Once more Lance you put what you are about
on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little
or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you.
The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what
comes
from him is godly counsel; also he
showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl
say what God
says consistently I see them as submitted
to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is
funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself
from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to
others.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy: DM an exception of course! How
utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves
more highly than others with respect to their capacity to
"infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those
very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest"
From: Judy Taylor
You wise ones will probably find it
amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant"
I also
perceive no humility at all, none of
any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any
spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed
mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now
but I don't give up on any of you
[TruthTalk] Free Speech
I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is ridiculed and maligned? I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted worthy to suffer for His Names sake... God Bless you ... judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
Are you intimating that Christine is "harmful" because she speaks the truth in apublic setting Lance? Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of learning ie: "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. From: Judy Taylor I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is ridiculed and maligned? I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted worthy to suffer for His Names sake... God Bless you ... judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective? cd: Wow tough response Bill-I hope my response to David concerning didn't influence you to do likewise as the topic are different-I am suppose to give my life- ifGod put me in that position-for the brethren. I can also assume one can defend those same brethren from looking like fools. Let's not carry our conversation to that same order of battle-okay? I have not read anything on Debbie belief of this issue to support you stance-I
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
If I were less polite I would say the same of yours Bill. Too wordy, littlesubstance, and contrary to the clear Word of God. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:35:21 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Go back to sleep, Judy. Your stuff is worn out andboring. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same with
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT self-interpreting. As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding, the scriptures are to be "understood" rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns it off or on according to the condition of the heart. God is not mocked MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures. We will see whent he Lord returns which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who think they are "true" today He will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness" It's only as we abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow way and headed toward the strait gate. Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the Scriptures)? Yes IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised in the Scriptures themselves. It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots of books before he fell down before the Lord on the Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not afterwards. From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.in
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Bill, opinions are like noses - everybody has one If yours isn't very pleasant - Oh well! You own it. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:04:13 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I know why all of you read me like you do Lance;no secret there nor is there any reason for me to be alarmed or sweat it. Sadly the broad road has always beenand always will befull of naysayers. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:32:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW, 4 of us 'read' Judy similarly. IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. From: Judy Taylor Bill, opinions are like noses - everybody has one If yours isn't very pleasant - Oh well! You own it. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:04:13 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Origi
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:31:47 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? The same question goes both ways Bill. Why would you and the four in your corner assume that you are comprehending and understanding what Dean speaks of since your view is also influenced by how you view sin. I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. Dean is seeing Him completely, it is your group who have the "limited view" Bill.A sinner is a sinner by nature - that is one with a sin nature born in fornicationwith a legacy in the first Adam. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective? Why not give Dean the benefit of the doubt and all of you try to see it from a scriptural perspective as he is doing? The Jews in Jesus day who believed they belonged to God claimed to be Abraham's seed and not born of fornication (John 8:41) - so apparently they understood that it was "spiritual seed" rather than the fruit of Abraham's loins that made one a child of God. You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" --that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation. The suffering was in obeying the will of the Fatherto the point of laying down his life on a sinners cross when he had no sin and BTW he left us an example that we should follow in His steps but you have a Christ who has done it all IYO so that you don't need to perfect anything. You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth." Yes he was a "holy thing" from birth and the kind of sanctification he refers to here (John 17:17) is sanctification in God's Word which is truth because He is not of this world and neither were they. Amazing that some doctrines of men todayhave the whole world sanctified and saved in Christ today aside from knowing one word of God's Truth. You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh. Wrong again. Dean's Christ overcame in the three areas that caused the fall and then went on to endure the cross, where he took upon himself the sin of all humanity - despising the shame of it for the joy set before Him. You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. When will you get one of these right Bill. Of course he shared flesh and blood with us aside from David's genitals which were by that time mouldering in the grave like John Brown's body. Heb 2:14 says nothing about the "nature" of Abraham's offspring; it speaks of Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body so that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see. Bill And as our kids often say "right back atcha Bill" that is - "if you will not budge" because Dean is not wresting anything. Nor is he speaking of "dualism" Jesus had one nature and one only and I'll let you in ona secret. It wasn't that of the devil like an unregenerate son of the first Adam.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:31:47 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? The same question goes both ways Bill. Why would you and the four in your corner assume that you are comprehending and understanding what Dean speaks of since your view is also influenced by how you view sin. I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. Dean is seeing Him completely, it is your group who have the "limited view" Bill.A sinner is a sinner by nature - that is one with a sin nature born in fornicationwith a legacy in the first Adam. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective? Why not give Dean the benefit of the doubt and all of you try to see it from a scriptural perspective as he is doing? The Jews in Jesus day who believed they belonged to God claimed to be Abraham's seed and not born of fornication (John 8:41) - so apparently they understood that it was "spiritual seed" rather than the fruit of Abraham's loins that made one a child of God. You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" --that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation. The suffering was in obeying the will of the Fatherto the point of laying down his life on a sinners cross when he had no sin and BTW he left us an example that we should follow in His steps but you have a Christ who has done it all IYO so that you don't need to perfect anything. You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth." Yes he was a "holy thing" from birth and the kind of sanctification he refers to here (John 17:17) is sanctification in God's Word which is truth because He is not of this world and neither were they. Amazing that some doctrines of men todayhave the whole world sanctified and saved in Christ today aside from knowing one word of God's Truth. You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh. Wrong again. Dean's Christ overcame in the three areas that caused the fall and then went on to endure the cross, where he took upon himself the sin of all humanity - despising the shame of it for the joy set before Him. You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. When will you get one of these right Bill. Of course he shared flesh and blood with us aside from David's genitals which were by that time mouldering in the grave like John Brown's body. Heb 2:14 says nothing about the "nature" of Abraham's offspring; it speaks of Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body so that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see. Bill And as our kids often say "right back atcha Bill" that is - "if you will not budge" because Dean is not wresting anything. Nor is he speaking of "dualism" Jesus had one nature and one only and I'll let you in ona secret. It was notthat of the devil like an unregenerate son of the first Adam.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: ... I am not a dualist.There is only one nature. Just for the record in regards to this discussion, it is dualism that provides for me the framework for understanding how Jesus could have a fallen nature. Without the understanding of man's dualism that comes from Romans 7, I would probably be on Judy's side in saying that Jesus could not have had a fallen nature as part of his being. I also could not believe in Christian sanctification without dualism. How so David; Christians are not supposed to have two natures operating ATST either because those in Christ have made a covenant agreement to die to the one and walk after the other. In Romans 7 Paul speaks of sin dwelling in his flesh. IOW he was trained in it before he was converted. Jesus never experienced either. Jesus was perfectly pure and holy in his spirit, but he was housed in a corruptible body of flesh. His inner man was incorruptible but his outer man was corruptible. His inner man had no shadow of darkness, but his outer man was subject to passions and appetites like all other men, which created a drive in him toward that which would be contrary to the spirit. Jesus, just like us, had to live a life of self denial in order to walk in holiness. I don't see any of the above in scripture David. So far as I can see he was stressed out by sinners coming against him; having to secret himself away at times after nearly being thrust off a cliff... or stoned. But resisting himself? I don't think so. How about "Lo I come in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Thy will O My God" To suggest that Jesus did not have a fallen nature is to say that Jesus did not live in any kind of self denial at all, but that he simply did what was natural for him, which is perfect, holy living. Exactly David. He didn't have to take up his cross daily and follow Jesus. He is Jesus and He literally went to the cross. We are the ones who do it the other way. I believe his spirit had that nature, of naturally doing what was right, but he was in a corruptible body of flesh that did not agree with the direction of his spirit. Where do you get the above? How did his body get corrupted? Ours are trained in unrighteousness. His was not. Hence, in the wilderness when he was fasting, he hungered and desired to turn rocks into bread. His spirit told him to resist the temptation. The devil suggested he turn rocks into bread; this was not his own suggestion. He resisted with the sword of the Spirit "Man does not live by bread alone but..." In the garden his fallen nature tempted him to sleep when he was suppose to fast and pray. It was not He who was sleeping, it was the disciples who could not watch and pray with Him for one hour. The prospect of the cross caused his flesh to cry out, to run away, and not to sacrifice himself for a people who all deserted him at the smallest sign of trouble. I don't read it that way David. What is unusual about the Lord of Life abhorring the prospect of physical death along with taking upon himself the fruit of evil. All the evil there ever was... Without a model of dualism, I truly do not know how to process all of these facts. Dualism provides the means to understand Paul's statement in Romans 7:17 in regards to sin, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If this can be said concerning sin, how much more concerning temptation. Temptation is not a sin; a test is fine for those who overcome as Jesus did in the wilderness. When Jesus was tempted to sin, it was not him, but sin that dwelled in his flesh. As Paul says in Romans 7:25, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." How any of you avoid the dualism taught here is very strange to me. Modern theologians erroneously make dualism a dirty word. John wrote: I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, had no choice when it came to sin. I no longer believe that to be the case. Man does have a choice. Adam had a choice. Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely. You are moving close to that position. Such leads to moral government theology and open theism. Make sure that is where you want to be. David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
By your same reasoning AE were not human beings either then; they were not born by procreation and neither was the second Adam. Why don't you just let God be God and His Word be true and every man a liar?? On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:06:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A point made some time ago to Judy. She didn't understand it then and, she'll not understand it now. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 23:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? (*, below,= 'therefore, JC wasn't a human being' which is rational, but not biblical;a sylogisticlie rather than) myth On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [a.]So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. [b.]Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always has been righteous. [*.]
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the same" So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. "There is none righteous, no not one" refers to sinful actions, not to a sinful nature residing in the flesh. The passage does not include the man Jesus, but this does not settle the question of whether or not his flesh was like ours in the affections and appetites that drives a person toward sinful behavior. Where do you find this definition in scripture David? It all has to do with the heart condition rather than biology. The acts of the body are motivated by the spirit or nature-the body does whatever it is told. When James and John were calling down fire on the Samaritans Jesus told them "You don't know what spirit you are of" showing that their mouths were not motivated by fleshly affections and appetites. Jesus came to this planet in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Temptation is not sin. As you point out the angels did not have to sin and neither did AE. They did not overcome when tempted Jesus did. Judy wrote: AE were created innocent; they did not know sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took. Amen. David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
In your economy Lance; I don't think or speak in those
terms. To me a "text" as you call it is
God's Word for which one either does or does not have
understanding. Man shall not live by
every "text/doctrine" but by every word that proceeds
from the mouth of God"
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:03:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When one employs a text in order to address a
concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY.
- Original Message -----
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a
sinner-
First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man.
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin
nature.
A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the
same"
So far as humanity is concerned - There is none
righteous, no not one.
Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always
has been righteous.
The same nature - yesterday, today, and
forever
Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other
-
but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned
- the second only
has potential for sin.. it is temptable.
Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin
nature)
or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would
they have violated that command. jd
AE were created innocent; they did not know
sin until they decided to
disobey - that's all it took. This may
conflict with your doctrine but that's
just how it is.
----- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
cd: To me this fits the state of
Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not
thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in
.
Yes, a good analogy but
we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit;
how
crazy does it sound to
say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows
Satan
which is the natural
mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST
he
walks in the fullness of
the Holy Spirit?
cd: If Christ came in the fallen state
He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well
pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ
was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we
see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not
Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children.
This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can
be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of
Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this
nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of
Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He
toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son
from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would
send Christ to Abraham's decedents.
Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be
Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest
thou, Ye shall be made free?
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily,
verily,
I
say
unto
you,
Whosoever
committeth
sin
is
the
servant
of
sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
[TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well. Not for me JD; the problem is yours and Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from God's Holy Word. The curse of the law is a present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we speak. As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience. How is that not true? Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within just a few generations God saw the need to destroy the whole shooting match - except for one family. I have said this several times before andI say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes to see. I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in Barth !! Who would want to "defend it" Much better to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ" Of course my paper would be vastly different from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills. Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. jd Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak. -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is'bending human nature back', purifying it,by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I remember TFT insistingthat wron g views of who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or both). D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-) Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and
Re: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word of God. Your have been tutored by the theological arguments put together by men... so between your opinion and spiritual reality there is a vast gulf. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:41:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, comes fromyour fertile imagination.Should you choose to equate that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48 Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ?? On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well. Not for me JD; the problem is yours and Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from God's Holy Word. The curse of the law is a present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we speak. As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience. How is that not true? Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within just a few generations God saw the need to destroy the whole shooting match - except for one family. I have said this several times before andI say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes to see. I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in Barth !! Who would want to "defend it" Much better to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ" Of course my paper would be vastly different from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills. Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. jd Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak. -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is'bending human nature back', purifying it,by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Hallelujah!! Thank you Dean. Maybe now we can make some headway; you are right on the mark. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:57:01 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: John I read your letter but if you want a reply could you please condense your points-In the form it is inI don't know where to start with this much info. Thanks. But I do see a lack of clarity on the fallen state before salvation and the Christ -like state after salvation. We were sinners not are sinners-there is a difference your belief does not allow for. Christ did not go unto the sinning man's state He drew the sinning man to His state and He did this without sinning himself-the Sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish (sin)in the Old Covenant which Christ fulfilled in the new-if not the sacrifice would be rejected by the priests and God.Consider these word of John and hopefully notice the state of Christians and the state of the lost man serving Satan-Are you saying that Christ sinned and served Satan John? Notice 1John started by warning of deception-He did this because he knew there would be deception in this area-as reveled to him by the Holy Ghost. 1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/21/2006 12:23:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? I know this is too long -- but please take the time. I was having one of the moments in the Lord. If doesn't work for you, then it was just for me. I can live with that !! jd died; until then He remained alone,
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner- First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin nature. A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the same" So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always has been righteous. The same nature - yesterday, today, and forever Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other - but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned - the second only has potential for sin.. it is temptable. Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would they have violated that command. jd AE were created innocent; they did not know sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took. This may conflict with your doctrine but that's just how it is. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in . Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit? cd: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's decedents. Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place lt; FONT color=#ff size=3in you. Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speak
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:48:48 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Very well thought out Bill and very well articulated in your below reply. I agree with it andI realize by saying thisit would appear as I am back and forth but one must realize that this debate seems to be back and forth-with slight shifts from everybody which is a good thing as we are adjusting our belief to be more concise-meaning we arethinking on a deeperlevel. Dean, I don't know about "deeper" level. To me the conflict appears to be between the fleshly vs spiritual mind. Jesus told the religious ppl of his day that they were earthly and earthly minded andthat he was from heaven ie: In speaking with Nicodemus about the New Birth he says: "if you disbelieve me when I talk to you about things on earth, how are you to believe if I should talk to you about things of heaven? Noone ever went up into heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man whose home is in heaven ..." cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in . Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit? To answer you question: Yes, Jesus was from the seed of Abraham and therefore took upon himself the flesh of man- and I see no super substance in sight. And here is a perfect example of "earthly mindedness" .. the continuing struggle on TT about Jesus' flesh and whether or not he had a carnal nature along with the sperm and blood of David. Give me a break. Children of Abraham are those who walk in the faith of Abraham. and the seed of promise are spiritual seed. He's got his sperm and flesh spread all over the Arab nations for goodness sake. I allow that he is whollyGod and whollyhuman Now what exactly does the above mean? What does God look like and what does it mean to be wholly human? Noone in this generation saw or handled Jesus after the flesh and neither did the generation that came up with this specious phrase. I understand he walked about in a flesh body. I am not a gnostic claiming he was an ethereal spirit. It is giving him a fallen nature that I object to and I can not understand how adult ppl who are (hopefully) in their right mind can not see the conflict between being "fallen in the first Adam" and pure and holy with the fullness of the Holy Spirit (that is the Spirit without measure) .. He was not a raving schizophrenic. with the understanding that by claiming Humanity- I am referring to the state we are in as Christians and that Christ's struggles and sufferings come from this nature as opposed to Cain's evil nature-which therefore is Satan's nature which allow for no struggle against sin- of courseI personally believed he took on a Godly nature later on-I am speaking of Cain-of course-not Satan :-). There is no record Dean that Jesus ever struggled against sin (as in a sin nature) or that he was ever sick, halt, or maimed because of generational iniquity and there was plenty of it in David's family tree. His struggle was against "sinners" and at Gethsemane his obedience was tested by the prospect of laying his life down and taking upon Himself all of this mess. That is how he understands it. He didn't live it in his own life experience. He lived a life of love, healing and deliverance. cd: Hebrews 2:18:For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. We have on record that he was tempted in the wilderness in the same three areas AE were in the garden; where they flunked, he passed that test. Then he was tempted in the garden of Gethsemane not to obey the Father and he overcame there. All the rest is pure speculation. Clark wrote: Heb 2:18 - For in that he himself hath suffered - The maxim on which this verse is founded is the following: A state of suffering disposes persons to be compassionate, and those who
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on
earth.
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact
that He
had no earthly faither.
JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and
stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and
his name would be Emmanuel
go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal
and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did
Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin?
Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse
is continued
only through the father.
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality.
After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin
entered this world and
death by (or because of) sin.
She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just
before God?
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman
JD? Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born
unclean because of sin.
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father.
Houston, we have
a problem !! jd
We sure have and I think you and Houston had better
seek the Lord for some
wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the
man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him
born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's
words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is
that
he was not born by procreation
like the rest of us since he had no human father.
Mary may have
contributed an ovum butthe male determines
achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by
way of the father (ie
the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of
the reasons
why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he
was exactly the same as us in every way.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ
as being made of a special kindof flesh?
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus ,
neither God nor Man
Certainly I think Jesus was born of God,
Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But
before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be
making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are,
thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does
to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming
the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf.
From my understanding of Judy's position,
shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of
David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a
special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that
that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar"
to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before
he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching
thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis
the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David,
allaccording to the flesh.
You, on the other hand, write that you are
not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David
according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and
blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came
from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to
the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's
"offspring."
Dean, that is a different position
all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what
you were affirming when answering my question?
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Are you worried Lance?
Don't you think God can take care of His Word?
Should we replicate the heresy hunting
of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more
pure?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN
ANY CHURCH?
On
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on
earth.
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact
that He
had no earthly faither.
JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself
and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child
and his name would be Emmanuel
go together. Why?? If sin is no big
deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did
Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin?
Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this
curse is continued
only through the father.
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual
reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin
entered this world and
death by (or because of) sin.
She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be
just before God?
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman
JD? Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are
born unclean because of sin.
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the
father. Houston, we have
a problem !! jd
We sure have and I think you and Houston had
better seek the Lord for some
wisdom. He set the standard. He holds
the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having
him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No I most certainly don't Dean; those are
Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe
is that
he was not born by procreation
like the rest of us since he had no human father.
Mary may have
contributed an ovum butthe male
determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also
comes by
way of the father
(ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are
some of the reasons
why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that
he was exactly the same as us in every way.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view
Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh?
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus
, neither God nor Man
Certainly I think Jesus was born of
God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person.
But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem
to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are,
thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it
does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly
affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf.
From my understanding of Judy's
position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood
descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes
that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in
Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen
humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes
Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her
beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a
physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the
physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David,
allaccording to the flesh.
You, on the other hand, write that you
are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of
David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's
flesh and blood. You appear to be affi
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
So???
Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches
to teach even as early as the
2nd Century he was outside knocking on the
door.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G
would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their
respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient
discernment to see this.
From: Judy Taylor
Are you worried Lance?
Don't you think God can take care of His
Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting
of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more
pure?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS
IN ANY CHURCH?
On
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God
on earth.
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the
fact that He
had no earthly faither.
JD when are you going to get a hold of
yourself and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a
child and his name would be Emmanuel
go together. Why?? If sin is no
big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a
virgin?
Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this
curse is continued
only through the father.
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual
reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that
sin
entered this world and death by (or because of) sin.
She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man
be just before God?
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a
woman JD? Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL men
are born unclean because of sin.
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the
father. Houston, we have
a problem !! jd
We sure have and I think you and Houston had
better seek the Lord for some
wisdom. He set the standard. He
holds the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by
having him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
------
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No I most certainly don't Dean; those are
Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I
believe is that
he was not born by
procreation like the rest of us since he had no human
father. Mary may have
contributed an ovum butthe male
determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also
comes by
way of the
father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children)
and these are some of the reasons
why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim
that he was exactly the same as us in every way.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you
view Christ as being made of a special kindof
flesh?
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Jesus , neither God nor Man
Certainly I think Jesus was born of
God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his
person. But before going there I would like to clearly state
that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's.
Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in
the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you
tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she,
before you speak on her behalf.
From my understanding of Judy's
position, shed
Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
Now where didthat profound thought came from? What about faith in God by way of the Church Fathers? What is that? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:31:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
So Lance where do you get your anointing as
"chief appraiser?" It's one that is not listed in all the
NT
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:35:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall
nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy Taylor.
From: Judy Taylor
So???
Most would not allow Jesus himself into their
churches to teach even as early as the
2nd Century he was outside knocking on the
door.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and
G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their
respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have
sufficient discernment to see this.
From: Judy
Taylor
Are you worried Lance?
Don't you think God can take care of His
Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting
of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit
more pure?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT
THIS IN ANY CHURCH?
On
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was
God on earth.
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from
the fact that He
had no earthly faither.
JD when are you going to get a hold of
yourself and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear
a child and his name would be Emmanuel
go together. Why?? If sin is
no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in
infants
so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a
virgin?
Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that
this curse is continued
only through the father.
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual
reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN
that sin
entered this world and death by (or because of) sin.
She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a
man be just before God?
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of
a woman JD? Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL
men are born unclean because of sin.
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the
father. Houston, we have
a problem !! jd
We sure have and I think you and Houston
had better seek the Lord for some
wisdom. He set the standard.
He holds the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin
by having him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No I most certainly don't Dean; those
are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What
I believe is that
he was not born by
procreation like the rest of us since he had no human
father. Mary may have
contributed an ovum butthe male
determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance
also comes by
way of the
father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the
children) and these are some of the reasons
why I can not accept the "orthodox"
claim that he was exactly the same as us in every
way.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you
view Christ as being made of a special kindof
flesh?
- Original Message -
From:
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
to escape the consequences of sin) and the condition into which disobedience to God had plunged him. For verily the Lord did not undertake the cause of angels, but that of the seed of Abraham, and in order to proclaim the work that was necessary for them, and to represent them efficaciously and really before God, He must needs put Himself into the position and the circumstances into which that seed were found, thought not the state they were personally in. It will be remarked here, that it is still a family owned of God, which is before our eyes, as the object of the Saviour's affection and care — the children whom God had given Him, children of Abraham after the flesh, if in that condition they answered to the designation of "seed of Abraham" (this is the question of Joh_8:37-39), or his children according to the Spirit, if grace gives it them. These truths introduce priesthood, As Son of man, He had been made a little less than the angels, and, crowned already with glory and honour, was hereafter to have all things put under His feet. This we do not yet see. But He took this place of humiliation in order to taste death for the whole system that was afar from God, and to gain the full rights of the second Man, by glorifying God there, where the creature had failed through weakness, and where also the enemy, having deceived man by his subtlety, had dominion over him (according to the righteous judgment of God) in power and malice. At the same time he tasted death for the special purpose of delivering the children whom God would bring to glory, taking their nature and gathering them together as sanctified ones around Himself, He not being ashamed to call them brethren. But it was thus that He was to present them now before God, according to the efficacy of the work which He had accomplished for them; He would become a priest, being able through His life of humiliation an d trial here below, to sympathize with His own in all their conflicts and difficulties. He suffered — never yielded. We do not suffer when we yield to temptation: the flesh takes pleasure in the things by which it is tempted. Jesus suffered, being tempted, and He is able to succour them that are tempted. It is important to observe that the flesh, when acted upon by its desires, does not suffer. Being tempted, it , alas! enjoys. But when, according to the light of the Holy Ghost and the fidelity of obedience, the Spirit resists the attacks of the enemy, whether subtle or persecuting, then one suffers. This the Lord did, and this we have to do. That which needs succour is the new man, the faithful heart, and not the flesh. I need succour against the flesh, and in order to mortify all the members of the old man. Here the needed help refers to the difficulties of the faithful saint in fulfilling all the will of God. This is where he suffers, this is where the Lord — who has suffered — can succor him. He trod this path, He learn in it what which can be suffered there form the enemy, and from men. A human heart feels it, and Jesus had a human heart. Besides, the more faithful the heart is, the more full of love to God, and the less it has of that hardness which is the result of intercourse with the world, the more will it suffer. Now there was no hardness in Jesus. His faithfulness and His love were equally perfect. He was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief and weariness. He suffered being tempted. [10] . Note #8 Compare the answer of Christ to Nathanael at the end of John 1; also Matthew 17 and Luke 9, where the disciples are forbidden to announce Him as the Christ, and He declares He is about to suffer as Son of man, but shews them the coming glory. Note #9 This however in relationship with God. They did not represent nor make known the Father as He did. Also, while we are brought into the same glory with Christ and the same relationship with the Father, the personal glory of Christ as Son is always carefully secured. It has been justly remarked to the same purpose by another, that He never says "our" Father with the disciples. He tells them to say "our" but says "my and your," and it is much more precious. Note #10 Four distinct grounds may be noticed in the Chapter for the humiliation of Jesus: it became God — there was His glory; the destruction of Satan's power; reconciliation or really propitiation by His death; and capacity for sympathy in priesthood. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/19/2006 8:11:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
temptation: the flesh takes pleasure in the things by which it is tempted. Jesus suffered, being tempted, and He is able to succour them that are tempted. It is important to observe that the flesh, when acted upon by its desires, does not suffer. Being tempted, it , alas! enjoys. But when, according to the light of the Holy Ghost and the fidelity of obedience, the Spirit resists the attacks of the enemy, whether subtle or persecuting, then one suffers. This the Lord did, and this we have to do. That which needs succour is the new man, the faithful heart, and not the flesh. I need succour against the flesh, and in order to mortify all the members of the old man. Here the needed help refers to the difficulties of the faithful saint in fulfilling all the will of God. This is where he suffers, this is where the Lord — who has suffered — can succor him. He trod this path, He learn in it what which can be suffered there form the enemy, and from men. A human heart feels it, and Jesus had a human heart. Besides, the more faithful the heart is, the more full of love to God, and the less it has of that hardness which is the result of intercourse with the world, the more will it suffer. Now there was no hardness in Jesus. His faithfulness and His love were equally perfect. He was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief and weariness. He suffered being tempted. [10] . Note #8 Compare the answer of Christ to Nathanael at the end of John 1; also Matthew 17 and Luke 9, where the disciples are forbidden to announce Him as the Christ, and He declares He is about to suffer as Son of man, but shews them the coming glory. Note #9 This however in relationship with God. They did not represent nor make known the Father as He did. Also, while we are brought into the same glory with Christ and the same relationship with the Father, the personal glory of Christ as Son is always carefully secured. It has been justly remarked to the same purpose by another, that He never says "our" Father with the disciples. He tells them to say "our" but says "my and your," and it is much more precious. Note #10 Four distinct grounds may be noticed in the Chapter for the humiliation of Jesus: it became God — there was His glory; the destruction of Satan's power; reconciliation or really propitiation by His death; and capacity for sympathy in priesthood. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/19/2006 8:11:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy? No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she,
[TruthTalk] Something to think about
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: If God was concerned enough about sin to cursehis creation at the start then why would he send a Redeemer who is under the curse to take careof things? Does not even make common sense. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.(19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 3:19(19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. I don't connect Jesus having a "fallen nature" to ther cross David, in fact I believe it detrimental to the whole concept of a "clean, pure, and holy, sacrifice" Jesus had to come under the curse in order to redeem those who were under the curse. He did come under the curse for it is written "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" He took the curse for all humanity upon himself at Calvary. It is kind of like how Moses had to leave the house of Pharaoh in order to redeem the Israelites. He left the house of Pharoah because he murdered an Egyptian and that because he failed to wait on God. Similar to Abraham and Sarah and their Ishmael. If God would just wave his hand and deliver people without ever becoming man and coming under the curse, there would be legal problems. He would be denying himself and his system of justice. How does Jesus having a physical flesh body along with a divine nature deny God's justice? It does not readily compute with our common sense, but it is truth nonetheless. To me a "virgin birth" and God walking about in a physical body does not compute with ordinary natural common sense. The preaching of the cross sounds real foolish to the man of common sense, but it is the power and wisdom of God. I understand the preaching of the cross to relate to our overcoming sin in our lives by the power of the cross - that is - through the dunamis which comes from the resurrection of Christ our Savior. Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?" You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking moreabout the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressedwith later history andthe fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp)persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claimingthat the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be so David; I am much more interested in following the Lord and being a part of thefutureChurch than I am in trying to figure out what went on in the past (other than scripture) ie "forgetting what lies behind ... I press on "
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy?
No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:36:45 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know nothing about special kinds of flesh; I do know of two different kinds of nature though, one fallen and the other holy and pure. Ours is fallen. Jesus' was not. His was pure and holy from birth. This and this alone is the "great divide" Please do not put your words and concepts in my mouth Bill. Judy do you believe Jesus had the same flesh as we have, that his flesh came from Mary's DNA? If ours is fallen and his is not, then why is his not special?It would certainly be superior to ours. Would it not? That, it seems tome, is special. Mainly because there was no generational sin (called the iniquities of the fathers) to reckon with in his case. And please notice, Judy,that I spoke "from my understanding" of your position. Doesn't help you to know how I am hearing you? And I've got another question for you, Judy: Why didn't you climb down Dean's throat like you did mine? He actually did claimto be speaking for you? I don't recall "climbing down anyone's throat" either yours or Deans Bill. Why is it impossible to disagree with you without your becoming extremely upset? I get the distinct impression that you hate me. Bill This is a wrong impression and needs to be cast down. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:35:58 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. Why don't you let me tell what I believe in my own words Bill - I find the above unrecognizable; it is certainly nothing that would come from me. I know nothing about special kinds of flesh; I do know of two different kinds of nature though, one fallen and the other holy and pure. Ours is fallen. Jesus' was not. His was pure and holy from birth. This and this alone is the "great divide" Please do not put your words and concepts in my mouth Bill. Let Dean ask me himself if he wants to know what I believe. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question? Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 8:19:25 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man The question is still out there. What person among us indwelt with the Holy Spirit could deny that Jesus Christ, the Seed of David according to the flesh, was b
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church teaches
Lance?
Theirs is a flesh religion and theyhave
noproblems with purity and holiness
Same with the so called "Church fathers" or patriarchs
who came up with the pronouncements
this generation mindlessly parrots. By the time
they began holding these ecumenical councils
and writing their creeds the professing Church (or
embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if
Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a Mormon
Jesus?
From: Judy Taylor
Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with
that??
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus
some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is
human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human
isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians,
Jesus is more than human but less than God.
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
They do, their stance is that man is progressing toward godhood as they do what the church says and that basically God is a man from the planet Kolob. Where in the Bible are we told that JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is a human construct; the scriptures themselves teach that he layed aside some things and became a little lower than the angels which is hardly "wholly God"and during his earthly ministry he claimed to have come from "heaven" which is hardly "wholly human" and earthly or of the earth. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:15:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NO! From: Judy Taylor Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church teaches Lance? Theirs is a flesh religion and theyhave noproblems with purity and holiness Same with the so called "Church fathers" or patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements this generation mindlessly parrots. By the time they began holding these ecumenical councils and writing their creeds the professing Church (or embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a Mormon Jesus? From: Judy Taylor Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Being wholly human and god ATST is a Mormon
construct.
Whereas it would be against the God of the Bible's ways
to be "fallen" and wholly God ATST
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:43:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assure you (perhaps a Mormon could intervene on
Judy's behalf) that the statement in caps is NOT the Mormon position. It is,
in reality, the position held by believing Christians for some 2,000
years.
From: Judy Taylor
They do, their stance is that man is progressing
toward godhood as they do what the church says
and
that basically God is a man from the planet
Kolob. Where in the Bible are we told that
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
This is a human construct; the scriptures
themselves teach that he layed aside some things and became
a little lower than the angels which is hardly "wholly God"and during his earthly
ministry he claimed to
have come from "heaven" which is hardly "wholly human" and earthly or of the
earth.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:15:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
NO!
From: Judy
Taylor
Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church
teaches Lance?
Theirs is a flesh religion and theyhave
noproblems with purity and holiness
Same with the so called "Church fathers" or
patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements
this generation mindlessly parrots. By
the time they began holding these ecumenical councils
and writing their creeds the professing Church
(or embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if
Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a
Mormon Jesus?
From: Judy
Taylor
Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a
problem with that??
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would
make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is
human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than
human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said
the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than
God.
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the "exactly like us" part. This tells me that those who make and profess such doctrines have no understanding or spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of God.. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward! Where, in all that, Judy, do you see even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian ??? If you truly believe this, you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian God. And, as I have said before -- your God is neither of the two. You stand alone with your thinking on this. Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again? Actually, Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with you. You stand alone. jd -- Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Excellent point JD And we should do the exact same thing with God's Words - that is, let Him be God and refrain from adding our meaning to His Word, or subtracting His meaning from His Word as has been done in the past and is ongoing today. His Word says that He hates mixture. His Word says that Jesus was/is pure and holy from His birth. I rest my case.. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:53:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK -- so why not say it that way? When you say "Then he's a Mormon Jesus - who has a problem with that?" you are not speaking of a single aspect of the Mormon Jesus. You are equating Lance's teaching with Mormonism AND THE ASSOCIATED BIAS THAT EXISTS ON THIS FORUM. You are simply trying to win the argument with the use of such language. Words mean something. We should mean what we say and actually say what we mean. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the "exactly like us" part. This tells me that those who make and profess such doctrines have no understanding or spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of God.. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward! Where, in all that, Judy, do you see even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian ??? If you truly believe this, you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian God. And, as I have said before -- your God is neither of the two. You stand alone with your thinking on this. Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again? Actually, Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with you. You stand alone. jd -- Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Why would I not be aware of what I am writing Lance? I believe it to be scriptural - If God was concerned enough about sin to curse his creation at the start then why would he send a Redeemer who is under the curse to take care of things? Does not even make common sense. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My but it does become difficult at times, Judy, believing that you don't know what you're doing when you write like this. From: Judy Taylor I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the "exactly like us" part. This tells me that those who make and profess such doctrines have no understanding or spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of God.. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward! Where, in all that, Judy, do you see even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian ??? If you truly believe this, you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian God. And, as I have said before -- your God is neither of the two. You stand alone with your thinking on this. Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again? Actually, Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with you. You stand alone. jd -- Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
So Lance IYO every time I cite Scripture it is in
error?
One of us is wrong and sadly we will have to wait until
we are deceased to find out which one it is.
I see yor doctrine as no different than the doctrine of
Balaam which is in effect that ppl will make it with or without
sin.
There is no overcoming involved because of the
"incarnation" - at least this is what I have been hearing from you.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:46:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You add your meaning to God's Word, Judy,
'almost' (I included this so as not to be identified by David as a blasphemer)
every time you cite Scripture. How is that
everyone on TT knows this while you do not?
Excellent point JD
And we should do the exact same thing with God's
Words - that is, let Him be God and refrain from adding
our meaning to His Word, or subtracting His meaning
from His Word as has been done in the past and is
ongoing today. His Word says that He hates
mixture. His Word says that Jesus was/is pure and holy
from
His birth. I rest my case..
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:53:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK -- so why not say it that way? When you say
"Then he's a Mormon Jesus -
who has a problem with that?" you are not speaking of a single
aspect of the Mormon Jesus. You are equating Lance's teaching
with Mormonism AND THE ASSOCIATED BIAS THAT EXISTS ON THIS
FORUM. You are simply trying to win the argument with the use
of such language. Words mean
something. We should mean what we say and actually say what we
mean. jd
From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is
the "exactly like us" part.
This tells me that those who make and profess
such doctrines have no understanding or
spiritual discernment and do not walk in the
fear of God..
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy
who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a
reward! Where, in all that, Judy, do you see
even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ
to be both YHWH and Messian ??? If you truly believe
this, you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian
God.
And, as I have said before -- your God is neither of
the two. You stand alone with your thinking on
this. Need I bring up BSF or your pastor
again?
Actually, Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with
you.
You stand alone.
jd
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a
problem with that??
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jesus is neither unambiguously human
with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This
would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
Sometimes you will hear people say
'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is
more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't
God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than
God.
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
Yes I probably am Blaine. Sorry about that and forgive me please. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:36:41 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/19/2006 8:13:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church teaches Lance? Theirs is a flesh religion and theyhave noproblems with purity and holiness Same with the so called "Church fathers" or patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements this generation mindlessly parrots. Judy, what are you trying to say, here, as you carelessly toss your half-formed ideas around? Flesh religion? What does that mean? And what does it mean we have "no problems with purity and holiness?" If you are speaking as an authority on Mormon religious thought,aren't you just a little out of your field? Blainerb
Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
Lance what is so hard about the plain facts
which are that
It is impossible to be "Holy, Pure and sinless"
and ATST "sinful and fallen in the first Adam".
Think about it - SERIOUSLY
.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:28:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So then, Judy, should Jesus' human nature
actually have been other than your 'reading' of
Scripture?
- Original Message -----
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2006 16:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
Thanks for your input Dean;
I have no problem with Jesus having a human flesh
body... but I havea "huge" insurmountable problem
with the idea that Mary's child, the one called by
the angel "the holy pure sinless offspring" born of her
and called the Son of God" (Luke 1:36 Amp)
ATSThad a "fallen" Adamic nature. Make no mistake
this
is nothing more than speculation by religious men
who have no understanding about spiritual realities.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:54:00 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Nor do we reject one or the other -
we just don't relate to him in the fallen state of
man-
and I see us regenerated towards His higher
state. I am wondering why we cannot be understood
on this statement - what force works against
Judy andI on this? Is it an us against them thingy or
is it Satan that stills this seed? There
is no us against them with me there is only truth as best as
I understand it.
Respectfully
From: Taylor
These
are great passages, Dean; they speak to his divinity, his being God.
Ours has been a discussion of his humanity, his being human. To reject
one orthe other is to reject him.
cd: Yes I like them also-part of my
favorite passages.Question: Did that divinity leave him while on
earth-What does he say in the New Covenant that differs from
Prov.8?
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of God -- nonsense
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree does it. You are a true child of the Orthodoxy you serve. This anxiety about some ppl not being able to handle scripture is what led to the "dark ages" when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear. Have faith in God. From: Lance Muir It may be 'that no (wo)man is an island' yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The DM's (2) need be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some can be dangerous. cd: Only if that scripture is wrong and takes away from what the words mean-but if itis usedto explain the existing truth-it is not only not dangerous but divine Lance.I am not the first to make the below statement. Lance wrote: Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who believes that Adam and Eve were not flesh and blood but "spirit beings" before the fall the only one. From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org cd: John I contend that AE were more than just flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The same light that shown from Moses face after he came into Gods presence also.Don't get me wrong the flesh existed but the sin didn't. I farther contend that Adam saw Eve in her fallen state and chose to eat the apple to be with her out of love-if not she would be forever lost to him.He came from being able to name all the animals on earth-a genius- to dying spiritually (light went out) and hiding from God for fear and shame.
[TruthTalk] Without belief in the preexistence of Christ, Christianity would no longer be recognizeable
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:57:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The doctrine of Christ's personal preexistence as the second person of the Trinity is taken for granted by most orthodox Christians and has been since New Testament times. The effect of its denial is a god who differers radically from the Biblical God. Yes and it is taken for granted also by most orthodox Christians that the orthodoxycoming from the patriarchs is on the same level as the Word of God which explains things a little differently. The preexistence of Christ can be seen in the OT but never as an "eternal son" "The way the pre-existence of Christ is understood determines how one speaks about the theology of God and of human salvation." (R. T. France) Explain please - and who is this R. T. France?? God did not merely send an agent to make things OK or a repairman to perform some fixes-he came himself. The doctrine of preexistence reminds us forcefully that God himself entered our circumstances in order to redeem and restore his human creatures along with the rest of creation. Are the above France's words or yoursLance? It was no "resoration job" In a Covenant both parties pledge to the death. He came to institute a New Creation ... The old has been judged already. 2 Cor 5:17. As for the creation - It will be destroyed by fire before the New Jerusalem descends from heaven. He makes ALL things new. This is the truth that gives meaning and power to Jesus' affirmation that God so loved the world that he sent his son to save it. If preexisten is mythical or some other nonfactual nature, then Jesus is not deity and this affirmation of God's love for and intervention on behalf of his creatures becomes an empty promise. He gave His ONLY begotten son to die and those who come to the Risen Christ agree to become"living sacrifices" themselves.
Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
Your fears are wrong Lance and you need to
replace them with the faith of God.
There is no logic involved here. None at
all. It is simply trusting in God's Word as is.
Whenever the doctrines of men take the
ascendency there are always contradictions as you see
here.
You will know you are hearing from God when you
can accept all of God's Word as is without having to
explain any of it away or cut any of it
out. Now this is PEACE.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:34:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOGICALLY, Judy, (ala David Miller) IT IS QUITE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. YET, THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF GOD. NOW, IT MAY BE THAT THIS IS NOT YOUR/DM'S DOCTRINE OF GOD.
IFF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN YOUR/HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD IS SIMPLY NOT CHRISTIAN.
Further, should this be the gospel preached by DM and his offspring and, those
for whom he is overseer then, the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL IS NOT BEING PREACHED BY
ANY OF THEM. (I believe he/they/you probably preach some fear-based moralism)
.
From: Judy Taylor
Lance what is so hard about the plain facts
which are that
It is impossible to be "Holy, Pure and
sinless" and ATST "sinful and fallen in the first
Adam".
Think about it - SERIOUSLY
.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:28:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
So then, Judy, should Jesus' human nature
actually have been other than your 'reading' of
Scripture?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2006 16:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's
??
Thanks for your input Dean;
I have no problem with Jesus having a human
flesh body... but I havea "huge" insurmountable problem
with the idea that Mary's child, the one called
by the angel "the holy pure sinless offspring" born of her
and called the Son of God" (Luke 1:36 Amp)
ATSThad a "fallen" Adamic nature. Make no mistake
this
is nothing more than speculation by religious
men who have no understanding about spiritual realities.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:54:00 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: Nor do we reject one or the
other - we just don't relate to him in the fallen state of
man-
and I see us regenerated towards His
higher state. I am wondering why we cannot be understood
on this statement - what force works
against Judy andI on this? Is it an us against them thingy
or
is it Satan that stills this seed?
There is no us against them with me there is only truth as best as
I understand it.
Respectfully
From: Taylor
These are great passages, Dean; they speak to his divinity,
his being God. Ours has been a discussion of his humanity, his being
human. To reject one orthe other is to reject
him.
cd: Yes I like them also-part of my
favorite passages.Question: Did that divinity leave him while on
earth-What does he say in the New Covenant that differs from
Prov.8?
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of God -- nonsense
I believe them rather than constantly wrest them like some on this list do Lance. You have a whole list of things that should be of concern to DM and if he were not so grounded in his faith the attitudes of you and JD toward him personally would top the list On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! This ought to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows this. From: Judy Taylor Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree does it. You are a true child of the Orthodoxy you serve. This anxiety about some ppl not being able to handle scripture is what led to the "dark ages" when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear. Have faith in God. From: Lance Muir It may be 'that no (wo)man is an island' yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The DM's (2) need be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some can be dangerous. cd: Only if that scripture is wrong and takes away from what the words mean-but if itis usedto explain the existing truth-it is not only not dangerous but divine Lance.I am not the first to make the below statement. Lance wrote: Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who believes that Adam and Eve were not flesh and blood but "spirit beings" before the fall the only one. From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org cd: John I contend that AE were more than just flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The same light that shown from Moses face after he came into Gods presence also.Don't get me wrong the flesh existed but the sin didn't. I farther contend that Adam saw Eve in her fallen state and chose to eat the apple to be with her out of love-if not she would be forever lost to him.He came from being able to name all the animals on earth-a genius- to dying spiritually (light went out) and hiding from God for fear and shame.
Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
I do not and have not ever deniedthat
Jesus came the first time in "pure and holy" flesh Bill
just as the scriptures day - which
factis something that you
refuse to accept or else fail to grasp
no matter how many times I type
it.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:00:38 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, I along with DavidM haveused multiple
passages in balance and in context to prove to you the error of your theology.
What you do with that truth will demonstrate the spirit you are of. I will be
praying for your salvation, that you do not deny Jesus Christ come in the
flesh.
Bill
From: Judy Taylor
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:53 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is really sad
that Bill says I can't be saved unless I accept his kind of
orthodoxy.
No, Bill is using theBible to correct you,
and to exhort you to change your mind, Judy.
You don't have
understanding of the Bible Bill. You are using Words to make
everything biologicalcompletely missing the main point.
Sin is a spiritual issue with a
biological ripple effect generationally. God is a spirit.
Satan is a spirit.
Sin/righteousness are not a biological issues.
You want to spiritualize the Seed doctrine, when
the Scriptures tell you that Jesus is the Seed of David according to
flesh.
Sperma isn't the only kind of
seed discussed in scripture Bill and I am not taking anything out of
context in order to "spiritualize" it. The order is first the
natural and then the spiritual. Adam/David are the natural.
Jesus is the Promise which is spiritual. The first Adam was a
living soul. The second Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
And if it is according to the flesh that Christ
was born, and this of David's seed, then what flesh do you think John is
speaking of when he ascribes the spirit of antichrist to those who deny
it? I am not making a bigger deal of this than I ought, Judy. I want you
to have every opportunity to know and understand the error of your
doctrine, because, believe it or not, it does make a difference how you
answer the question: "Who do you say that I am?"
I don't now and never have
denied that Jesus was given and walked about in a flesh body Bill.
What I do deny is that is was a SINFUL AND FALLEN flesh body exactly and in every way like those
He was sent to redeem.
Please don't let your disdain for people (and this
your elder brothers in Christ) cloud your ability to affirm truth when
it is presented to you.
I rejectthe accusation
above since I have no disdain for persons - only the doctrines that do
not conform them to godliness and holiness You know Bill God juxtaposes the two kinds of seed in
Genesis 3:15. I wonder whose loins theseed of the
adversarycame through.
They (feminine plural) came through the
loins of Adam, just as did every human being who came after him. All
that Adam was capable of producing after his fall and
subsequentremoval from the Garden was human beings destined to
die. Yet for some reason the firstfallen words out of his mouth --
that is, after their encounter with God --were ones which changed
his wife's name from "Woman," the one who had been made from his flesh,
etc., to "Eve," the mother of all who live.
So are you saying the Gen
3:15 prophecy refers to Eve rather than to Mary or to both of
them?
Judy, if Jesus is not of Eve's
blood then she is not his mother. Her flesh is not his flesh
and her "Seed" (masculine singular) does not reach him. The truth is,
however, that it does!Adam was privy to something that you deny.
He calls her the mother of all the living.
It is possible to
be biolgically living and still be spiritually dead
Bill.
Something was going to spring from her womb that
was going to justify life for all life. Follow the Seed promised to Eve
throughout the Old Testament and you will discover an amazing story. Let
that Seed pass through Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, and Jacob, and
Judah, and David, and let it find fulfillment in the womb of Mary, and
you will begin to realize the promise. But spiritualize it into
abstraction and you could end up missing it all. Bill
Noone is spiritualizing
anything into "abstraction" Bill. Are you willi
Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of God -- nonsense
Well that is your own personal opinion
Lance. How is it you expect perfection from DavidM?
Why not give him some space? There is just once source of ALL
truth Lance and I expect
DavidM is still learning by going to that
source just like the rest of
us. Why do you want to lock
him in when he has never done thisto the
rest of us? Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is
the liberty not to have to be the
"expert" You just say what God has shown youand ppl either
accept it or they reject it ... the outcome is not up to
us.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:58:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM is, IMO, intentionally elusive. At times he
appears almost duplicitous, saying one thing to one person (you)then
appearing to contradict that thing through what he says to another (Bill
Taylor).
From: Judy Taylor
I believe them rather than constantly wrest
them like some on this list do Lance.
You have a whole list of things that should
be of concern to DM and if he were not so grounded
in his faith the attitudes of you and JD toward him personally
would top the list
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! This
ought to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows this.
From: Judy
Taylor
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too
far from the tree does it. You are a true child of the Orthodoxy
you serve. This
anxiety about some ppl not being able to handle scripture is what led to
the "dark ages"
when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear. Have
faith in God.
From: Lance Muir
It may be 'that no (wo)man is an
island' yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The
DM's (2) need be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some
can be dangerous.
cd: Only if that scripture is wrong
and takes away from what the words mean-but if itis
usedto explain the existing truth-it is not only not dangerous
but divine Lance.I am not the first to make the below
statement.
Lance wrote:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
rationality of "God" -- nonsense
You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who
believes that Adam and Eve were not flesh and
blood but "spirit beings" before the fall
the only one.
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
cd: John I contend that AE were more than
just flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The
same light that shown from Moses face after he came into Gods
presence also.Don't get me wrong the flesh existed but the sin
didn't. I farther contend that Adam saw Eve in her fallen
state and chose to eat the apple to be with her out of love-if
not she would be forever lost to him.He came from being able
to name all the animals on earth-a genius- to dying
spiritually (light went out) and hiding from God for fear and
shame.
Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
Oh! really Lance, then you have come up with a new category? .. Nay, rather you are insulting us both by alluding to the gnosticism taught by women that some of the Epistles address. Shame on you Lance - you really should learn to employ 2 Cor 10:5 and read your Bible more and other men's theology less... On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:53:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your doctrines, Judy, along with some of DM's ARE the doctrines of (wo)men. From: Judy Taylor Your fears are wrong Lance and you need to replace them with the faith of God. There is no logic involved here. None at all. It is simply trusting in God's Word as is. Whenever the doctrines of men take the ascendency there are always contradictions as you see here. You will know you are hearing from God when you can accept all of God's Word as is without having to explain any of it away or cut any of it out. Now this is PEACE. On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:34:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOGICALLY, Judy, (ala David Miller) IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. YET, THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. NOW, IT MAY BE THAT THIS IS NOT YOUR/DM'S DOCTRINE OF GOD. IFF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN YOUR/HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD IS SIMPLY NOT CHRISTIAN. Further, should this be the gospel preached by DM and his offspring and, those for whom he is overseer then, the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL IS NOT BEING PREACHED BY ANY OF THEM. (I believe he/they/you probably preach some fear-based moralism) . From: Judy Taylor Lance what is so hard about the plain facts which are that It is impossible to be "Holy, Pure and sinless" and ATST "sinful and fallen in the first Adam". Think about it - SERIOUSLY . On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:28:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So then, Judy, should Jesus' human nature actually have been other than your 'reading' of Scripture? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 17, 2006 16:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ?? Thanks for your input Dean; I have no problem with Jesus having a human flesh body... but I havea "huge" insurmountable problem with the idea that Mary's child, the one called by the angel "the holy pure sinless offspring" born of her and called the Son of God" (Luke 1:36 Amp) ATSThad a "fallen" Adamic nature. Make no mistake this is nothing more than speculation by religious men who have no understanding about spiritual realities. On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:54:00 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Nor do we reject one or the other - we just don't relate to him in the fallen state of man- and I see us regenerated towards His higher state. I am wondering why we cannot be understood on this statement - what force works against Judy andI on this? Is it an us against them thingy or is it Satan that stills this seed? There is no us against them with me there is only truth as best as I understand it. Respectfully From: Taylor These are great passages, Dean; they speak to his divinity, his being God. Ours has been a discussion of his humanity, his being human. To reject one orthe other is to reject him. cd: Yes I like them also-part of my favorite passages.Question: Did that divinity leave him while on earth-What does he say in the New Covenant that differs from Prov.8? Bill
