Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
KJV Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. NIV Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. NAS Matthew 24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. NKJ Matthew 24:24 "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Hi John, I quoted from the NIV, and thisbecause it does the best job of translating the latter portion of this verse, which is the clause I wanted to emphasize. The other major translations do a better job with the main clause, however; i.e., the word translated "miracles" in the NIV is better translated "wonders" in the other translations. You will be interested in noting that the Greek wordmost often translated"miracles" in the NT is curiously absent from this verse. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus Yes, but isn't that my point? False Christs will work (false) miracles (how could they be anything else) and will deceive some but not the elect. No? I will have to take time to go back in time to see what Mentor #1 said. Did BT use the word impossible rather than the translation "if possible" ? I think he did but I will double check. The fact remains that Satan is no match for God; his miracles are the "miracles" of a liar and a deceiver. I am not going to hell by mistake. No one is. Jd -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:56:18 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus You did not read me correctly, John. I am suggesting you study the whole verse. Read it all. Do not leave out one word. False Christs WILL perform miracles, whether anyone is deceived or not. Please let me know when that sinks in.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sooo, you just ignore the part that says, " ... mislead, if it were possible even the elect" ? If I read you correctly, you can drop those words and have the verse say exactly the same thing? So why the words? JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:07:24 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a number of mentors. BT is the most current and, perhaps, the most significant. BT has his mentors, as well. You have yours. Secondly, the passage quoted I understood to be saying that it was not possible to to deceive the saints. That was my point. Where is the problem? JDThe problem seems to be that you could not understand the whole verse. You took from it what you wanted and ignored theparts that shows you to be in erroragain.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
John wrote The "miracles of the dark side are not miracles at all only trickery. He is The False Prophet -- his teachings are clearly idiotsy if they have to do with purpose, destiny, and life. We canglory in the knowledge that a disciple cannot be tricked out ofher salvation assuming an honest effort at practicing that advise which guides us in terms of destiny, purpose and life. Will the Father give stones to those who ask of Him bread? Never. You put me in mind of this verse, John: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect -- if that were possible"(Mat 24.24). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus Isn't this true!!! What is interesting to me is the willingness of some to deify the force of evil in this world. To hear some talk, Satan is very nearly a match for the Lord when the fact of the matter is this:JC himself simply blowsestablishment thinking away ! The "miracles of the dark side are not miracles at all only trickery. He is The False Prophet -- his teachings are clearly idiotsy if they have to do with purpose, destiny, and life. We canglory in the knowledge that a disciple cannot be tricked out ofher salvation assuming an honest effort at practicing that advise which guides us in terms of destiny, purpose and life. Will the Father give stones to those who ask of Him bread? Never. JD -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:08:12 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus in the NT perspectve,the Kingdom of God as it is, in Christ, has the temporal quality of eschatological dualism(e.d.)--the age to come colliding in time/history with this evil age inhabited by the unrighteous however, e.d. has nothing to do with your mentality rooted in typical philosophical/moral dualism--your rendering of the 'evil'system of either/or categories in whichppl definetheir perfect 'this age' existence in terms of a series of false theses, anti-theses,and hypo-theses overlayedhaphazardly with scriptures loosely interpretedtomatchprerequisites which originateoutside ofhistorical scriptural history iow, knowing a little about God ain't made a dent in their presuppositional thinking in your case, lets sayyour (dualistic)spirit categoryhas been altered by the Holt Spirit--so what? it is not evident in your thinking category--the twain aint never met to me this is more proof of the stranglehold of philosophical dualism partic onthe right wing mind set (like Izzy's, too)and the correspondingagenda/s, where as usual, the business of America is (your)business as far as i'm concerned, it ain't much different in liberalism, but, so far,neither of youpayenough attention to my writingto noticethe take on truth, where scripture says the age to come is unknown (mystery)apart from the presence of the future, meaning the future revealed in the NT inJCs person ministry--he said 'I have come that you may have (abundant) life (in the Johannine,in cnt to theAmericansense of it) the presence of the future is realized onlyin actualfaith in Christ andin intellectual adjustment/s to his teaching present in the NTin contrast with the establishment teachingof this presentage which the right wing and left wing are addicted to the dualistic mentality (you)ppl adhere to in contrast to the NT provesthepreference for the principles of this age under the regime of the 'prince of the power of the air'--itoutweighs interest in JC himself (who simply blowsestablishment thinking away) On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:00:12 -0400 Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com writes: ..there is "none righteous" who walk in the flesh under the old Adamic nature. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us
Are all illnesses demonic in your opinion -- whether physical or mental or a combination of both? Martin Luther was a textbook bi-polar. Do you think that precluded him from being a Christian, as in a true believer? Just curious what you think, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us Really interesting analogies, Judy and David. I'll think about that a lot. By the way, the enemies in the land comment leads me to ask if anyone knows what is the underlying problem with people who are commonly labeled Bi-polar--up one day and low the next, and seem to me to always be looking for someone to be angry with. They are commonly treated with lithium. I've been around someone like that the last couple of weeks (who says she is a Christian by the way), and it seems demonic to me. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:00 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us David Miller wrote: The concept that the Holy Spirit is working to convict believers of various sins, such as stealing, lust, covetousness, etc. is dangerous. Judy wrote: Why do you see this as dangerous David? Because people confuse the voice of the Spirit with their own inner convictions. Furthermore, they misinterpret the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore ascribe works to him which are not his. This leads to error. Judy wrote: Being conformed to the image of Christ does not happen overnight. It is a process, just as salvation itself is a process of past, present, future. It depends which image of Christ you are talking about. Are you talking about him in his now glorified state? You bet that is a process. Are you talking about Christ as an infant lying in a manger? No, that is not a process. That is an event called being born again. Judy wrote: An object lesson is given us in scripture ... when after Israel celebrated the passover and God led them supernaturally to the promised land. They were instructed to go in and take the land which He would give to them little by little. He did not clear the land all at one time because they would not be strong enough to hold it. (Exodus 23:29,30) Good object lesson, but look at it closely. They were no longer slaves in Egypt at this point. Once they crossed that Red Sea and the waters killed the Egyptians that were pursuing them, they were saved. They had deliverance from bondage to Egypt, which represents our deliverance from the bondage of sin to this world system. What they lacked was possessing the promised land, the kingdom of God. This is where faith comes in, and this is where the process of growth is important. We are immediately delivered, but love still is perfected. I may not sin, but that does not mean that I cannot love better. Yesterday I may have helped someone who came looking to me for help, but today I might seek out those who need help. Yesterday, I might have known how to lead someone to a hospital to get help, but today I might pray for him to be healed instantly and thereby better help him in his situation. Jesus at one time did no miracles, but his obedience and love were perfected at that time when he did minister in miracles and healed the sick, and ultimately gave his life a ransom for all, the ultimate expression of love which he did when he was more than 33 years old, not when he was 5 years old. Judy wrote: Likewise when we surrender our lives to Christ we also have enemies on the land (our heart) ... You have the wrong analogy here, Judy. The enemies of our own heart were when we were in Egypt, or the unbelief when God tells us to possess his kingdom and we say such is impossible. The enemies in the land, the Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites... these enemies represent not defects of our own heart, but enemies in the air, principalities and powers and rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places which inspire people to act contrary to us and to mock us and to hate us and kill us. Judy wrote: Those of us who are honest will admit that we were walking in most of Galatians 5:19,21 if not all. WERE is the proper tense. Why do you try and resurrect it to present tense? Judy wrote: That the land of our heart is inhabited by some enemies is evident by what comes out of our mouths (at times). Nothing defiling comes out of my mouth anymore. Once it had, yes, but not anymore. I'm sure my rebukes or corrections appear otherwise to some on this list, as they like to point to such
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
That'll be fine, Judy. By the way, the controversy over the addition of the filioque clause (which means "and the Son") in sixth century came about much later than the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The homoousionwas NOTan issue in this later dispute, which actually came to a head in the eleventh century. Both sides of the filioque controversy embraced the homoousion and continue to embrace it today. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus If I find it I'll send it on. I know the word in question was "homoousios" which was used in what they calledthe filioque which was controversial then and continued to be controversial validating the scriptural caution against adding or taking from what is written. judyt On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:52:53 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, it's not posted at the time you made the claim, but maybe you referenced itat some other time. Bill From: Judy Taylor I can't remember off the top of my head. It was when I was researching the creeds; I probably have the source on a floppy somewhere but would have to search for it. I know I posted it to the list at the time. jt On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:05:29 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy, where did you come up with this idea concerning bishops "who wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted addingan extra biblical definition"? To my knowledge, I've not come across it before. Would you please substantiate it referentially? Bill From: Judy Taylor No I am not speaking of Arian JD. When I say Berean I am talking about the Bishops who wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted addingan extra biblical definition. This is being "Berean" as per Acts 17:11. On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:39:51 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You speak of Arian when you say "the'Berean' (whatever that is) bishops finally caved? JDFrom: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:10:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It does not appear that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ -- but something that is bigger and even more important. Judy, please be careful, here, that in your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own beliefs. jt: I agree with the statement above JD My belief is that our disagreement most likelygoes all the way back to the council of Niceain May 325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine God using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural -For this reason they hadproblems getting complete agreement -but the "Berean" bishopsfinally caved. From: Judy Taylor jt: I don't trust your memory Bill. I would have to see this because this does not sound like anything I even believe... The Arians didn't cave .. they were hunted down as hereticks by Athanasius just like the Donatists were hunted down by Augustine and Servetus was hunted down by Calvin. On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:06:09 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to the Arian bishopsat Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved into Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating Arianism? Bill From: Judy Taylor Thanks so much for this outline Kats
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
Well, it's not posted at the time you made the
claim, but maybe you referenced itat some other time.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:04
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of
Jesus
I can't remember off the top of my head. It was when
I was researching the creeds; I probably have the source
on a floppy somewhere but would have to search for
it. I know I posted it to the list at the time. jt
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:05:29 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Judy, where did you come up with this idea
concerning bishops "who
wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted
addingan extra biblical definition"? To my knowledge, I've not
come across it before. Would you please substantiate it
referentially?
Bill
From: Judy Taylor
No I am not speaking of Arian JD. When I
say Berean I am talking about the Bishops who
wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted
addingan extra biblical definition. This is being
"Berean" as per Acts 17:11.
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:39:51 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You speak of Arian when you say "the'Berean' (whatever
that is) bishops finally caved?
JDFrom: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:10:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
It does not appear
that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of
Christ -- but something that is bigger and even
more important. Judy, please be careful, here, that in
your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your
own beliefs.
jt: I agree with the statement above
JD
My belief is that our disagreement most
likelygoes all the way back to the council of Niceain
May 325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine
God using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural
-For this reason they hadproblems getting complete
agreement -but the "Berean" bishopsfinally caved.
From: Judy
Taylor
jt: I don't trust
your memory Bill. I would have to see this because this does not
sound like anything I even believe...
The Arians didn't cave .. they were hunted
down as hereticks by Athanasius just like the Donatists were
hunted
down by Augustine and Servetus was hunted
down by Calvin.
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:06:09 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
If it is in response to the dialogue
between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do
notadvocate Docetism,
Donatism, Arianism,or any other
ism.
That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to
the Arian bishopsat Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved
into Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating
Arianism? Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
Thanks so much for this outline Kats (is
it?)
If it is in response to the dialogue
between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do
notadvocate Docetism,
Donatism, Arianism,or any other
ism.
You write: Jesus was both divine and human but perhaps we do
not think often enough of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus came
to break down barriers between between God and us and if do not
acknowledge the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was like us in every way except sin as the Letter to the
Hebrews says in 4:15, we are erecting barriers between God and us
once again.Also Heb 2:17-18 states. "It was essential that
he should be made completely like his brothers so that he could
become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their
relationship to God, able to expaite the sins of the people.
For the suffering he himself passed through while being put to the
test enables him to help others when they are being put to the
test."
jt: Ju
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to the Arian bishopsat Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved into Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating Arianism? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 5:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus Thanks so much for this outline Kats (is it?) If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. You write: Jesus was both divine and human but perhaps we do not think often enough of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus came to break down barriers between between God and us and if do not acknowledge the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was like us in every way except sin as the Letter to the Hebrews says in 4:15, we are erecting barriers between God and us once again.Also Heb 2:17-18 states. "It was essential that he should be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expaite the sins of the people. For the suffering he himself passed through while being put to the test enables him to help others when they are being put to the test." jt: Just wondering if youhold to what is known as "Orthodoxy" Kats. "Christ Jesus... thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." Philippians 2:5-7
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:10:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It does not appear that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ -- but something that is bigger and even more important. Judy, please be careful, here, that in your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own beliefs. jt: I agree with the statement above JD My belief is that our disagreement most likelygoes all the way back to the council of Niceain May 325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine God using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural -For this reason they hadproblems getting complete agreement -but the "Berean" bishopsfinally caved. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus jt: I don't trust your memory Bill. I would have to see this because this does not sound like anything I even believe... The Arians didn't cave .. they were hunted down as hereticks by Athanasius just like the Donatists were hunted down by Augustine and Servetus was hunted down by Calvin. On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:06:09 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to the Arian bishopsat Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved into Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating Arianism? Bill From: Judy Taylor Thanks so much for this outline Kats (is it?) If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. You write: Jesus was both divine and human but perhaps we do not think often enough of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus came to break down barriers between between God and us and if do not acknowledge the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was like us in every way except sin as the Letter to the Hebrews says in 4:15, we are erecting barriers between God and us once again.Also Heb 2:17-18 states. "It was essential that he should be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expaite the sins of the people. For the suffering he himself passed through while being put to the test enables him to help others when they are being put to the test." jt: Just wondering if youhold to what is known as "Orthodoxy" Kats. "Christ Jesus... thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." Philippians 2:5-7
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
Judy wrote It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. Hi Judy.You've madethis claimon numerous occasions: Can you tell me where exactly in Scripture it is stated? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus How nice that you are thinking about my well being JD .. I appreciate the thought Only you had better get your belief system together and study to learnwhat sin is all about because whenthe light comes on you will be horrified that you ever believed and taught others that Jesus the pure and holy son of God was ever an evil carnal fleshly human born with a fallen Adamic nature just like you. This was not a requirement for Him to overcome in the 3 areas where AE failed. It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. This is the only time ever that there was a breach between Him and God the Father. This should be evidence enough of how God views sin. It is not individual acts alone, it is us. Our old unregenerate darkened heart. judyt On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:10:37 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A good reread for Judy. JD From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]Hi Judy. I would like to continue our dialogue about the humanity of Jesus. We discussed Romans 8:3 before. Romans 8:2-4(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:(4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. In past discussion, you say that the word "likeness" here means like but not the same as. I pointed out how this same word is used in Phil. 2:7 where it says he was made in the likeness of men. In this Philippians passage, I would not argue that Jesus is similar to a man in appearance but is not really a man. I believe that you had agreed with me that Jesus was indeed truly a man. So although the word "likeness" might mean what you say, not the same as but only a superficial resemblance, it also could mean the in the form of. If he came in the likeness of men, he was a man, and if he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, then he had sinful, corruptible flesh. My question to you is this. Is it possible for the passage to mean this when taken alone? I'm not asking if you agree that it means this right now. I am only asking you if this is a possible interpretation of this passage if nothing else were considered? I am wondering if I would show you from other passages in the Bible that this is how this passage should be read, if it might be possible for you to change your mind about how you presently interpret this word "likeness." 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 16:05:11 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. Hi Judy.You've madethis claimon numerous occasions: Can you tell me where exactly in Scripture it is stated? Bill Judy responds Matthew 27:45-54 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!"Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!" -- NKJV Matthew 27:45-54 Hi Judy, is there nothing explicit to substantiate your claim? This doesn't say anything about Jesus taking "our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary." Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus Matthew 27:45-54 On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 16:05:11 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. Hi Judy.You've madethis claimon numerous occasions: Can you tell me where exactly in Scripture it is stated? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus How nice that you are thinking about my well being JD .. I appreciate the thought Only you had better get your belief system together and study to learnwhat sin is all about because whenthe light comes on you will be horrified that you ever believed and taught others that Jesus the pure and holy son of God was ever an evil carnal fleshly human born with a fallen Adamic nature just like you. This was not a requirement for Him to overcome in the 3 areas where AE failed. It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. This is the only time ever that there was a breach between Him and God the Father. This should be evidence enough of how God views sin. It is not individual acts alone, it is us. Our old unregenerate darkened heart. judyt On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:10:37 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A good reread for Judy. JD From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]Hi Judy. I would like to continue our dialogue about the humanity of Jesus. We discussed Romans 8:3 before. Romans 8:2-4(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:(4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. In past discussion, you say that the word "likeness" here means like but not the same as. I pointed out how this same word is used in Phil. 2:7 where it says he was made in the likeness of men. In this Philippians passage, I would not argue that Jesus is similar to a man in appearance but is not really a man. I believe that you had agreed with me that Jesus was indeed truly a man.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
Hi Judy, where did you come up with this idea concerning bishops "who wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted addingan extra biblical definition"? To my knowledge, I've not come across it before. Would you please substantiate it referentially? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus No I am not speaking of Arian JD. When I say Berean I am talking about the Bishops who wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted addingan extra biblical definition. This is being "Berean" as per Acts 17:11. On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:39:51 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You speak of Arian when you say "the'Berean' (whatever that is) bishops finally caved? JD-Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:31:43 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:10:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It does not appear that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ -- but something that is bigger and even more important. Judy, please be careful, here, that in your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own beliefs. jt: I agree with the statement above JD My belief is that our disagreement most likelygoes all the way back to the council of Niceain May 325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine God using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural -For this reason they hadproblems getting complete agreement -but the "Berean" bishopsfinally caved. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus jt: I don't trust your memory Bill. I would have to see this because this does not sound like anything I even believe... The Arians didn't cave .. they were hunted down as hereticks by Athanasius just like the Donatists were hunted down by Augustine and Servetus was hunted down by Calvin. On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:06:09 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to the Arian bishopsat Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved into Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating Arianism? Bill From: Judy Taylor Thanks so much for this outline Kats (is it?) If it is in response to the dialogue between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do notadvocate Docetism, Donatism, Arianism,or any other ism. You write: Jesus was both divine and human but perhaps we do not think often enough of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus came to break down barriers between between God and us and if do not acknowledge the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was like us in every way except sin as the Letter to the Hebrews says in 4:15, we are erecting barriers between God and us once again.Also Heb 2:17-18 states. "It was essential that he should be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expaite the sins of the people. For the suffering he himself passed through while being put to the test enables him to help others when they are being put to the test." jt: Just wondering if youhold to what is known as "Orthodoxy" Kats. "Christ Jesus... thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." Philippians 2:5-7
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yeah, I know it is. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death We had an enjoyable family discussion around the dinner table tonight about, among other things, how God is the source of everything that exists in the universe, and how He is the one who holds it all together by His word at every momentfrom the vastness of the universe to the quarks that make up the molecules. The more we learn about science, the more the word of God proves true. Certainly in Him all things consisteven your next breath depends upon His presence and grace. That doesnt, however, mean that all humans are in Christ, (which to me is the same thing as Christ in you.), just because they are present in His creation/universe. Neither are the slugs and spiders, simply because they are created and exist by His permission/will. To me in Christ is a whole different thing. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:46 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Col 1.16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. It is not my opinion that matters here, Izzy. Please read the above and respond if you like. As for my opinion, I believed that everything is reconciled in Christ, but not everyone is willing to participate in that reconciliation -- the devil and bin Laden included. They and many others are refusing the reconciliation of God in Christ. The devil in particular will forever refuse that reconciliation (we have the end of the story as far as he is concerned). This however does not negate the fact that God has re-gathered in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him (see Eph 1.10). Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death So even satan and osama bin laden are in Christ in your opinion? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:30 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death IF it were the same, then how could you have existed prior to your reception of the Holy Spirit? In Christ is the existence of everything. Christ in you is exclusive in that he is present only in believers; hence their hope of glory. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death How's that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death
Bill wrote Okay, I willaddress your question and then try to summarize my position. I chose not to answer your question for the following reason: implicit in your wording is the assumption that we can separate the spirit aspect of personhood from the other aspects, the whole of which integrates to form what we call "persons," and that we can then address that aspect in abstention of the others.I do not accept that premise as it relates to our discussion, and therefore could not answer your question in the form it was structured. Izzy responds In other words, I stumped you, huh? J BT No. It was one of those have-you-stopped-cheating-on-your-husband questions -- yes-or-no. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death Izzy asks Do you have a biblical term that expresses mans spiritual condition prior to receiving Christ as Savior and Lord? Okay, I willaddress your question and then try to summarize my position. I chose not to answer your question for the following reason: implicit in your wording is the assumption that we can separate the spirit aspect of personhood from the other aspects, the whole of which integrates to form what we call "persons," and that we can then address that aspect in abstention of the others.I do not accept that premise as it relates to our discussion, and therefore could not answer your question in the form it was structured. In other words, I stumped you, huh? J When the biblical authors speak to living subjects of their present or prior state of death, they are speaking metaphorically of their entire person; e.g., when Paul writes that his readers had been dead in trespasses and sin, he is speaking of their entire state of being and not just about their spiritual condition. The spirit aspect of their personhood was no more dead and no more alive than the rest of their being. So you think a person cannot be spiritually dead until they are physically dead? If a person is physically alive, he is also spiritually alive??? He is speaking metaphorically about the hopelessness and helplessness of their entire former existencein the depravity of their fallen state. Implicit in his use of the term "dead" is the conveyance that they could do nothing of themselves to remedy the fact that they were doomed in that former state. Agreed, of course. I hope this will satisfy your request and trust that we have pretty much exhausted the need to continue this discussion. No, not really, but I think you must be tuckered out, Bill. I think if I keep pointing out the holes in your theory, so to speak, you might get either really angry or have to give up and agree with me once in a while. J Thank you for your patience and the charity with which you conducted yourself. It is a pleasure to converse with you when we are not nipping at each others heels. God bless you, Absolutely likewise, Bill, and thanks, as it was enjoyable. izzy Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:03 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death BT:Izzy, maybe you can help me out here, but it seems to me that your eyes would need to have been opened prior to this "born again" experience (that moment when you put your faith in Jesus Christ) or you never would have had the ability to even have thedesire to be receptive to the things of God. Do you understand what I'm saying and can you help me out here? Iz: Well, Bill, maybe it was kind of like when youmarried your wife. First you fell in love. And then you joined each other in matrimony. The marriage part is like when you got born again and became one. There was a precursor, but it wasn't consummated until you were one spirit so to speak. I was alive when I fell in love with my future bride. And I make no bones about it. You, on the other hand, in order to be consistent, would have to argue that you were dead when you fell in love with your future husband. H. I wonder what he saw in you :) BT:Paul tells us that Christ re-gatheredall things (Eph 1.10) and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go using one of those nonbiblical words, Bill. I had said something the other dayin reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the term here to give that first statement some context.Yes, we sometimesusenon-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same but berate others when they do it. Iz: I find that interesting, Bill, sincethis whole discussion got started because you objected to thoseof us who were using the term "spiritual" in front of death because you considered "spiritual" to be a nonbiblical term. So, since then, I've been trying to point out that you, also, use "nonbiblical" terms all the time. Right? You'd better check your records, Izzy. This whole thing started when I pointed out that Judy too had been treating a "doctrine of man" as authoritative, namely, Augustine's doctrine of spiritual death. I had beenaccused of"touting" Barth and Torrance, andI was simply pointing out that it was not just the "libs" who treat others authoritatively. In point of fact, I have never had a problem with using appropriately indicative language to speak about biblical concepts, even when that language is "non-biblical." Neither have I denied the influence of others in my spiritual development. In that same post I also wrote, "I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs --which is indeed quite significant." The reason that this thread took off like it did was because Judy took offence that I had attributed her doctrine to Augustine, claiming insteadthat he was not the one who came up with "spiritual death"; thatit "is right there in Genesis."Well, it is not right there in Genesis. It is not anywhere. On every ocassion it is an interpretation, just as when I read the same Scripture pertaining to language of death and interpret it in a different way. So you can keep on pointing out my use of non-biblical termonology if you like, but it won't make much of a splash on myend of the pool, 'causeI'm not the hypocrite on this one. (? Am I looking at the ontological me in the mirror, or at Izzys decaying physical body? Do people get cosmetic surgery for ontological bodies? Meanwhile my body gets a day older every day, and a day closer to the grave. But my spirit is renewed and growing every day. Thats why Ill be happy to trade in the old model of my body for a new/improved version!) Yeah, I hear you there. I do hope God doesn't want any brickin' done when I get to heaven though. And don't say he'll probably stick me in the furnace! :) I laid brick in Minnesota one winter, replacing burned-out walls inside oftaconite furnaces. If I stood in one place too long, my boots would start on fire. Too hot for me!! Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this power. All existence is in Christ Jesus.It is in him that the real you exists. Bill Izzy responds: So you are not being metaphorical about myPHYSICAL BODY beingcurrently risen in Christ, sitting in heaven? Really!
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
No, my point was firstly that it was a non-biblical term -- so be honest enough to recognize that you too are putting your trust in a "doctrine of man";and secondly that it wasinaccurate -- if what you areactually holding to is the idea of a literal spiritual death. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death BT:Paul tells us that Christ re-gatheredall things (Eph 1.10) and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go using one of those nonbiblical words, Bill. I had said something the other dayin reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the term here to give that first statement some context.Yes, we sometimesusenon-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same but berate others when they do it. Iz: I find that interesting, Bill, sincethis whole discussion got started because you objected to thoseof us who were using the term "spiritual" in front of death because you considered "spiritual" to be a nonbiblical term. So, since then, I've been trying to point out that you, also, use "nonbiblical" terms all the time. Right? You'd better check your records, Izzy. This whole thing started when I pointed out that Judy too had been treating a "doctrine of man" as authoritative, namely, Augustine's doctrine of spiritual death. I had beenaccused of"touting" Barth and Torrance, andI was simply pointing out that it was not just the "libs" who treat others authoritatively. In point of fact, I have never had a problem with using appropriately indicative language to speak about biblical concepts, even when that language is "non-biblical." Neither have I denied the influence of others in my spiritual development. In that same post I also wrote, "I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs --which is indeed quite significant." The reason that this thread took off like it did was because Judy took offence that I had attributed her doctrine to Augustine, claiming insteadthat he was not the one who came up with "spiritual death"; thatit "is right there in Genesis."Well, it is not right there in Genesis. It is not anywhere. On every ocassion it is an interpretation, just as when I read the same Scripture pertaining to language of death and interpret it in a different way. So you can keep on pointing out my use of non-biblical termonology if you like, but it won't make much of a splash on myend of the pool, 'causeI'm not the hypocrite on this one. Izzy responds: So you really don'tobject, on the grounds of being a nonbiblical term, if we use the term "spiritual death" Bill?
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
No one has changed any words, Kevin. This is a false accusation. I changed the translation of a word to more accurately reflect the original intent. bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:45 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Here we have a perfect example of what modern day Jehudi's do to God's word. If it disagrees with their doctrine CHANGE the word. "A better translation would be 'ABOVE'" Once you change one word why not another and another. See how men help out God. I wonder if Marcion got his start by modifying one word? "Marcion the heretic, (AD 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (AD 200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat. "Instead of a stylus," says Tertullian, "Marcion employed a knife. What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?" S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name, accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title." The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark, p 106 Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Footnotes in the New King James and NASV show born "from above" to be a viable translation and my Brown/Comfort Greek interlinear English translation actually uses "born from above" rather than "born again." JD == Terry wrote: Born again is correct. Izzy responds: If you were born "from below" the first time, and "bornfrom above" the second time, wasn't the second time born "again"? __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this power. All existence is in Christ Jesus.It is in him that the real you exists. Bill Izzy responds: So you are not being metaphorical about myPHYSICAL BODY beingcurrently risen in Christ, sitting in heaven? Really!
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
I am not interested in going down the same road again, so I will abstain from answering your question. God's blessings, Bill By the way, I think I understand your position. Thank you for expressing it. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:09 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death My view is more correctly this: spiritual death is simply the pre-quickened (ie: born-again) spiritual state of any person. They are not yet awakened to things of the Holy Spirit. Scripture holds no real interest for them compared to the philosophies of men. They have no grasp of true spiritual concepts. It is literal in that it is true. But it is not final until actual physical death. Do you understand what I am saying? I am trying to express my viewnot to convince you. I would use another term if it expressed what I mean in the same way. Do you have a biblical term that expresses mans spiritual condition prior to receiving Christ as Savior and Lord? Or do you think there is no such condition? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:13 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death No, my point was firstly that it was a non-biblical term -- so be honest enough to recognize that you too are putting your trust in a "doctrine of man";and secondly that it wasinaccurate -- if what you areactually holding to is the idea of a literal spiritual death. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death BT:Paul tells us that Christ re-gatheredall things (Eph 1.10) and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go using one of those nonbiblical words, Bill. I had said something the other dayin reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the term here to give that first statement some context.Yes, we sometimesusenon-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same but berate others when they do it. Iz: I find that interesting, Bill, sincethis whole discussion got started because you objected to thoseof us who were using the term "spiritual" in front of death because you considered "spiritual" to be a nonbiblical term. So, since then, I've been trying to point out that you, also, use "nonbiblical" terms all the time. Right? You'd better check your records, Izzy. This whole thing started when I pointed out that Judy too had been treating a "doctrine of man" as authoritative, namely, Augustine's doctrine of spiritual death. I had beenaccused of"touting" Barth and Torrance, andI was simply pointing out that it was not just the "libs" who treat others authoritatively. In point of fact, I have never had a problem with using appropriately indicative language to speak about biblical concepts, even when that language is "non-biblical." Neither have I denied the influence of others in my spiritual development. In that same post I also wrote, "I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs --which is indeed quite significant." The reason that this thread took off like it did was because Judy took offence that I had attributed her doctrine to Augustine, claiming insteadthat he was not the one who came up with "spiritual death"; thatit "is right there in Genesis."Well, it is not right there in Genesis. It is not anywhere. On every ocassion it is an interpretation, just as when I read the same Scripture pertaining to language of death and interpret it in a different way. So you can keep on pointing out my use of non-biblical termonology if you like, but it won't make much of a splash on myend of the pool, 'causeI'm not the hypocrite on this one. Izzy responds: So you really don'tobject, on the grounds of being a nonbiblical term, if we use the term "spiritual death" Bill?
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
IF it were the same, then how could you have existed prior to your reception of the Holy Spirit? In Christ is the existence of everything. Christ in you is exclusive in that he is present only in believers; hence their hope of glory. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death How's that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this power. All existence is in Christ Jesus.It is in him that the real you exists. Bill Izzy responds: So you are not being metaphorical about myPHYSICAL BODY beingcurrently risen in Christ, sitting in heaven? Really!
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Everytime you read your KJV, you are reading "changed" words, Kevin: this because you are reading a translation. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Thats always the line! The watchtower did not change anywords either, they changed the translation,see the NWT!Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one has changed any words, Kevin. This is a false accusation. I changed the translation of a word to more accurately reflect the original intent. bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:45 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Here we have a perfect example of what modern day Jehudi's do to God's word. If it disagrees with their doctrine CHANGE the word. "A better translation would be 'ABOVE'" Once you change one word why not another and another. See how men help out God. I wonder if Marcion got his start by modifying one word? "Marcion the heretic, (AD 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (AD 200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat. "Instead of a stylus," says Tertullian, "Marcion employed a knife. What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?" S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name, accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title." The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark, p 106 Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Footnotes in the New King James and NASV show born "from above" to be a viable translation and my Brown/Comfort Greek interlinear English translation actually uses "born from above" rather than "born again." JD == Terry wrote: Born again is correct. Izzy responds: If you were born "from below" the first time, and "bornfrom above" the second time, wasn't the second time born "again"? __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Izzy asks Do you have a biblical term that expresses mans spiritual condition prior to receiving Christ as Savior and Lord? Okay, I willaddress your question and then try to summarize my position. I chose not to answer your question for the following reason: implicit in your wording is the assumption that we can separate the spirit aspect of personhood from the other aspects, the whole of which integrates to form what we call "persons," and that we can then address that aspect in abstention of the others.I do not accept that premise as it relates to our discussion, and therefore could not answer your question in the form it was structured. When the biblical authors speak to living subjects of their present or prior state of death, they are speaking metaphorically of their entire person; e.g., when Paul writes that his readers had been dead in trespasses and sin, he is speaking of their entire state of being and not just about their spiritual condition. The spirit aspect of their personhood was no more dead and no more alive than the rest of their being. He is speaking metaphorically about the hopelessness and helplessness of their entire former existencein the depravity of their fallen state. Implicit in his use of the term "dead" is the conveyance that they could do nothing of themselves to remedy the fact that they were doomed in that former state. I hope this will satisfy your request and trust that we have pretty much exhausted the need to continue this discussion. Thank you for your patience and the charity with which you conducted yourself. It is a pleasure to converse with you when we are not nipping at each others heels. God bless you, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:27 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Just when I think I've cornered you into acknowledging the obvious you quit playing. Oh, well iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:22 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death I am not interested in going down the same road again, so I will abstain from answering your question. God's blessings, Bill By the way, I think I understand your position. Thank you for expressing it. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:09 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death My view is more correctly this: spiritual death is simply the pre-quickened (ie: born-again) spiritual state of any person. They are not yet awakened to things of the Holy Spirit. Scripture holds no real interest for them compared to the philosophies of men. They have no grasp of true spiritual concepts. It is literal in that it is true. But it is not final until actual physical death. Do you understand what I am saying? I am trying to express my viewnot to convince you. I would use another term if it expressed what I mean in the same way. Do you have a biblical term that expresses mans spiritual condition prior to receiving Christ as Savior and Lord? Or do you think there is no such condition? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:13 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death No, my point was firstly that it was a non-biblical term -- so be honest enough to recognize that you too are putting your trust in a "doctrine of man";and secondly that it wasinaccurate -- if what you areactually holding to is the idea of a literal spiritual death. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death BT:Paul tells us that Christ re-gatheredall things (Eph 1.10) and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go using one of those nonbiblical words, Bill. I had said something the other dayin reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the term here to give that first statement some context.Yes, we sometimesusenon-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been that we do this. My gripe is
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Col 1.16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. It is not my opinion that matters here, Izzy. Please read the above and respond if you like. As for my opinion, I believed that everything is reconciled in Christ, but not everyone is willing to participate in that reconciliation -- the devil and bin Laden included. They and many others are refusing the reconciliation of God in Christ. The devil in particular will forever refuse that reconciliation (we have the end of the story as far as he is concerned). This however does not negate the fact that God has re-gathered in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him (see Eph 1.10). Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death So even satan and osama bin laden are in Christ in your opinion? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:30 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death IF it were the same, then how could you have existed prior to your reception of the Holy Spirit? In Christ is the existence of everything. Christ in you is exclusive in that he is present only in believers; hence their hope of glory. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death How's that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this power. All existence is in Christ Jesus.It is in him that the real you exists. Bill Izzy responds: So you are
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yes, "Pantheism" means "allis God." That, however, is not what I am suggesting. As to your other comment, I will direct you to the post I sent to Izzy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Excuse me but isn't it pantheism when God and the creation are one and the same? Our God is transcendent, that is, above and apart from the Creation. Only the New Creation (which is spiritual) is in Christ. jt On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:25:17 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So even satan and osama bin laden are in Christ in your opinion? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:30 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death IF it were the same, then how could you have existed prior to your reception of the Holy Spirit? In Christ is the existence of everything. Christ in you is exclusive in that he is present only in believers; hence their hope of glory. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death How's that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this power. All existence is in Christ Jesus.It is in him that the real you exists. Bill Izzy responds: So you are not being metaphorical about myPHYSICAL
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
I fixed a typo. - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Col 1.16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. It is not my opinion that matters here, Izzy. Please read the above and respond if you like. As for my opinion, I believe that everything is reconciled in Christ, but not everyone is willing to participate in that reconciliation -- the devil and bin Laden included. They and many others are refusing the reconciliation of God in Christ. The devil in particular will forever refuse that reconciliation (we have the end of the story as far as he is concerned). This however does not negate the fact that God has re-gathered in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him (see Eph 1.10). Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death So even satan and osama bin laden are in Christ in your opinion? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:30 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death IF it were the same, then how could you have existed prior to your reception of the Holy Spirit? In Christ is the existence of everything. Christ in you is exclusive in that he is present only in believers; hence their hope of glory. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death How's that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Yeah, I suppose so -- AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A METAPHOR NOW! Your "spirit" is growing stronger because of Christ IN you via the Holy Spirit. That is differentthanyou in Christ, in terms of your existence. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death And while I am metaphorically sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, my physical body is notit is right here, going downhill, even as my spirit person is getting better every day in Christ. So is my spirit in a different place than my body, Bill? Of course not. This shows that one can use a metaphor to express something that is not a physical reality. Can one be spiritually dead w/o being physically dead? Of course. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy, let's not be silly. You've got one body and it's getting older. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Iz: I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. :-) So are you agreeing with me that our physical bodies really are dying, Yes. and you are speaking only metaphorically about our bodies being risen with Christ at the moment? Izzy Well, if I understand what you are getting at, this would not be metaphorical. I am talking about your existence, your being, that which holds you together and sustains you, and makes you real and gives you life. You do not have the power of existence in or of yourself. You are totally dependent on another for that. Neither does anyone else have this
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Bill in Black - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:47 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy is red: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:44 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death SNIP As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again," the church, and especially the "rivalist" (Revivalist) Yikes! thanks, no offence intended. Perhaps this was one of those Freudian slips :) church in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a whole new andbiblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining to salvation. Such as Perichoresis or Trinity? These actually find their origin back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. But your point is well taken.Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediatelife-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of that practice in the New Testament witness. Im hoping you read my post on that regarding the fact that I was referring to one praying a non-scripted type of prayer to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior. The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. I believe Ive read you using that term, have I not? I probably have, if you are referring to 'regeneration.' But then again, I consider this to be an act of God as set forth in Titus 3, so I'm not treating it as a "born again experience." I don't recall talking in terms of being "born again," but I may have; I would want to check the context.The truth is, theNT does not use the term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicariousregeneration Book chapter and verse please? Titus 3.4-7 which took place in Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy Spirit through Christ did for humanity,and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made newand rewards granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondenceto our conversion experience. Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3 and 3.7, is used alsoin John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as "again" but as"from above": "He who comes from above is above all ..." I believe that this is how John's word needs to be understood in verses 3 and 7, and this even though Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus' use of the word. How could Nicodemus make this mistake? In the Greek this word can mean several things; it can mean "from the beginning"; or "from the first"; or "from above"; or "anew" or "again." Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying that he needed to be born "again"; therefore his question about returning a second time to his mother's womb. But Jesus was not speaking of being born a second time; he was speaking aboutbeing born "from above"; hence his reply that it takes both a physical birth and a birth of the Spirit to be one who is "born from above." Of course. However the term again was used and should not be swept aside as irrelevant, either.It was used as a translation of John's word. Thequestion is, is it the besttranslation?It is obvious that "again" will not work to translate the same wordin 3.31. Thus, in the context of John 3, I think itbest to stick with the idea of"from above" throughout the entire passage; that is, unless you want to argue that John would use the same word inhissummary statement (verse 31), to mean something other than itmeant when he used it in the mainbody of his narrative. SNIP And so, if we can gather anything through this exchange, weought to conclude that this "born again" phenomenon is not nearly so clear cut and simple as we have been taught to believe. Jesus does not say exactlyhow it is that the "all" were
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Please tell me, though, if you can the answer to my question: How is one regenerated if one was not dead in the first place? Thanks for your patience. izzy I will do that, Izzy, as best I can, but I would like to first address something else you said, and then use that as a segue into a discussion of regeneration and what it means to be "born again." You wrote that you were not confused at all untilyou got into this conversation and that I seem to take the simple and make it confusing. I am sorry that you feel that way, and I assure you that I am not trying to complicate things that are intrinsically simple. I also know that I am not as good a communicator as I want to be and ought to be, and so I keep trying to better my skills in that area and admit in the meantime my deficiencies. There is a proverb which says that one story sounds true until it is challenged by another(Pro 18.17). I think that is what's happening here. You have heard and used this language of spiritual death and regeneration and born again for a very long time, and since so many Christians hold beliefs similar to the ones you hold, yours have pretty much stood unchallenged; hence they seemed simple and self evident to you. Thensome guycomes along and speaks to these terms from a different vantage point and suddenly it seems that he has complicated and confused the issues. Well, on the one hand, I have complicated matters: I am workingfrom one set of presuppositions and you another. My thoughts don't easily fit in your box. In order for you to understand me, you are required to think out of the box. And that is always difficult to say the least.But as long as you attempt to fit my thoughts into your paradigm, they will seem complex and confused. And so you may never make sense of them. You may not even want to. But on the other hand, they are not complicated or confusing to me. And this because they are my thoughts;they fit comfortably within my working paradigm. It seems to me that the thing that matters most to you,is this: which "story" best addresses biblical issues? That isa good place to be and it is certainlyan important consideration from my paradigm as well. I happen to think, however, with my background and interest in matters of theological and historical significance,thatI am probably a little better equipped to consider these issues from a broader context, than perhaps you are or some of the others may be. This is not a criticism of you or the things which matter to you, but neither is it an apology on my part. I am who I ambecause God has designed me this way. It is important to me to be able to give consistent, cogent answers where others have failed. And I think in many instances I am able to do this.God has graced me with an ability to take multiple positions into consideration and then workthem towarda synthesis, which addressees both thepositivesand thenegatives ofthe variouspositions. I think this is part of what it means to be gifteda "teacher." As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again," the church, and especially the "rivalist" church in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a whole new andbiblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining to salvation. Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediatelife-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of that practice in the New Testament witness. The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. The truth is, theNT does not use the term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicariousregeneration which took place in Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy Spirit through Christ did for humanity,and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made newand rewards granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondenceto our conversion experience. Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3 and 3.7, is used alsoin John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
rstand? No.
Jesus said "The time is coming "and NOW IS" when the
dead shall hear" (John 5:25) and when he said this the resurrection was
future (John 5:28,29). Jesus describes passing from death to life (see
John 5:24)
In Acts Paul reasoned in the synagogue
and persuaded both (unbelieving) Jews Greeks
to believe (Acts 18:4).
Paul wrote to the church at Corinth "knowing the
terror of the Lord we persuade (unbelieving) men (2
Cor 5:11)
It is also good to note that the bible
uses the word dead to describesaved people
also:
Romans 6:2,7,11 Being dead to sin (does not mean
that it is now impossible for a believer to sin)
Romans 6:8 - Dead with Christ
Colossians
2:20 Dead to the basic principles of the world
Galatians 2:19
I through the law died to the law; (dead to the law)
Colossians 3:3 For
you died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (believers are
dead)
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:53:25 -0600 "Bill Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:
From: "Charles Perry Locke" cpl2602@hotmail.com
Bill,It appears in scripture that there is a point at
which one becomes"spiritually alive". Often, this is referred to as
"quickening". Check outthese verses:
Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened,
who were dead in trespasses andsins;
BT: Yes, and Paul clarifies in Eph 2.5 and Col 2.13 that this happened "together with
Christ." When was Christ made alive from the dead? At his resurrection.
When were we made alive together with him? At his
resurrection.
_
Ephesians 2:5 - Even when we were dead in
sins, hath quickened us togetherwith Christ, (by grace ye are
saved;)
BT: Again, it was while they were dead that
something happened which made them alive (by grace they were saved). In
other words, it had nothing to do with anything they did on their
part.When did this quickening take place? "together with
Christ."
_
Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your
sins and the uncircumcision
ofyour flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven
you alltrespasses;
BT: It was while they were yet dead that this
took place, their forgiveness included.
_
1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also hath once
suffered for sins, the just for theunjust, that he might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh, butquickened by the
Spirit:
BT: This is speaking of what Christ endured on
our behalf as well as what he accomplished via his deathand
resurrection, he "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit."
_
So, we might think of "spiritual death" as
being "dead in trespasses andsins". It is when we come to believe
and trust in Jesus (and all that itimplies) that we are "quickened",
or gain spiritual life.
BT: I know that this is what you believe,
Perry, along with many other Christians today, but I ask you to consider
how it is possible that your "belief" and "trust" have anything to do with
this. Paul's tells us that this happened while his readers "were yet
dead"; that is to saythat they were in a state of death when Christ
accomplished this quickening on their behalf.
_
How about these verses:
John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word,
andbelieveth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life, and shall not comeinto condemnation; but is
passed from death unto life.
BT: I very much love this verse; it is one of
my favorites. It speaks to the assurance of salvation for those who
believe. Yet it does not take away from the possibility of salvation for
some who do not believe -- and I am thinking primarily of people who have
not rejected Jesus Christ. They are not necessarily condemned, although
theylack the assurance of belief.
_
1 John 3:14 John We know that we have passed
from death unto life, becausewe love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
BT: John's writings are rich with contrasts:
light vs darkness; love vs hate;truth vs lies; life vs death; children of God vs children of the devil, and on and on. To
conclude that this is all about spiritual life vs spiritual death is to miss much of
Re: [TruthTalk] your job
I'll be five weeks in training (indoctrination)before I start teaching. Some of it will be helpful; most of it just learning how to do things the CCA way. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] your job First day on job? How goes it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
I have not one time claimed that Jesus' statement pertained to physically dead people buryingthe dead. This is your confusion, Judy -- not mine. If you are so base as to draw that conclusion, how are you competent to draw any conclusions? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:13:18 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mar 12.30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." To which Judy responded with ridicule, implying insteadthatJesus' statement was only in reference to the spiritual aspect, i.e., it was a reference to spiritual death and nothing else.* jt: Bill, I don't see it as ridicule to say what the Bible says. There is no way a physically dead person can get out there and dig a hole in order to bury another physically dead person now is there?In scripture this concept of death is that of being separated from God because of sin which as I have been saying is what happened to AE in the garden. Anything else is confusion. Judy, if first century Jews prior to the cross were called to love God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, what do you suppose they were not doing when they refused to follow his Son? jt: Only disciples were being called to follow the son at this point (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60)- Also I would like to point out that the same _expression_ is used in the parable of the Prodigal Son who was dead in the pigpen and returned to life after a change of heart (now is alive). It is also used in Ephesians 2:1 and in 1 Timothy 5:6. judyt Bill * When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? ... The dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Are you Perry? I didn't think so. bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death jt: You have added the requirement of being born again to the mix Bill when this is impossible under the Law. However, God is a covenant God andppl who lived under the Old Covenant or even before that who worshipped and served him with what was available to them (like Job) He calls"righteous" ... Why make it so difficult?? Leave the infants, unborn babies and mentally retarded in the hands of a faithful Creator.We don't need to be anxious over them jt On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:08:22 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry wrote The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are"spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lorddwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry fromfollowing Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family aboveJesus. Well, this is not exactly what I had in mind, Perry; although, I do agree with your final statement. Would you mind clarifying your opening comments? Is this how you view "spiritual death": those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually dead, and those who do have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually alive? Was the Spirit of the Lord indwelling Jesus' followers prior to his ascension? What do you think: were those followers spiritually dead, or were they spiritually alive? Are all non-believers spiritually dead -- infants and unborn babies included? What about the mentally retarded: are they spiritually dead, or dothey have the Spirit of God indwelling them? Just curious, Bill From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are"spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lorddwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry fromfollowing Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family aboveJesus.From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks,Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote: I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound. ... It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined as a similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here - When He says "death"
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
jt: Bill, I don't see it as ridicule to say what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say anything about spiritual death. That is something you are adding. Why don't you treat yourself with the scrutiny you exact on others? Why don't you say what the Bible says? jt: Only disciples were being called to follow the son at this point (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60)- Whom was Jesus calling when he said, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead"? Do you deny that he was calling this person to follow him? And were only certain Jews supposed tolove God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and the rest were exempt? What do you suppose this Jew was not doing when he refused to follow God's Son? You don't have to answer these questions, Judy; they are rhetorical: one of those confusing linguistic constructs. IN OTHER WORDS, they are so obvious as to not require answers. Also I would like to point out that the same _expression_ is used in the parable of the Prodigal Son who was dead in the pigpen and returned to life after a change of heart (now is alive). It is also used in Ephesians 2:1 and in 1 Timothy 5:6. Judy, you are the one who made a big issue out of distinguishing things before the cross and after the cross. I simply satisfied your criterion and asked questions pertaining to a time prior to the cross. Yes, "dead" is used of people on both sides of the cross. However after the cross it is used in a past tense, i.e, you were dead. The cross stands as that which gave them life. Bill - Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death I have not one time claimed that Jesus' statement pertained to physically dead people buryingthe dead. This is your confusion, Judy -- not mine. If you are so base as to draw that conclusion, how are you competent to draw any conclusions? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:13:18 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mar 12.30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." To which Judy responded with ridicule, implying insteadthatJesus' statement was only in reference to the spiritual aspect, i.e., it was a reference to spiritual death and nothing else.* jt: Bill, I don't see it as ridicule to say what the Bible says. There is no way a physically dead person can get out there and dig a hole in order to bury another physically dead person now is there?In scripture this concept of death is that of being separated from God because of sin which as I have been saying is what happened to AE in the garden. Anything else is confusion. Judy, if first century Jews prior to the cross were called to love God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, what do you suppose they were not doing when they refused to follow his Son? jt: Only disciples were being called to follow the son at this point (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60)- Also I would like to point out that the same _expression_ is used in the parable of the Prodigal Son who was dead in the pigpen and returned to life after a change of heart (now is alive). It is also used in Ephesians 2:1 and in 1 Timothy 5:6. judyt Bill * When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? ... The dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
The prison is in lock-down today -- some kind of weapons violation; hence no one goes in and no one comes out. And so,for those who may be wondering,I am at home for the time being and not at work. Bill wrote The cross stands as that which gave them life. jt: The cross always represents death. judyt Judy, you are the one who is constantly ridiculing others for referring to the Christ event (the life, death, resurrection, and ascension) rather than to"the cross." If I had said instead that the Christ event stands as that which gave them life, what would your response have been? You are being ridiculous. jt: I try to exact the same scrutiny on myself and I want to say what the Bible says. the 2nd death is described in Revelation 21:8 and is different from what Jesus speaks of in Luke 9:60. Judy, I've already clarified this. Why the obstinance? Once again, AND PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME, I am not distinguishing between the first death and the second death as mentioned in Revelation. Let go of that fallacious idea. I am distinguishing between the two deaths mentioned in Jesus' statement: the first time he uses the word "dead" and the second time he uses the word "dead." The first reference to "dead" has to be understood as speaking to a different situation than the second reference to "dead."The first reference is a metaphor; the second reference is literal. You plug in "spiritual" to satisfy the metaphor, as did Augustine and many since him.BUT unlikeAugustine,you then treat "spiritual death" itself as a metaphor and not as a literal spiritual death.I will quote you again: "This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day." Hence, byyour own definition you treat "spiritual death" as a metaphor which speaks to something else. Now, you don't have to admit this, but if you won't, why don't you just drop it? You are making a fool of yourself. Please just stop being so obstinate about this --either that or go ahead and embrace Augustine's positionand treat your doctrine of spiritual death in the same way as he: that spiritual death meansthat "their" spirit is literally dead.Then at least you will not have to concede that spiritual death is metaphorical of something else. If you won't do this, then do whatever you want:just leave my comments completely out of your considerations. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:56:22 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Bill, I don't see it as ridicule to say what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say anything about spiritual death. That is something you are adding. Why don't you treat yourself with the scrutiny you exact on others? Why don't you say what the Bible says? jt: I try to exact the same scrutiny on myself and I want to say what the Bible says. the 2nd death is described in Revelation 21:8 and is different from what Jesus speaks of in Luke 9:60.Only disciples were being called to follow the son at this point (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60)- Whom was Jesus calling when he said, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead"? Do you deny that he was calling this person to follow him? jt: He said this to one of his disciples - they are the ones who travelled with him for 3 1/2yrs; he did send out the 70 to do the work of the ministry but ppl were not called and invited to His Kingdom until the Promise was sent on the day of Pentecost because the covenant was not ratified until there was a death. And were only certain Jews supposed tolove God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and the rest were exempt? What do you suppose this Jew was not doing when he refused to follow God's Son? You don't have to answer these questions, Judy; they are rhetorical: one of those confusing linguistic constructs. IN OTHER WORDS, they are so obvious as to not require answers. jt: They are only obvious in your mind Bill. Loving God under the Old Covenant was obeying the law of Moses. The ministry of the Son was teaching about and introducing a "New and Living Way" available to them upon his death. I would like to point out that the same _expression_ is used in the parable of the Prodigal Son who was dead in the pigpen and returned to life after a change of heart (now is alive). It is also used in Ephesians 2:1 and in 1 Timothy 5:6. Judy, you are the one who mad
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy Do you mean that their spirits are literally dead? If so, then how can they, of their own free will, choose to serve God? Wouldn't the spiritual aspect of their beings have to be regenerated before that choice could be made? In other words, how could a dead spirit choose to become a live spirit, one which could respond to God in service to him? I know you want to help your friend, and she certainly needs all the help you can give her, but please don't digress. That only adds further confusion to the discussion. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, Spiritual death is as much a reality as is physical death. Do you agree? (Please answer.) No, I do not agree. This term is either an unbiblical doctrine(cf. as set forth in the Augustinian/Calvinist position) or it is metaphorical language and as such it is representative of something elso, which may be real (cf. this has been your position).In reality, and this is my position, it is not something which takes place in the absence of physical death, and in view of the resurrection of the dead, it is only something which could happen in the "second death," as set forth in thebook ofRevelation. Humans are non-reductive wholes. You have said so yourself. You can talk about the differnent aspects of personhood, but once you separate them and call one dead and the rest alive, you are no longer talking about humans.A personis either alive, or he is dead, but he is not partly this and partly that. That is Greek mythology. It means spiritual separation from Godhell bound. Jesus just called it dead. Would you prefer that we call people dead like Jesus did, rather than clarifying which type of death we are referring to? (Please answer.) I wouldmuchprefer that you speak of it as Jesus did. And if you insist on then explaining his metaphor as being a reference to the spiritual aspect of personhood, then by all means go ahead as you have been doing and distinguish that this too (i.e., spiritual+death) is a metaphor for "separation from God." We will still disagree, but we will not be misleading ourselves with termonology which has stood for centuries as literal spiritual death. Do you object to us using the term physical death? (Please answer.) Do I do not -- but neither is there a long-standing, non-biblical doctrine of spiritual death, which stands in the way of our discussion, confusing our use of the term. If not, why the objection to us using the term spiritual death? (Please answer.) Because when you use this term, you open the door to no end of confusion, as demonstrated by our present discussion. You are not using the term in the way that those who coined it, used it. NOR are you using it in the way that the church has traditionally used it. You are using it in a different way. Hence in order to be understood, you have to be able to nuance it -- and that takes time. Why not drop the termonology and speak instead to the conclusion you have drawn from this metaphor? Bill Thanks, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Judy, I've already clarified this. Why the obstinance? Once again, AND PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME, I am not distinguishing between the first death and the second death as mentioned in Revelation. Let go of that fallacious idea. I am distinguishing between the two deaths mentioned in Jesus' statement: the first time he uses the word "dead" and the second time he uses the word "dead." The first reference to "dead" has to be understood as speaking to a different situation than the second reference to "dead."The first reference is a metaphor; the second reference is literal. You plug in "spiritual" to satisfy the metaphor, as did Augustine and many since him.BUT unlikeAugustine,you then treat "spiritual death" itself as a metaphor and not as a literal spiritual death.I will quote you again: "This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day." Hence, byyour own definition you treat "spiritual death" as a metaphor which speaks to something else. Now, you don't have to admit this, but if you won't, why don't you just drop it? You are making a fool of yourself. Please just stop being so obstinate about this --either that or go ahead and embrace Augustine's positionand treat your doctrine of spiritual death in the same way as he: that spiritual death meansthat "their" spirit is literally dead.Then at least you will not have to concede that spiritual death is metaphorical of something else. If you won't do this, then do whatever you want:just leave my comments completely out of your considerations. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yes, that would at least leave open the possibility for further discussion, without first having to muddle our way through the nuancing of an existing doctrine. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Would you like it better if I said Dead to the things of God??? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:02 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:26 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy in red: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy Do you mean that their spirits are literally dead? Yes, to the things of God.If so, then how can they, of their own free will, choose to serve God? By His grace alone. Then you are taking the Augustinian/Calvinist/traditional stance on this doctrine. The only ones who have the capability of believing are those whom God quickens to life; if he does not quicken you, you are left in yoursins and completely dead, dead, dead to the things of God. Hence you have no ability nor desire to even want to make a free-will choice to serve God.Is this yourposition? If it is not then I would suggest that you are not treating the spirit as if it were literally dead, as in spiritually dead. Wouldn't the spiritual aspect of their beings have to be regenerated before that choice could be made? In other words, how could a dead spirit choose to become a live spirit, one which could respond to God in service to him? How can an alive spirit be regenerated and made alive, Bill? I am not treating the language literally, Izzy. You are. Now you tell me the answers to your questions. How is one regenerated if one was not dead in the first place? I know you want to help your friend, and she certainly needs all the help you can give her, but please don't digress. That only adds further confusion to the discussion. You think Im digressing? You are my friend, also, Bill. Im trying to help both of you. iz Thank you, Izzy. I consider you a friend as well; however I also think you are digressing, if indeed you are now treating the spiritual aspect of personhood as being literally dead. Not even Judy is willing to go that far: "This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day." Moreover, when I pointed this out to you (her comments), along with comments that you had made, you agreed, stating "Yes. I see spiritually dead pretty much as you describe here IF you are assuming the person is dead (not alive) to things of the Holy Spirit (and hell-bound), which I think you do." To which I was able to agree, precisely because we were speaking of people who had been called to follow Jesus, but were rejecting him instead. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Judy, you are building a strawman. Please either stick with the discussion or drop it altogether. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill you also wrote: Neither of you seem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblicallanguage; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is asynthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of thisdoctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently byyou than by those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: So Bill, you can't see scripture clearly because you are locked into Augustine above and then later you write Bill: Do you mean that their spirits are literally dead? If so, then how can they, of their own free will, choose to serve God? Wouldn't the spiritual aspect of their beings have to be regenerated before that choice could be made? In other words, how could a dead spirit choose to become a live spirit, one which could respond to God in service to him? jt:You do not understand this concept in a biblical way Bill, to do so you will have todispense with Augustinian and Calvinistic eyeglasses Do you see thatyou claim metaphorin the discussion onLuke 9:60 and then go on to talk about Calvin's corpse conceptand nothaving a choice (which is"literal" taken to the extreme) rather than the metaphor. Can you see how doctrinal understandings that come from men are contradictory and cause confusion? Much better to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word and give us understanding. That way we don't have to cut anything out and it is not complicated. Really.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yes, it's a salaried position; however I would be getting overtime, had I have been their and had to stay over. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Got pay ??? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:45:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death The prison is in lock-down today -- some kind of weapons violation; hence no one goes in and no one comes out. And so,for those who may be wondering,I am at home for the time being and not at work. Bill wrote The cross stands as that which gave them life. jt: The cross always represents death. judyt Judy, you are the one who is constantly ridiculing others for referring to the Christ event (the life, death, resurrection, and ascension) rather than to"the cross." If I had said instead that the Christ event stands as that which gave them life, what would your response have been? You are being ridiculous. jt: I try to exact the same scrutiny on myself and I want to say what the Bible says. the 2nd death is described in Revelation 21:8 and is different from what Jesus speaks of in Luke 9:60. Judy, I've already clarified this. Why the obstinance? Once again, AND PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME, I am not distinguishing between the first death and the second death as mentioned in Revelation. Let go of that fallacious idea. I am distinguishing between the two deaths mentioned in Jesus' statement: the first time he uses the word "dead" and the second time he uses the word "dead." The first reference to "dead" has to be understood as speaking to a different situation than the second reference to "dead."The first reference is a metaphor; the second reference is literal. You plug in "spiritual" to satisfy the metaphor, as did Augustine and many since him.BUT unlikeAugustine,you then treat "spiritual death" itself as a metaphor and not as a literal spiritual death.I will quote you again: "This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day." Hence, byyour own definit ion you treat "spiritual death" as a metaphor which speaks to something else. Now, you don't have to admit this, but if you won't, why don't you just drop it? You are making a fool of yourself. Please just stop being so obstinate about this --either that or go ahead and embrace Augustine's positionand treat your doctrine of spiritual death in the same way as he: that spiritual death meansthat "their" spirit is literally dead.Then at least you will not have to concede that spiritual death is metaphorical of something else. If you won't do this, then do whatever you want:just leave my comments completely out of your considerations. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:56:22 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Bill, I don't see it as ridicule to say what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say anything about spiritual death. That is something you are adding. Why don't you treat yourself with the scrutiny you exact on others? Why don't you say what the Bible says? jt: I try to exact the same scrutiny on myself and I want to say what the Bible says. the 2nd death is described in Revelation 21:8 and is different from what Jesus speaks of in Luke 9:60.Only disciples were being called to follow the son at this point (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60)- Whom was Jesus calling when he said, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead"? Do you deny that he was calling this person to follow him? jt: He said this to one of his disciples - they are the ones who travelled with him for 3 1/2yrs; he did send out the 70 to do the work of the ministry but ppl were not called and invited to His Kingdom until the Promise was sent on the day of Pentecost because the covenant was not ratified until there was a death. And were only certain Jews supposed tolove God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and the rest were exempt? What do you suppose this Jew was not doing when he refused to follow God's Son? You don't have to answe
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
I'll correct some typos below.
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:21
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual
death
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:21
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual
death
Bill,
Spiritual death is
as much a reality as is physical death. Do you agree? (Please answer.)
No, I do not agree. This term is either an unbiblical
doctrine(cf. as set forth in the Augustinian/Calvinist position) or it
is metaphorical language and as such it is representative of something else,
which may be real (cf. this has been your position).In reality, and
this is my position, it is not something which takes place in the absence of
physical death, and in view of the resurrection of the dead, it is only
something which could happen in the "second death," as set forth in
thebook ofRevelation. Humans are non-reductive wholes. You have
said so yourself. You can talk about the differnent aspects of personhood,
but once you separate them and call one dead and the rest alive, you are no
longer talking about humans.A personis either alive, or he is
dead, but he is not partly this and partly that. That is Greek
mythology.
It means spiritual
separation from Godhell bound. Jesus just called it dead. Would you
prefer that we call people dead like Jesus did, rather than clarifying which
type of death we are referring to? (Please answer.) I
wouldmuchprefer that you speak of it as Jesus did. And if you
insist on then explaining his metaphor as being a reference to the spiritual
aspect of personhood, then by all means go ahead as you have been doing and
distinguish that this too (i.e., spiritual+death) is a metaphor for
"separation from God." We will still disagree, but we will not be misleading
ourselves with termonology which has stood for centuries as literal
spiritual death.
Do you object to us
using the term physical death? (Please answer.) No, I do not -- but neither is there a
long-standing, non-biblical doctrine of physical death,
which stands in the way of our discussion, confusing our use of the
term.
If not, why
the objection to us using the term spiritual death? (Please answer.) Because when you use this term, you open the door to no end of
confusion, as demonstrated by our present discussion. You are not using the
term in the way that those who coined it, used it. NOR are you using it in
the way that the church has traditionally used it. You are using it in a
different way. Hence in order to be understood, you have to be able to
nuance it -- and that takes time. Why not drop the termonology and speak
instead to the conclusion you have drawn from this metaphor?
Bill
Thanks,
Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bill
Taylor
Judy, I've already clarified this. Why the
obstinance? Once again, AND PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME, I am not
distinguishing between the first death and the second death as mentioned in
Revelation. Let go of that fallacious idea. I am distinguishing between the
two deaths mentioned in Jesus' statement: the first time he uses the word
"dead" and the second time he uses the word "dead." The first reference to
"dead" has to be understood as speaking to a different situation than the
second reference to "dead."The first reference is a metaphor; the
second reference is literal. You plug in "spiritual" to satisfy the
metaphor, as did Augustine and many since him.BUT
unlikeAugustine,you then treat "spiritual death" itself as a
metaphor and not as a literal spiritual death.I will quote you again:
"This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are
physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will
inherit both in the last day." Hence, byyour own definition you treat
"spiritual death" as a metaphor which speaks to something else. Now, you
don't have to admit this, but if you won't, why don't you just drop it? You
are making a fool of yourself.
Please just stop being so obstinate about this
--either that or go ahead and embrace Augustine's positionand
treat your doctrine of spiritual death in the same way as he: that spiritual
death meansthat "their" spirit is literally dead.Then at least
you will not have to concede that spiritual death is metaphorical
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death
Please do not respond to the comments I make to other people, Judy. I will show the same courtesy to you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:46 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death Bill writes: This term is either an unbiblical doctrine(cf. as set forth in the Augustinian/Calvinist position) or it is metaphorical language and as such it is representative of something else, which may be real (cf. this has been your position).In reality, and this is my position, it is not something which takes place in the absence of physical death, and in view of the resurrection of the dead, it is only something which could happen in the "second death," as set forth in thebook ofRevelation. Humans are non-reductive wholes. You have said so yourself. You can talk about the differnent aspects of personhood, but once you separate them and call one dead and the rest alive, you are no longer talking about humans.A personis either alive, or he is dead, but he is not partly this and partly that. That is Greek mythology. jt: No Bill "It is Bible truth" Why don't we leave the Greeks out there with Augustine, Calvin, and their metaphors and begin to study God's Word with a clear mind and an open heart. He has a lot to say about life and death. Why not allow Him to define His terms for us and open our hearts to see what He has to sayabout the issues of life. The writers of Greek mythology did not know God and what's more He divides soul and spirit Himself since this is the ministry of his Word (Hebrews 4:12) the sword of the Spirit which discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. We know that there is a spirit in man (Job 32:8) and Job knew it. The wisdom of God tells us "the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov 20:27) and that Perverseness is a breach in the spirit (Prov 15:4). The Lord says "I formeth the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1) There is a whole spirit realm out there that probably 90% of professing christendom is ignorant about God is a spirit (John 4:24) Man is a spirit (Num 16:22, Num 27:16, 1 Thess 5:23) Satan is a spirit (Deut 18:11, Isa 8:19, Isa 19:3) and angels are spirits Sin or perverseness is a breach in the spirit - so how does God define life and death is itphysical ONLY? DEATH LIFE are in the power of the tongue (Prov 18:21) An evil man is snared by the transgression of his lips (Prov12:13) The one who guards his mouth preserves his life (Prov 13:3) From the fruit of a man's mouth he enjoys good (Prov 13:2) For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words, you shall be condemned (Matt 12:37) So what EMPOWERS the tongue and determines this fruit? The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart; the good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil (Matt 12:34) Looks like we have a HEART PROBLEM Bill and since heart/spirit are one and the same this is basically a spiritual problem and it has nothing at all to do with Greek Mythology, Augustine, or Calvin. It is scripture. The Words of God. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death
Is this not being intentionally quarrelsome, Judy? Please respect my request and stay out of my conversations. I will do the same for you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death If you don't want a public response Bill then you will need to write to them off-line. I will show the same courtesy when I desire privacy. judyt On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:53:45 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please do not respond to the comments I make to other people, Judy. I will show the same courtesy to you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:46 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death Bill writes: This term is either an unbiblical doctrine(cf. as set forth in the Augustinian/Calvinist position) or it is metaphorical language and as such it is representative of something else, which may be real (cf. this has been your position).In reality, and this is my position, it is not something which takes place in the absence of physical death, and in view of the resurrection of the dead, it is only something which could happen in the "second death," as set forth in thebook ofRevelation. Humans are non-reductive wholes. You have said so yourself. You can talk about the differnent aspects of personhood, but once you separate them and call one dead and the rest alive, you are no longer talking about humans.A personis either alive, or he is dead, but he is not partly this and partly that. That is Greek mythology. jt: No Bill "It is Bible truth" Why don't we leave the Greeks out there with Augustine, Calvin, and their metaphors and begin to study God's Word with a clear mind and an open heart. He has a lot to say about life and death. Why not allow Him to define His terms for us and open our hearts to see what He has to sayabout the issues of life. The writers of Greek mythology did not know God and what's more He divides soul and spirit Himself since this is the ministry of his Word (Hebrews 4:12) the sword of the Spirit which discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. We know that there is a spirit in man (Job 32:8) and Job knew it. The wisdom of God tells us "the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov 20:27) and that Perverseness is a breach in the spirit (Prov 15:4). The Lord says "I formeth the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1) There is a whole spirit realm out there that probably 90% of professing christendom is ignorant about God is a spirit (John 4:24) Man is a spirit (Num 16:22, Num 27:16, 1 Thess 5:23) Satan is a spirit (Deut 18:11, Isa 8:19, Isa 19:3) and angels are spirits Sin or perverseness is a breach in the spirit - so how does God define life and death is itphysical ONLY? DEATH LIFE are in the power of the tongue (Prov 18:21) An evil man is snared by the transgression of his lips (Prov12:13) The one who guards his mouth preserves his life (Prov 13:3) From the fruit of a man's mouth he enjoys good (Prov 13:2) For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words, you shall be condemned (Matt 12:37) So what EMPOWERS the tongue and determines this fruit? The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart; the good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil (Matt 12:34) Looks like we have a HEART PROBLEM Bill and since heart/spirit are one and the same this is basically a spiritual problem and it has nothing at all to do with Greek Mythology, Augustine, or Calvin. It is scripture. The Words of God. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Hi Izzy, thanks for your patience too. It is very much appreciated. I am working on a response to your question and will get it posted as soon as I can. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy in bold blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:49 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:26 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Izzy in red: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:16 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually separated from Him (deadnot physically but spiritually!). Izzy Do you mean that their spirits are literally dead? Yes, to the things of God.If so, then how can they, of their own free will, choose to serve God? By His grace alone. Then you are taking the Augustinian/Calvinist/traditional stance on this doctrine. The only ones who have the capability of believing are those whom God quickens to life; if he does not quicken you, you are left in yoursins and completely dead, dead, dead to the things of God. Hence you have no ability nor desire to even want to make a free-will choice to serve God.Is this yourposition? If it is not then I would suggest that you are not treating the spirit as if it were literally dead, as in spiritually dead. No, actually Im not familiar with their stances. But I have stated before that I believe God extends His grace to every person, but most refuse it. (The parable of the wedding feast illustrates this.) Wouldn't the spiritual aspect of their beings have to be regenerated before that choice could be made? In other words, how could a dead spirit choose to become a live spirit, one which could respond to God in service to him? How can an alive spirit be regenerated and made alive, Bill? I am not treating the language literally, Izzy. You are. Now you tell me the answers to your questions. Yes, I always attempt to receive the words of scripture literally first, and then as parable or metaphor or something else only if that is obviously not possible. How is one regenerated if one was not dead in the first place? I know you want to help your friend, and she certainly needs all the help you can give her, but please don't digress. That only adds further confusion to the discussion. You think Im digressing? You are my friend, also, Bill. Im trying to help both of you. iz Thank you, Izzy. I consider you a friend as well; however I also think you are digressing, if indeed you are now treating the spiritual aspect of personhood as being literally dead. Not even Judy is willing to go that far: "This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day." Moreover, when I pointed this out to you (her comments), along with comments that you had made, you agreed, stating "Yes. I see spiritually dead pretty much as you describe here IF you are assuming the person is dead (not alive) to things of the Holy Spirit (and hell-bound), which I think you do." To which I was able to agree, precisely because we were speaking of people who had been called to follow Jesus, but were rejecting him instead. Again, trying to grasp your meaning is like nailing jello to the wall. Whenever I think we agree on a point it turns out things are just half a bubble off. Please tell me, though, if you can the answer to my question: How is one regenerated if one was not dead in the first place? Thanks for your patience. izzy Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, the reason they arent serving God with their mind, body, soul is because they are spiritually
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Perry wroteBy the way, what difference does it make if I understand this or not? It makes a difference in your ability to hold consistent and true beliefs pertaining to the things of God and to rightly explain those things to others. Perry wroteIf thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Both of these apply to me. Would you assume that I am saved because of this? Yes, certainly I would. Bill - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill, It appears in scripture that there is a point at which one becomes spiritually alive. Often, this is referred to as quickeneing. Check out these verses: Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Ephesians 2:5 - Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: So, we might think of spiritual death as being dead in trespasses and sins. It is when we come to believe and trust in Jesus (and all that it implies) that we are quickened, or gain spiritual life. How about these verses: John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 1 John 3:14 John We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. If we can pass from death unto life if we are not dead first? Not physically dead, but spiritually dead. By the way, what difference does it make if I understand this or not? If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Both of these apply to me. Would you assume that I am saved because of this? As for those who are unable to reason and understand the gospel, I believe that they are not held accountable until they first know right from wrong and understand that they are sinners, i.e., convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin. Perry From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:08:22 -0600 Perry wroteThe greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are spiritually dead. That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family above Jesus. Well, this is not exactly what I had in mind, Perry; although, I do agree with your final statement. Would you mind clarifying your opening comments? Is this how you view spiritual death: those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually dead, and those who do have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually alive? Was the Spirit of the Lord indwelling Jesus' followers prior to his ascension? What do you think: were those followers spiritually dead, or were they spiritually alive? Are all non-believers spiritually dead -- infants and unborn babies included? What about the mentally retarded: are they spiritually dead, or do they have the Spirit of God indwelling them? Just curious, Bill - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are spiritually dead. That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family above Jesus. From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:33:26 -0600 Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote: I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of spiritual death as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Why is the prefix "spiritual" not applied -- especially sense there was such a word as "spiritual" available to the writers? That's a really good question, John. Maybe it is because those writers did not dichotomize personhood like, say, Augustine would. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Man, you may be talking to fast for me. I am following along, here, and did not intend my comments below to be anything other than a long question to Bill (especially) Your questions were good, as well. Eternal whatever is something that I am still working on. Right now, I see some raised to eternal life and others to destruction. Heaven is the reasonable conclusion to the life lived by a believer. Hell (death and destruction) is the reasonable conclusion to a life lived in rejection of all that God has offered to the person.The scriptures below, seem to contrast quickening (life) to death.Why is the prefix "spiritual" not applied -- especially sense there was such a word as "spiritual" avaiable to the writers?I do know that those who do not follow the way of the Lord are "dead already." JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:55:33 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death John, will everyone be raised to eternal life? And, will all have the same state? If so, then why is salvation desirable? What is a term we can use while one is still alive to indicate whether they will be saved or not? how about "spiritually alive" (saved) or "spiritually dead" (not saved)?PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual deathDate: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:50:32 -0400Do I miss the point? The body, soul, mind and spirit are so integral to each other as to be without separation. If we are alive , we are alive in total. If we are dead, we are dead in total. Our bodies will be raised and reunited with soul mind and spirit (correct?) THEN transformed into a form we have yet to learn (I John 3:2) "Spiritual death" as a phrase tends to eliminate from our thinking the body, the mind and perhaps the spirit or the soul (if there is a difference). ??JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:34:12 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual deathBill, It appears in scripture that there is a point at which one becomes "spiritually alive". Often, this is referred to as "quickeneing". Check out these verses: gt;Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;Ephesians 2:5 - Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:So, we might think of "spiritual death" as being "dead in trespasses and sins". It is when we come to believe and trust in Jesus (and all that it implies) that we are "quickened", or gain spiritual life.How about these verses:Jo hn 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.1 John 3:14 John We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.If we can pass from death unto life if we are not dead first? Not physically dead, but spiritually dead.By the way, what difference does it make if I understand this or not? "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved". Both of these apply to me. Would you assume that I am saved because of this?As for those who are unable to reason and understand the gospel, I believe that they are not held accountable until they first know right from wrong and understand that they are sinners, i.e., convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin.Perry From: "Bill Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: Trut
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Having read the"LDS" response to these purportedly Christian beliefs, Ican'thelp thinkingthat there are far more Mormons around here than I first realized. Maybe John is on to something. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death You see, we are not all that different from traditional Christians like yourself huh? Christians Believe in a Personal Relationship with Jesus LDS reject such. Bruce R. McConkie,stated that people who speak of a "special relationship with Christ" are guilty of "excessive zeal" and "pure sectarian nonsense." "Who Answers Prayers?" Sunstone Review (April 1982), 13 Christians Believe that the Blood of Jesus christ cleanses from ALL sin 1 JN 1:7 LDS The blood covers for some sins "Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose ones salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept him as our personal savior, we are thereby saved. They say that his blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean." WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST, page 22 1976 edition Christians believe in Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:24, 28) LDS believe "What then is the law of justification?.. As with all other doctrines of salvation, justification is available because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but it becomes operative in the life of an individual only on conditions of personal righteousness." Mormon Doctrine, by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, on page 408, under "Justification" MORMONS are NOT Chritians! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/26/2005 6:23:01 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, at least now I think I understand where you are coming from, and your bias against the term, although I donât necessarily agree. I still think that you can be alive physically but not alive to the things of God. I was thinking about the terms born again vs born, and this caused me to think about the fact that an unborn fetus is alive, but it still needs to be born. That is us spirituallyâwe can be physically born, but not born into the realm of Godâs Kingdom. We need to be quickened by the Holy Spirit. What do you think of that analogy? I agree--as would most Mormons, Izzy. That's because it is the truth as most Christians understand it. You see, we are not all that different from traditional Christians like yourself huh? Blainerb Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill,It appears in scripture that there is a point at which one becomes"spiritually alive". Often, this is referred to as "quickening". Check outthese verses: Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses andsins; BT: Yes, and Paul clarifies in Eph 2.5 and Col 2.13 that this happened "together with Christ." When was Christ made alive from the dead? At his resurrection. When were we made alive together with him? At his resurrection. _ Ephesians 2:5 - Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us togetherwith Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) BT: Again, it was while they were dead that something happened which made them alive (by grace they were saved). In other words, it had nothing to do with anything they did on their part.When did this quickening take place? "together with Christ." _ Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision ofyour flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you alltrespasses; BT: It was while they were yet dead that this took place, their forgiveness included. _ 1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for theunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, butquickened by the Spirit: BT: This is speaking of what Christ endured on our behalf as well as what he accomplished via his deathand resurrection, he "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." _ So, we might think of "spiritual death" as being "dead in trespasses andsins". It is when we come to believe and trust in Jesus (and all that itimplies) that we are "quickened", or gain spiritual life. BT: I know that this is what you believe, Perry, along with many other Christians today, but I ask you to consider how it is possible that your "belief" and "trust" have anything to do with this. Paul's tells us that this happened while his readers "were yet dead"; that is to saythat they were in a state of death when Christ accomplished this quickening on their behalf. _ How about these verses: John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, andbelieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not comeinto condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. BT: I very much love this verse; it is one of my favorites. It speaks to the assurance of salvation for those who believe. Yet it does not take away from the possibility of salvation for some who do not believe -- and I am thinking primarily of people who have not rejected Jesus Christ. They are not necessarily condemned, although theylack the assurance of belief. _ 1 John 3:14 John We know that we have passed from death unto life, becausewe love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. BT: John's writings are rich with contrasts: light vs darkness; love vs hate;truth vs lies; life vs death; children of God vs children of the devil, and on and on. To conclude that this is all about spiritual life vs spiritual death is to miss much of the thrust of his writing. He is talking about "abiding" in God, which is to say that he is addressing our entire being, our whole person in relation to God, and not just the spiritual aspect. __ If we can pass from death unto life if we are not dead first? Not physicallydead, but spiritually dead. BT: I am addressing this in a response to Izzy. You can watch for that post. In the meantimemay I suggest thatyou do a study on the NT use of the word "regeneration"? Check it out for yourself and see if you don't agree with me that the NT does not use the term, as most modern Christians do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of new converts. That should sort of set the tone for my response. I think you shall find that this term is used not of existential experiences in the here and now, but of eschatological events -- when Christ returns and the quick and the dead are judged and all things shall be made anew.And ifyou press on,I believe you will also find that it is wholly bound up withthe merciful activity ofGod alone in theHoly Spirit through Jesus Christ our Savior; that it really has nothing to do with anything we have done ourselves. 'Til tomorrow evening sometime, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Bill wrote Jesus knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able to take his statement literally; they will have to conclude that the first death is representative of something other than yet similar tothe second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. jt: You sure make something terribly complicated out of one sentence Bill. How would you expect thest ppl to have such a wide ranging overview which includes first and second deaths? Judy, the word "dead" is used twice in Jesus' statement, a first time and a second time: "Follow Me, and let the dead (that's the first time)bury their own dead (and that's the second time)"; hencemy reference to two "deaths," the first one being metaphorical and the second literal. Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill writes:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this?I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me about commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to fill that God-given hunger with error thatwill slow her down. Better for her to see it in God's Word. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Perry wrote The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are"spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lorddwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry fromfollowing Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family aboveJesus. Well, this is not exactly what I had in mind, Perry; although, I do agree with your final statement. Would you mind clarifying your opening comments? Is this how you view "spiritual death": those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually dead, and those who do have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually alive? Was the Spirit of the Lord indwelling Jesus' followers prior to his ascension? What do you think: were those followers spiritually dead, or were they spiritually alive? Are all non-believers spiritually dead -- infants and unborn babies included? What about the mentally retarded: are they spiritually dead, or dothey have the Spirit of God indwelling them? Just curious, Bill - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are "spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family above Jesus. From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:33:26 -0600 Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote: I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound. ... It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined as a similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here - When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or soul death). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You are not dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealing with some "centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of you seem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you than by
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Mar 12.30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." To which Judy responded with ridicule, implying insteadthatJesus' statement was only in reference to the spiritual aspect, i.e., it was a reference to spiritual death and nothing else.* Judy, if first century Jews prior to the cross were called to love God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, what do you suppose they were not doing when they refused to follow his Son? Bill * When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? ... The dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Bill it looks like you are ducking out on me on this one. If it cannot be supported scripturally you can explain why cant you? And when I ask you something I dont want to know what someone other than you thinks/says about it, if you dont mind. My simple question, which I have asked at least 3 times now, is still waiting for an answer. What kind of dead was Jesus referring to when He said let the dead bury the dead? Please answer IYO. Thanks, izzy I am sorry it looks that way to you, Izzy. I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day. And in response to her, you wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going'" (John 12.35). Do you agree with me that the "darkness" in which the rebellious man walks is not literal darkness; in other words he may be walking in daylight, yet still be walking in darkness in accordance with this passage? If you agree with me, it is because you are able to recognize a metaphor in Jesus' statement. "Darkness" here refers to a state other than literal darkness. Do you agree with me? Allow me to quote aportion fromthe following verse:"While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."Do you recognize the metaphorical thrust in these words? Jesus is not asking these people to worship lightas an abstract energy, nor does he want themto be fire worshipers or children of the sun; he expects them to worship instead that which is represented by the word "light." In other words, he expected them to draw a correct inference from the metaphorical language he employed. He expected them to pick up on the metaphor and understand by it that he wants them to believe in him, that they might become his followers. Do you agree with me? This is the same thing which is happening with the verse you are asking me about: "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." Jesus knows quite well that he has employed a metaphor in this statement. He knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able to take his statement literally; they will have to conclude that the first death is representative of something other than yet similar tothe second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. And so, what will they conclude that this metaphor is representative of? They will conclude that
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in bold blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill in green. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in pink! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:44 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill in red. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I know Im not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit. Id appreciate it. izzy There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. True. Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. I dont follow you here, Bill. We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I understand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this. I know you think that, but that is nonsensical to me. In your viewpoint everyone is born born-again? Yes, in Christ in his resurrection,BUT not everyone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that comes by way of belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we call our "conversion experience" does happen in this lifetime, and sometimes this can beaprofound and life-altering experience; other times it is not so profound for people who have grown up in the church and spent their lifetimes worshiping the Lord. Bill I see your response as unbiblical. Jesus told Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So we are not born again when we are born. Please reconsider this and tell me again, Do you really think we are born (in the natural flesh as newborns) already born again of the Spirit? Being born again IS our conversion experience. If you grew up in the church you still need to be born again, as this is not something that comes over you by osmosis. Izzy, I have a different understanding concerning the thrust of Jesus' words to Nicodemus than you do. I have explained it to you before. You are considering this from your vantage point only and are therefore unable to
Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
This is a very helpful post, John. I think you may
be onto something concerning the exchange between Peter and Jesus.
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding
Enigma
Linda, I could copy over your post
(that little "G: or "j" thing - again and this time, it appparently originated
with my machine)
The question you said I did not answerwas asked in greater detail
for the first in that "j" post.
Here is my answer. We must not separate the emotion of love
from the action of love. To say that "love is kind" is not to say
that "love is not an emotion." The I Cor 13 text speaks of love and says that it "rejoices in
truth." Rejoicing is an _expression_
of an emotion. This whole idea that "agapeo" is not of an emotional root is ridiculous. In
the common Greek language of so many years ago, "agapeo" was a work-horse word, used to describe a whole range of
expressions including, on rare occasion, sex (Liddel
Scott). It was the Modern Church back in the 1970's that played up
the love affair with this word. And so, it was Agape This and Agape
That. The (in)famous exchange between Peter and Jesus ("Do you
agapeo me" "Yes I phileo you')
has Peter deliberately offering to His master a compromised love.
The fact of the matter IMO is this
-- Peter saw "agape" as not specific enough, so he offers to Christ the
love of friendship. I have friends for whom I would
literally die.If there is a purpose in this exchange having to do with
the two words, perhaps we are seeing two men (Jesus and Peter) in (minor)
conflict over the accepted use of these two words and when Christ finally uses
Peter's wording, we find that the issue was not over words but over
commitmentDo you love me -- YES LORD I
DO. iF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL, WE HAVE ChRIST ASKING FOR (IN THIS
FINAL AND THRID QUESTION) A
COMPROMISED LOVE.He died for our compromised
life - but He never asks for compromise!!! Believing this
means, to me, that "phileo" is not a compromise.
God expects us to care for Him emotionally, as one friend to
another. This exchangebetween Jesus and Peter leaves me with the
appreciation that Christ INCLUDED the love of a friend in the word
"agape."
Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. Ive never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spiritwhat affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. Im intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
You mean Andy. He wrestled under the lights until
1:00 this morning and ended upgetting third place -- which
isn't bad considering he was on the youngest end of a full bracket and wrestled
kids who were committed enough to have come to that tournament from four states,
some pretty good wrestlers in other words. He got a really tough kid from Grand
Junction, who was able to capitalize on a couple mistakes. OverallI am
really proud of him. But he still needslots of work. He gave up too many
points to take downs.He was justtoo slow on his feet. He will never
be especially quick but his response time was not good -- and that is more of a
head thing than anything else. It was miserably hot: 105 at 5:00. They delayed
the start until 7:00, but it was still in the 90s. It finally cooled down in the
later rounds, but by then the heat had paid its toll,everyone was sluggish
and committing whatever mistakes they were prone to making when their heads are
not into it. Some were better at capitalizing on it than others.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:10
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding
Enigma
Thanks -- nice to know that I am on the righttrack once in
awhile.
OW DID TYLER DO LST EVENING
Jd-Original
Message- From: Bill Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:52:32
-0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
This is a very helpful post, John. I think you
may be onto something concerning the exchange between Peter and Jesus.
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:15
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding
Enigma
Linda, I could copy over your post
(that little "G: or "j" thing - again and this time, it appparently originated with my machine)
The question you said I did not answerwas asked in greater detail
for the first in that "j" post.
Here is my answer. We must not separate the emotion of love
from the action of love. To say that "love is kind" is not to
say that "love is not an emotion." The I Cor 13 text speaks of love
and says that it "rejoices in truth." Rejoicing is an _expression_ of an emotion. This
whole idea that "agapeo" is not of an emotional root is
ridiculous. In the common Greek language of so many years
ago, "agapeo" was a work-horse word, used to describe a whole
range of expressions including, on rare occasion, sex (Liddel Scott). It was the
Modern Church back in the 1970's that played up the love affair with this
word. And so, it was Agape This and Agape That . The
(in)famous exchange between Peter and Jesus ("Do you agapeo me" "Yes
I phileo you') has Peter deliberately
offering to His master a compromised love. The fact of the
matter IMO is this -- Peter saw "agape" as not
specific enough, so he offers to Christ the love of
friendship. I have friends for whom I would literally
die.If there is a purpose in this exchange having to do with the two
words, perhaps we are seeing two men (Jesus and Peter) in (minor) conflict
over the accepted use of these two words and when Christ finally uses
Peter's wording, we find that the issue was not over words but over
commitmentDo you love me -- YES LORD I
DO. iF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL, WE HAVE ChRIST ASKING FOR (IN THIS FINAL AND THRID QUESTION) A
COMPROMISED LOVE.He died for our compromised
life - but He never asks for compromise!!! Believing this
means, to me, that "phileo" is
not a compromise.
God expects us to care for Him emotionally, as one friend to
another. This exchangebetween Jesus and Peter leaves me with the
appreciation that Christ INCLUDED the love of a friend in the word
"agape."
Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Si - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 The prison thing? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:58:10 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. I?ve never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spirit?what affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the ?organic? connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. I?m intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Si, si, senor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 The prison? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:58:10 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. I?ve never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spirit?what affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the ?organic? connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. I?m intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 good thing my machine did not send three or four posts -- you would sound as if yoou were stuttering. This is awesome (hopefully) Riding to work with Bud No, I'll be driving myself, which is fine with me! JD-Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:37:50 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Si, si, senor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 The prison? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:58:10 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. I?ve never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spirit?what affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the ?organic? connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. I?m intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Bill in green. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in pink! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:44 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill in red. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I know Im not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit. Id appreciate it. izzy There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. True. Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. I dont follow you here, Bill. We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I understand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this. I know you think that, but that is nonsensical to me. In your viewpoint everyone is born born-again? Yes, in Christ in his resurrection,BUT not everyone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that comes by way of belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we call our "conversion experience" does happen in this lifetime, and sometimes this can beaprofound and life-altering experience; other times it is not so profound for people who have grown up in the church and spent their lifetimes worshiping the Lord. I think we are prone to base too much of our "faith" in religious experience and not trained well enough at basing it in the object of that faith: Jesus Christ. I watched a saintlyninety year old elder of our church break down and weep because he did not know forsure if he had been "born again." He had grown up in the church and could notremember a time that he did not believed in Jesus Christ, yet he had never had one of those earth-shaking conversion experiences that others had had. We, the church, had placed so much emphasis on that "born again experience" that we had misled godly people into doubting their salvation. The weight of the world was upon this man's shoulders, and he could not withstand the weight of it. He was as godly as anyone you would ever meet, had served the Lord faithfully his whole life, yet believe in "spiritual death" and the necessity to be "born again" and thus could not place his finger on a point in his life when he stopped being spiritually dead and started being aborn again believer. We did that to him -- not theLord. According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person livingin a fallenstateand a sin nature. Yes, I believe that. And since this nature is spiritually dead, it has no ability or desire to seek God. In itself, this is trueGod must extend His grace to woo us. Itmustbe "quickened" before it can be restored and become "spiritually
Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14
A born again person whois right with God knows they are born again and right with God. If they don't know this it is a huge red flag - and this man was crying out for help. No, this man was a strong, solid, dedicated believer. His problem was, he had been deceived by people like you. Again, please just leave me and my words, thoughts, posts out of your considerations. I have ask you nicely now three times. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:14 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14 How terribly sad - did somebody counsel andpray with this man who wasobviously under conviction of the Spirit? You are judginghim by "outward appearances" Bill. You can't know what goes on in the hearts of ppl - folk can make a great showing after the flesh or some mayjust live in quiet desperation. I would have taken this dear man seriously enough to go overthe scriptures and pray with him so he can be sure of his eternal destiny rather than give him some false assurance. A born again person whois right with God knows they are born again and right with God. If they don't know this it is a huge red flag - and this man was crying out for help. Bill writes: Yes, in Christ in his resurrection,BUT not everyone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that comes by way of belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we call our "conversion experience" does happen in this lifetime, and sometimes this can beaprofound and life-altering experience; other times it is not so profound for people who have grown up in the church and spent their lifetimes worshiping the Lord. I think we are prone to base too much of our "faith" in religious experience and not trained well enough at basing it in the object of that faith: Jesus Christ. I watched a saintlyninety year old elder of our church break down and weep because he did not know forsure if he had been "born again." He had grown up in the church and could notremember a time that he did not believed in Jesus Christ, yet he had never had one of those earth-shaking conversion experiences that others had had. We, the church, had placed so much emphasis on that "born again experience" that we had misled godly people into doubting their salvation. The weight of the world was upon this man's shoulders, and he could not withstand the weight of it. He was as godly as anyone you would ever meet, had served the Lord faithfully his whole life, yet believe in "spiritual death" and the necessity to be "born again" and thus could not place his finger on a point in his life when he stopped being spiritually dead and started being aborn again believer. We did that to him -- not theLord.
Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14
I am glad, David, that you are not immediately jumping to conclusions, either about this man -- his faith, obedience, etc. -- or as to how we may have counseled him through this crisis of faith. Thank you. It demonstrates spiritual maturing on your part. This was a man who had confessed many times that Jesus is Lord and had demonstrated as well as any of us are able to tell that he believed in his heart that God had raised Jesus from the dead. The problem was not his soul condition, it was with his theological conditioning. Our pastor had been drilling us for weeks with the same old you must be born again stuff, which was more of the same old thing which he had been hearing and teaching and living out his whole life. The problem was our pasture had grounded this teaching not in Jesus Christ but in our existential encounter. If we had not had a powerful conversion experience, then we had good reason to question our salvation. Well, here was a man who, because of his Christian experience, having been raised by godly parents in the church and believed the truth of Jesus Christ his entire life, had never had one of those experiences where you're supposed to feel the ground shake. The truth was, he had never not believed. As a good friend of mine says, if he would have repented he would have had to stop believing. He had always believed from as far back as he could remember. He had just been deceived into thinking that his salvation was in jeopardy because he had not had a powerful conversion experience. Of course, our pasture was convinced he was going to bring this poor old man to the Lord. And so he pounded him and drilled him and only made things worse -- but, thankfully, I was able to visit with him and ground his belief in Jesus Christ and bring him to a faithful assurance of his salvation in Jesus Christ, his Savior. But what a travesty to have done this to that man. You surely do not have to agree with me concerning born again and when that takes place, to understand the dilemma that bad theology had placed us -- him especially -- in. To jump to conclusions and immediately start seeing red flags going up, is only to confirm your own lack of awareness and biblical sensitivity here. Thank you for not doing that. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: How terribly sad - did somebody counsel and pray with this man who was obviously under conviction of the Spirit? ... A born again person who is right with God knows they are born again and right with God. If they don't know this it is a huge red flag - and this man was crying out for help. For what it's worth, I had kind of the same reaction to reading this. I hear of long term Christian men growing up in the church but never having had experienced being born again. I read a pastor's testimony once who had pastored a very large traditional church. He suddenly experienced the new birth, and did not know what to do. He told his congregation from the pulpit that he had been a Christian all his life, earned a doctorate in theology, pastored for many years, but he had never been born again. He gave his testimony. It completely split the church. Many could not fathom how such a scholar of the Bible, such a good man, could not have been born again. Many actually believed that he had lost his mind and gone insane. About half the church stayed with him, but the other half just could not understand. I don't know this man that Bill mentioned. Bill did. That means Bill has a better foundation from which to speak on this issue, but it does seem to me that the Lord was dealing with him. 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. -- 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 Spalding Enigma
Hi David, you have the LXX don't you? Check out its translation of this word translated established in the KJV. It may shed some light on your thoughts as it pertains to a connection between this verse and Lance's post. Those old Jews may have had a pretty good understanding of the Hebrew language and how to translate it over into the common language of their day. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma You did knock me off my chair with this one, Lance. ROTFLOL! A Scripture reference from Lance? ??? You can be sure that I looked this up right away. I don't see its direct relationship to the quote you gave. The passage speaks of the relationship between faith and being established. The quote deals with the relationship between faith and understanding. I need more context of the quote to consider it more fully. I'm not saying I disagree with it. I'm just raising my eyebrows in lacking context, and when I saw Blaine's interpretation and your amen, I wrinkled my eyebrows a bit. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma May I suggest David, that you check out Isaiah chapter 7 with a special focus on verse 9? What's that, just as he's about to depart, the relativist lib quotes Scripture? At least we can hope that he has done so inaccurately. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: July 21, 2005 10:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma Lance wrote: Someone has said that 'unless we believe we will not understand and, it is only if we believe that we will understand. There is no understanding without the commitment of the mind to objective reality and to its natural or intrinsic intelligibility. Blainer wrote: This could be the most fundamental truth I have encountered on TT. ... It suggests that one can choose to disbelieve something, even in the face of strong evidence that it is true. Or, on the other hand, that one can choose to believe something, even if it is obviously not true. ... They choose to believe or disbelieve for reasons other than logic and/or scriptural evidence. It seems to me that the statement sets up a false idea of what understanding is. Understanding that is based upon emotion is lame and prone to all kinds of error and falsehood. It seems to me that the statement says that one must commit oneself to an object before they can understand it. This suggests, as you say, that understanding is not based upon logic, but upon commitment of the mind regardless of facts. Upon what basis can one commit oneself if not understanding? The only thing I can think of is emotion. Maybe someone else can suggest some other motivation for making a commitment. In the context of spiritual realities, there is a measure of truth to what is being said, because spiritual realities are not perceived by the physical senses. Tapping into that sixth sense of man to perceive a spiritual reality requires a commitment toward that object, and one cannot understand until one first perceives it. However, understanding itself is not based upon commitment but upon logic and reason. This is where the statement falls short. The approach is too holisitic. It would cause us in the end to have a superficial and faulty perspective about just what understanding is and what it requires. 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. -- 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] Re:John 16:13,14
Please see my immediately previous response to
Judy. I address this question in that post.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:06
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
So the ones who
refused to follow Him were dead, as you correctly observe. Were they
physically dead? In what sense were they dead?
izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:31
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
However I dont know
how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously
not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead.
Izzy et
al,
Are you willing to admit to me
that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it to
make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in other
words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your
commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; hence
"Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead."
If you are willing toadmit
this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is
speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those who
refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with
me."
Here I do what you do: I attempt
to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that
there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of"dead" and
the second use of "dead."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
That's a fine conjecture,
Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There
may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply
attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a doctrine to
explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a
"doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's
honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as yourealize
that it is conjecture either way.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I understand your
viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the
losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but
spiritually) bury the dead. izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
I agree that there is a
possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the
necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would
call their doctrine by the same name and thiswhen the words
themselves are not found in the
Scriptures.
Moreover, one would have to
havereceived her theology in a cave not to have heard
of"spiritual death"on many occasions throughout her
Christianexperience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly
touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous
impact he has had on Christendom.
I am very content to believe
that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated
this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own.
It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the
rest of us, I am confident that she too hasheard this language since
her earliest experience with Christianity. And soI rather suspect
that she has been taught this doctrineas if it were right there in
the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her
beliefs.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I know Im not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit. Id appreciate it. izzy There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person livingin a fallenstateand a sin nature. And since this nature is spiritually dead, it has no ability or desire to seek God. Itmustbe "quickened" before it can be restored and become "spiritually alive." The common belief is that we are made spiritually alive at the point that we are "born again."This is not a problem for a strict "Calvinist" because he believes that God determines who will be born again and, based upon that decree, reaches down, so to speak, and quickens those whom he wills to save, thus restoring them to spiritual life. But if one does not hold to this view, it presents a real problem: How can one who is dead make a free-will determination to believe and hence be born again so as to be made alive? Cadaverscan notmakechoices, let alone act upon them. Hence those who are not strict Calvinists must equivocate at this point and treat the "spirit" aspect of personhood as if it were not so dead as to not be able to respond to God's call -- which is really to say that it is not dead at all, perhaps really sick: but not "spiritually" dead. Here the desire is to hold onto the classic language but not so tightly as to be true toor consistent with its ramifications. I say just drop the language; it holds no authority over us, since it is non-biblical terminology. Now let's look again at Jesus.IfJesus was born with our sinful flesh, as the Scriptures attest, and if sinful flesh is spiritually dead, then he too had to have been spiritually dead in his sinful flesh, just as we are in our sinful flesh. Why? because he came in the likeness of our flesh. And so the obvious question is this: At what point did he become spiritually alive --was it when he was circumcised? orasa boy at his bar mitzvah? was it at his baptism? his resurrection? when was it? Did he too have to be "born again" in order to become spiritually alive? When was his "spirit" revived? I believe that Jesus was always spiritually alive and that from his earliest childhood, he wasin intimate communion with his Father. He was acutely attuned to his spiritual dimensionand allowed that aspect of his personhood to direct the other aspects. Hence he walked in faithfulness to his Father with every step, even "beating his way forward with blows," as Luke states it. In other words, there was not a time when he was not alive and living out his right relationship with his Father in absolute obedience. Yet if spiritual death is a requisite of personhood in sinful flesh, then this cannot be true; for either Christ had to have been "quickened" or born again in order toaccomplish the things he did in his flesh, or he did not come to us as we are -- in the likeness of sinful flesh; hence he could not have saved us in our sinful state. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ep 2;1 And you hath he quickened, who WERE dead in trespasses and sins Quickened as in made ALIVE those that were DEAD Here is a biblically plausibleexplanation which does not take into viewyour spiritual death scenario: Paul is speaking to people who were living at the time of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. He considers their "quickening" to have taken place in Christ's resurrection. Paul sets this forth in his letter to the Colossians: "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him" (2.13). Just as "by the circumcision of Christ" they had been circumcized (cf. verse 11),they had also beenmade alivewith himin his resurrection.In other words, they were "regenerated" or "restored" or"quickened"in Christ in his resurrection.It was not their own circumcision which had circumcized them and it was not a work on their partwhich had made them alive. This is to say that when Christ rose again victorious over death, all humans weremade victoriousin him (and there they remain, unless and until they reject him unto death). His life is the source and means of all life: He is life.All life is therefore in him; moreover, all life is "right" in him because he is the justification of all life (see Rom 5).Hence Paul's words to the Corinthians, "we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again;therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh." Here againPaul is addressing people who were once dead in this same metaphorical sense as in Colosse andEphesus,in that they had been held captive by death (as well as by the other tyrants), withouthope of escapeprior to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Now though in resurrection, Christ is victorious and they/we -- all humans -- arealive in him and are thus called to live for him. The "flesh" which once defined and controlled humanity has been defeated in Christ. Being themselves now in captivity to him, the tyrants no longer have the power to prevent humans fromliving for him, should we so desire. As Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Rom 1.19). Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death was Re:John 16:13,14
Thank you, Judy. Yes,I am very happy to agree with you on all of these things. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death was Re:John 16:13,14 Bill, could we discuss some areas where we do agree allowing scripture to interpret scripture becausefor me it is totally frustratingto have togo the long route by way of Gk philosophy, logic, etc. Could we agree on the following for a start? God is a Spirit (John 4:24) Man is primarily spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23) Satan is a spirit(Heb 1:7) he is a fallen angel and angels are spirits If we can agree on the above then hopefully we can move on to what God means when He speaks of life and death - rather than replicating the errors of the ancients. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:53:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Well, I wouldn't say it like that. I do not believe
there is "spiritual death" in the way that you are setting itforth. But
Ido believe that when a someone dies, the whole person dies with him. Were
it notfor resurrection,we would die and our whole being would
eventually cease to exist: spirit, body, and soul.It is only in
resurrection that death is defeated and life restored. This idea that the spirit
departs and the body rots, is Plato through and through. This is not to say that
those who are under the influence of Plato and Greek philosophy, primarily via
its introduction into Christianity by Augustine, cannot go to Scripture and find
a way to support their position, but theirs is not the only
"reading" on these texts: hence theirs is not the only biblicallyplausible
position either.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:32
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
Do you believe there
is no such thing as spiritual death, Bill? iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:56
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
Please see my immediately previous
response to Judy. I address this question in that
post.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
So the ones who
refused to follow Him were dead, as you correctly observe. Were they
physically dead? In what sense were they dead?
izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:31
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
However I dont
know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead
(obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead.
Izzy et
al,
Are you willing to admit to me
that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it
to make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in
other words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" --
your commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the
dead; hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the
dead."
If you are willing toadmit
this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is
speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those
who refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with
me."
Here I do what you do: I attempt
to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that
there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of"dead"
and the second use of "dead."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bill
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
That's a fine conjecture,
Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer.
There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I
am simply attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a
doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to
call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it
the God's honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as
yourealize that it is conjecture either
way.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I understand
your viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the
losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but
spiritually) bury the dead. izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill
TaylorSent: Monday,
July 18, 2005 10:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Judy, if you want to tone down the rhetoric and respond again, this time actually address the points I have made, I will be happy to respond to you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:15:23 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. jt: I would agree with the above. I don't believe it possible for the Lord of Life to have been in sin or spiritually dead myself. Bill: Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. jt: What scripture do you refer to above? Rom 8:3 says he condemned sin in the flesh; also I would note that he came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh and a likeness is not the real thing, it is always a similitude. Bill: I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. jt: If the above is your condition for salvation Bill then you are still in your sin. He had no sin in His flesh all of his sufferings were for us. He condemned sin in the flesh and sent us "dunamis" or power so that we can agree with Him and condemn sin in our own flesh daily walking after the Spirit and free from it's power. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. jt: Then you deny the offense of the cross and He is not your Savior Bill. According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person livingin a fallenstateand a sin nature. jt: Nonsense, Augustine has nothing to do with anything. Sin is a spiritual problem and it would be best to leave Augustine out of this and stay with sola scripture.. Bill: And since this nature is spiritually dead, it has no ability or desire to seek God. Itmustbe "quickened" before it can be restored and become "spiritually alive." jt: The above is Calvin not Bible. Calvin is the one who says one hasto be regenerated before they can be saved; scripture says that "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Bill: The common belief is that we are made spiritually alive at the point that we are "born again."This is not a problem for a strict "Calvinist" because he believes that God determines who will be born again and, based upon that decree, reaches down, so to speak, and quickens those whom he wills to save, thus restoring them to spiritual life. But if one does not hold to this view, it presents a real problem: How can one who is dead make a free-will determination to believe and hence be born again so as to be made alive? Cadaverscan notmakechoices, let alone act upon them. jt: How does a cadaver sin Bill? You need to dispense with both Augustine and Calvin and their metaphors and let the light of Christ shine where they have been. Hence those who are not strict Calvinists must equivocate at this point and treat the "spirit" aspect of personhood as if it were not so dead as to not be able to respond to God's call -- which is really to say that it is not dead at all, perhaps really sick: but not "spiritually" dead. Here the desire is to hold onto the classic language but not so tightly as to be true toor consistent with its ramifications. I say just drop the language; it holds no authority over us, since it is non-biblical terminology. jt: Of course it is Biblical terminology - mankind is "spirit, soul, and body" remember? It is terms like "cadaver" that are not Biblical and hold no authority. Now let's look again at Jesus.IfJesus was born with our sinful flesh, as the Scriptures a
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Then please explain to us what you are talking about and how it differs from Augustine's view. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 David, thank so much for this; I do appreciate the time taken to post it and it is an eye opener. Augustine is not talking about the same thing as me so I am glad to know that. Makes my head spin to read him. How could anyone get through a whole book? jt On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:55:02 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote:
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD wrote Judy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. JT Why would you believe thatJD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Absolutely not! Moreover, I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man in one person -- and you know this quite well because we have discussed it at length on numerous occasions, so why the slanderous dishonesty? Mr. Moderator, I think it is time for some intervention. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:40:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. Why would you believe thatJD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Have I misunderstood your position? JD I think you've misunderstood both of us. I am the one pointing out that he is heavenly and we are of the earth or earthly - (John 3:31) that is until we take upon ourselves the heavenly at the New Birth. jtFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't want to respond Bill I don't mind. I'm not sure what points you have actuallymade other than that you are not open to what I have written here. You seem to believe that Jesus was exactly like us. I have given you scripture here that says he wasn't like us- because we are earthly and He is and always has been heavenly. Just that one point shouldbe enough but I'm sure it's not and likeIzzy I am not really interested in the theories of the ancients but if you want to discuss scripture. fine. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:47:37 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, if you want to tone down the rhetoric and respond again, this time actually address the points I have made, I will be happy to respond to you. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:15:23 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. jt: I would agree with the above. I don't believe it possible for the Lord of Life to have been in sin or spiritually dead myself. Bill: Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. jt: What scripture do you refer to above? Rom 8:3 says he condemned sin in the flesh; also I would note that he came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh and a likeness is not the real thing, it is always a similitude. Bill: I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. jt: If the above is your condition for salvation Bill then you are still in your sin. He had no sin in His flesh all of his sufferings were for us. He condemned sin in the flesh and sent us "dunamis" or power so that we can agree with Him and condemn sin in our own flesh daily walking after the Spirit and free from it's power. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. jt: Then you deny the offense of the cross and He is not your Savior Bill. According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person livingin a fallenstateand a sin nature. jt: Nonsense, Augustine has nothing to do with anything. Sin is a spiritual problem an
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Judy, I do not operate under a construct that fuses Jesus into an alloy --some sort of hybrid, not really God and not really human, but something similar to both, like a demigod. That is heresy! His humanity is not his divinity, and his divinity is not his humanity. There is no confusion between the two natures. Hence as man he was human in every way thatwe are, yet as God he was able to overcome that which overtakes us. Two natures in one person, Jesus Christ -- fully God and fully man: do you get it? And I'm not asking if you agree; I'm asking if youare able to draw the distinctions necessary to apprehend my position.While fully commensurate and fully equal with both God and man, the relationship between Christ's divinity and his humanity is asymmetrical: in moments of crisis the divinity always won out over the humanity; hence HE NEVER EVERENGAGEDIN ANY TRESPASSES. Please, either accept this as my position and ADDRESS it as such, or be silent about it altogether. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:37:48 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD wrote Judy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. JT Why would you believe thatJD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Absolutely not! Moreover, I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man in one person -- and you know this quite well because we have discussed it at length on numerous occasions, so why the slanderous dishonesty? No slanderous dishonesty Bill; if I can read at all this is what you are saying here: BT: Now let's look again at Jesus.IfJesus was born with our sinful flesh, as the Scriptures attest, and if sinful flesh is spiritually dead, then he too had to have been spiritually dead in his sinful flesh, just as we are in our sinful flesh. Why? because he came in the likeness of our flesh. And so the obvious question is this: At what point did he become spiritually alive --was it when he was circumcised? orasa boy at his bar mitzvah? was it at his baptism? his resurrection? when was it? Did he too have to be "born again" in order to become spiritually alive? When was his "spirit" revived? You are saying right here (above)that the scriptures attest that Jesus was born with sinful flesh and what I am saying is that sin is abhorrent to God who is holy. Jesus is holy. The Holy Spirit is holy. Do you have a problem with this? Mr. Moderator, I think it is time for some intervention. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:40:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. Why would you believe thatJD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Have I misunderstood your position? JD I think you've misunderstood both of us. I am the one pointing out that he is heavenly and we are of the earth or earthly - (John 3:31) that is until we take upon ourselves the heavenly at the New Birth. jtFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't want to respond Bill I don't mind. I'm not sure what points you have actuallymade other than that you are not open to what I have written here. You seem to believe that Jesus was exactly like us. I have given you scripture here that says he wasn't like us- because we are earthly and He is and always has been heavenly. Just that one point shouldbe enough but I'm sure it's not and likeIzzy I am not really interested in the theories of the ancients but if you want to discuss scripture. fine. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:47:37 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, if you want to tone down the rhetoric and respond again, this time actually address the points I have made, I will be happy to respond to you. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Wed,
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death was Re:John 16:13,14
Judy, I agree with all of this just fine (in that I am able to draw the distinctions necessary to apprehend your position and based upon those distinctions, find enough common ground to agree with you), but I have had all of you I can take for one day. If you want to address this later, when you are more willing to make an honest effort to apprehend my positions, then I may consider pursuing this. But not until then. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death was Re:John 16:13,14 Good, then we can move on to what the scriptural definitions of life and death might be. Have weestablished the fact that God, Satan, and mankind are allspirit and all commune spirit to spirit?. Job tells us "there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding (32:8) Moses Aaron knew "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num 16:22) In Proverbs we are told "the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord searching all the inward parts of the belly (20:27) Proverbs also teaches that "perverseness is a breach in the spirit" (15:4) Where is man's spirit? The spirit is not the body and the spirit is not the mind; the heart of man is his spirit A merry heart makes a cheerful countenance, but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken (Prov 15:13) A man's spirit can sustain his infirmity but a broken spirit who can bear (Prov 18:14) God says "I formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech 12:1) Any problem with the above? judyt On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:02:16 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you, Judy. Yes,I am very happy to agree with you on all of these things. Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill, could we discuss some areas where we do agree allowing scripture to interpret scripture becausefor me it is totally frustratingto have togo the long route by way of Gk philosophy, logic, etc. Could we agree on the following for a start? God is a Spirit (John 4:24) Man is primarily spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23) Satan is a spirit(Heb 1:7) he is a fallen angel and angels are spirits If we can agree on the above then hopefully we can move on to what God means when He speaks of life and death - rather than replicating the errors of the ancients.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Bill in red. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I know Im not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit. Id appreciate it. izzy There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. True. Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. I dont follow you here, Bill. We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I undertand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this. According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person livingin a fallenstateand a sin nature. Yes, I believe that. And since this nature is spiritually dead, it has no ability or desire to seek God. In itself, this is trueGod must extend His grace to woo us. Itmustbe "quickened" before it can be restored and become "spiritually alive." The common belief is that we are made spiritually alive at the point that we are "born again."Exactly. This is not a problem for a strict "Calvinist" because he believes that God determines who will be born again and, based upon that decree, reaches down, so to speak, and quickens those whom he wills to save, thus restoring them to spiritual life. Then I guess Im not a strict Calvinist (being unacquainted with his teachings), because I believe God extends His grace to every one of his creatures, but most ignore or refuse it. See the parable of the wedding feast: all are called but few are chosen.I agree.But if one does not hold to this view, it presents a real problem: How can one who is dead make a free-will determination to believe and hence be born again so as to be made alive? Cadaverscan notmakechoices, let alone act upon them. Hence those who are not strict Calvinists must equivocate at this point and treat the "spirit" aspect of personhood as if it were not so dead as to not be able to respond to God's call -- which is really to say that it is not dead at all, perhaps really sick: but not "spiritually" dead. Here the desire is to hold onto the classic language but not so tightly as to be true toor consistent with its ramifications. I say just drop the language; it holds no authority over us, since it is non-biblical terminology. See my previous sentence. Dead is a term Jesus used about living human beings, so I dont think it is unbiblical language. I am not saying that "dead" is un-biblical language, Izzy; I am saying that the language of "spiritual" death is non-biblical terminology, and as such does not carry the degree of authorigy that Scripturallanguage would carry. It is therefore open to a higher degree of scrutiny on our part, if we so desire. Now let's look again at Jesus.IfJesus was born with our sinful flesh, as the Scriptures attest, and if sinful flesh is spiritually dead, then he too had to have been spiritually dead in his sinful flesh, just as we are in our sinful flesh. Why? because he came in the likeness of our flesh. And so the obvious question is this: At what point did he become spiritually
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Thanks David. I'll respond to some of your comments below. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Hi Bill. I have been reading with interest your dialogue with Judy. The idea of "spiritual death" has some logical inconsistencies that you seem to be pointing out. Your focus on death being a metaphor is making me think! That's a good thing. :-) Some of the problems I have had over my lifetime with the "spiritual death" perspective is the following: 1. The body without the spirit is dead, so if the spirit is dead, how can one be alive? This assumes, of course, that spiritual death means that the spirit is dead. 2. If people were spiritually dead in the Old Testament times, how did they write prophecy and such? How does anyone do anything good at all if they are dead in their spirit? All good ultimately comes from God, does it not, and how can this good come through us except through the spirit? 3. John says that Christ is the light that lighteth every man that comes into the world. How can that happen if virtually everyone is "spiritually dead"? Good points, David. It would be interesting to see how some of the others would respond to them. One way of remedy here is to perceive "spiritual death" as something that is less than perfect death. In other words, there is so much darkness that we might call it being spiritually dead, but that does not mean complete and total darkness. Of course, if we take this perspective, then why not take the same approach in regards to physical death with Adam and Eve? I think it was Ireneus who said that they were given over to death on that very day. In other words, death began its work, they died that very day, but it took time for the full effect of it to be manifested. Another observation I might make is that I think often people use that word "spiritually" as a metaphor itself. In other words, when they think "spiritually dead" they are really thinking along the lines of dead metaphorically speaking. Yes! I have noticed this too, yet it is a moot point with people who hold dogmatically to a doctrine of "spiritual death." This is what makes the explanation of "spiritually dead" attractive. If this is what is going on, then the phrase "spiritually dead" might not be the most accurate one to use. Is that your approach? Do you prefer to simply say that "dead" is a metaphor in many of these contexts? Yes, yes, yes! I can't help but ask you, seeing your embrace of the idea of metaphor, whether or not you believe that the concepts of Satan and demons are a metaphor? No, I don't. I think they are real entities --spirit beings, as Judy would say. Do you believe that Satan and demons are real entities, or are these terms metaphors for an adversary? They're real, David; however, I sometimes speak of them in a metaphorical sense. Allow me to explain: when I say that Christ defeated the tyrants -- sin, death, and the devil -- I am using these terms both literally and metaphorically to represent the total gamit of his victory over everything that stands in opposition to God and a right relationship with him. It is not just the devil that Christ defeated,but the demons also. "Devil" is representative of all the spriritual forces of darkness: the devil and the demons included. Do you get my drift? and do you have any problems with it? Another question: the word "spirit." Is this also a metaphor from your perspective? Do you believe that we literally have a spirit, or is spirit simply a metaphor for abstract aspects of our being? Good question, David. I think I will start out in the negative. I do not think that our spirit is located in a specific space in our body, like, for example, inour heart. In the sense that the Scripturesspeak that the spirit is located in the heart of man, I believe there is a metaphor at play here -- either with the use of "spirit" or with the use of "heart," or perhaps with both.For example, "A merry heart makes a cheerful countenance, butby sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken" (Pro 15.13). The spirit is not broken because of its location in the heart. There is something figurative going on here. Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) I do believe that we each have a real, true, literal,spirit aspect to our being. But I do not think it is a meaningful statement to say that we are primarily a spiritual being, or primarilly a physical being. We are
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death was Re:John 16:13,14
:) yeah, I thought it rather funny,
too.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:35
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death
was Re:John 16:13,14
Bill, I love ya, man, but this is kinda of funny to
me :Be glad to communicate whenever you have
recovered.
JD-Original
Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:17:51 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death
was Re:John 16:13,14
Not a very pleasant way to express yourself
Bill.
If you have had all you can take - it is your problem
rather than mine.
Be glad to communicate whenever you have
recovered. judyt
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:44:04 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy, I agree with all of this just fine (in
that I am able to draw the distinctions necessary to apprehend your position
and based upon those distinctions, find enough common ground to agree with
you), but I have had all of you I can take for one day. If you want to
address this later, when you are more willing to make an honest effort to
apprehend my positions, then I may consider pursuing this. But not until
then.
Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
Good, then we can move on to what the scriptural
definitions of life and death might be.
Have weestablished the fact that God,
Satan, and mankind are allspirit and all commune spirit to
spirit?.
Job tells us "there is a spirit in man and the
inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding (32:8)
Moses Aaron knew "O God, the God of the
spirits of all flesh" (Num 16:22)
In Proverbs we are told "the spirit of man is the
candle of the Lord searching all the inward parts of the belly
(20:27)
Proverbs also teaches that "perverseness is a
breach in the spirit" (15:4)
Where is man's spirit?
The spirit is not the body and the spirit is not
the mind; the heart of man is his spirit
A merry heart makes a cheerful countenance,
but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken (Prov
15:13)
A man's spirit can sustain his infirmity but a
broken spirit who can bear (Prov 18:14)
God says "I formeth the spirit of man within him"
(Zech 12:1)
Any problem with the above?
judyt
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:02:16 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Thank you, Judy. Yes,I am very happy to
agree with you on all of these things. Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
Bill, could we
discuss some areas where we do agree allowing scripture to interpret
scripture
becausefor me it is totally
frustratingto have togo the
long route by way of Gk philosophy, logic, etc.
Could we agree on the following for a
start?
God is a Spirit (John 4:24)
Man is primarily spirit, soul, and body (1
Thess 5:23)
Satan is a spirit(Heb 1:7) he is a
fallen angel and angels are spirits
If we can agree on the above then hopefully
we can move on to what God means when He speaks of
life and death - rather than replicating the errors of the ancients.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Good enough, Mr. Moderator. I stated why I considered her remarks to be slanderous. You do not see them as such. I will go with your opinion. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill, from reading Judy's comments I do not see that she is slandering you, in that she is not asserting anything about you personally. It appears to me as though she may herself believe what she has asked, but is uncertain, and is asking for confirmation. A simple no in answer to her question seems all that is necessary to dispell her incorrect belief, which you wrote very effectively with your response Absolutely not!. If there is something more here I have missed please enlighten me further. Perry the Moderator From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:37:48 -0600 JD wroteJudy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. JT Why would you believe that JD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Absolutely not! Moreover, I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man in one person -- and you know this quite well because we have discussed it at length on numerous occasions, so why the slanderous dishonesty? Mr. Moderator, I think it is time for some intervention. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:40:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am pretty sure that Bill believes that Christ was God on earth and you do not. Why would you believe that JD? Isn't Bill the one saying that Jesus came to earth in sin and trespasses? Have I misunderstood your position? JD I think you've misunderstood both of us. I am the one pointing out that he is heavenly and we are of the earth or earthly - (John 3:31) that is until we take upon ourselves the heavenly at the New Birth. jt From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't want to respond Bill I don't mind. I'm not sure what points you have actually made other than that you are not open to what I have written here. You seem to believe that Jesus was exactly like us. I have given you scripture here that says he wasn't like us - because we are earthly and He is and always has been heavenly. Just that one point should be enough but I'm sure it's not and like Izzy I am not really interested in the theories of the ancients but if you want to discuss scripture. fine. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:47:37 -0600 Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, if you want to tone down the rhetoric and respond again, this time actually address the points I have made, I will be happy to respond to you. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:15:23 -0600 Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine, Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been spiritually dead at any point in his lifetime. jt: I would agree with the above. I don't believe it possible for the Lord of Life to have been in sin or spiritually dead myself. Bill: Paul tells us that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. jt: What scripture do you refer to above? Rom 8:3 says he condemned sin in the flesh; also I would note that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and a likeness is not the real thing, it is always a similitude. Bill: I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin and he did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. jt: If the above is your condition for salvation Bill then you are still in your sin. He had no sin in His flesh all of his sufferings were for us. He condemned sin in the flesh and sent us dunamis or power so that we can agree with Him and condemn sin in our own flesh daily walking after the Spirit and free from it's power. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is sinful, then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
It is right there in Genesis. God is the one who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would SURELY DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die that day? I know I have asked you this before and you have ignored the question. No, Judy, Adam did not die that day, and God did not lie that day either; rather he clothed Adam in the promise of the Seed. It was he, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who "died" metaphorically that day, in that the sentence of death was now upon him, he being the New Adam, the Representative of the old. Now, the point is, Judy, that you can disagree with me if you like, but you cannot point to Scripture and say, "Here it says, 'upon that day Adam died spiritually.' It is not there. What you are dealing with is conjecture, nothing else. This in itself is not wrong, as long as you realize that that is what you are doing. But conjecture is not definitive in the way that explicit language is definitive. Yourpositionis not clearly articulated; yours is a belief, just like mine is a belief. Yours just happens to find its source in Augustine. I am fine with that: why aren't you? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:50:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him. You certainly excel in the art of exaggertion Bill - what you call quoting at length was ONE paragraph, ONE time and that only because I was in a hurry and it was stated so well and was what I believed anyway and was attempting to express.. I am not a disciple of Dake. There are areas that I don't agree with him. I seem to remember you raising a BIG fuss about it at the time for which I publicly repented and I have made it a point to stay away from anything like that since then. This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Bill when someone is saying what the scriptures say it is hardly THEIRbelief, that is, when they do not add another spin to what is written. When I agree with others on TT it is not because I am swayed to THEIR belief, it is because we have both received the same light in our personal study of His Word. Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. Bill you can't seem to learn. Augustine is not the one who came up with "spiritual death" It is right there in Genesis. God is the one who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would SURELY DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die that day? I know I have asked you this before and you have ignored the question. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way,does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not.But again I am wondering what you think. She does not and never has read Augustine Bill. Don't you think the Spirit of God can say the same thing to two different people in different generations? Do you believe Adam died physically the day he ate from the wrong tree? Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because those are just my own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am setting forth Dake's
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
That's a fine conjecture, Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as yourealize that it is conjecture either way. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and thiswhen the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures. Moreover, one would have to havereceived her theology in a cave not to have heard of"spiritual death"on many occasions throughout her Christianexperience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too hasheard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And soI rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrineas if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didnt. Just because a teaching is out there doesnt mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That also does not mean the second person who learned it owes anything to the first person. And it does not mean the first one who learned it was an authority for the second one, who might never have even heard anything about the first one. One cant just assume that because a famous person wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone else who may have the same/similar doctrine. Get my drift? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. Izzy et al, Are you willing to admit to me that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it to make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in other words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead." If you are willing toadmit this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those who refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with me." Here I do what you do: I attempt to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of"dead" and the second use of "dead." Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 That's a fine conjecture, Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as yourealize that it is conjecture either way. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and thiswhen the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures. Moreover, one would have to havereceived her theology in a cave not to have heard of"spiritual death"on many occasions throughout her Christianexperience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too hasheard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And soI rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrineas if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didnt. Just because a teaching is out there doesnt mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
By the way, Izzy et al, Jesus said, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." And some did. My question for you is this: What about those who did follow Jesus, do you think that they were "spiritually" alive? Bill - Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. Izzy et al, Are you willing to admit to me that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it to make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in other words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead." If you are willing toadmit this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those who refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with me." Here I do what you do: I attempt to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of"dead" and the second use of "dead." Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 That's a fine conjecture, Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as yourealize that it is conjecture either way. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and thiswhen the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures. Moreover, one would have to havereceived her theology in a cave not to have heard of"spiritual death"on many occasions throughout her Christianexperience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too hasheard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And soI rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrineas if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didnt. Just because a teaching is out there doesnt mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
What you are doing right now is the problem with Christendom today. You are wresting the clear Word of God to make it fit some preconceived doctrine. If this is so, Judy, then you are guilty of doing the same thing. If Jesus died that day rather than Adam then why were they kicked out of the garden? Gen 3.22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden . . . Why were they kicked out of the garden? So that they would die, Judy, that they might be resurrected in Christ, restored: lest in their evil state they reach out their hand, and eat, and live forever. It shouldn't have mattered whether or not they ate of the tree of life ... It mattered greatly, Judy. God's desire for humanity is not that we live forever infallen state. There had to be restoration before humanity could once again eat of the tree of life; hence it will be in resurrected bodies that we next reach out our hands,and eat, and live forever. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:52:43 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is right there in Genesis. God is the one who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would SURELY DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die that day? I know I have asked you this before and you have ignored the question. No, Judy, Adam did not die that day, and God did not lie that day either; rather he clothed Adam in the promise of the Seed. It was he, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who "died" metaphorically that day, in that the sentence of death was now upon him, he being the New Adam, the Representative of the old. I don't think so Bill; you need to rethink this. Jesus is the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world so it was not he who died that day. If you are going to deal in that kind of metaphor then he was already dead before the first Adam was ever created. Now, the point is, Judy, that you can disagree with me if you like, but you cannot point to Scripture and say, "Here it says, 'upon that day Adam died spiritually.' It is not there. Not in those exact words Bill but God did not tell Adam that a substitute would day in the day that he ate, he didn't say anything about a lamb dying either. No God said "In the day YOU eat of it YOU will SURELY die" (Genesis 2:17) Read it. What you are doing right now is the problem with Christendom today. You are wresting the clear Word of God to make it fit some preconceived doctrine. What you are dealing with is conjecture, nothing else. This in itself is not wrong, as long as you realize that that is what you are doing. But conjecture is not definitive in the way that explicit language is definitive. Yourpositionis not clearly articulated; yours is a belief, just like mine is a belief. Yours just happens to find its source in Augustine. I am fine with that: why aren't you? Bill Mine Bill is as clearly articulated as you can get. Yours is total conjecture. If Jesus died that day rather than Adam then why were they kicked out of the garden? It shouldn't have mattered whether or not they ate of the tree of life ... From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:50:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him. You certainly excel in the art of exaggertion Bill - what you call quoting at length was ONE paragraph, ONE time and that only because I was in a hurry and it was stated so well and was what I believed anyway and was attempting to express.. I am not a disciple of Dake. There are areas that I don't agree with him. I seem to remember you raising a BIG fuss about it at the time for which I publicly repented and I have made it a point to stay away from anything like that si
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
And why do that when you can let Augustine do it for you? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Kevin - what are you doing? Don't you know that when God spoke of death in the garden it was figurative. When Jesus spoke to that man who wanted to bury his fatherin Luke 9:60 that was figurative too. I'm sure certain persons will also claim that Paul is speaking figuratively here also (Ephesians 2:1) Got to wrest it in a certain direction now with the right spin. jt On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ep 2;1 And you hath he quickened, who WERE dead in trespasses and sins Quickened as in made ALIVE those that were DEAD problem is so many were never made alive --- Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a fine conjecture, Izzy. But it is only that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstrate that you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true, you can do that, too -- as long as you realize that it is conjecture either way. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint. However I don't know how else I would describe the lost-even Jesus said "Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead." izzy -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and this when the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures. Moreover, one would have to have received her theology in a cave not to have heard of "spiritual death" on many occasions throughout her Christian experience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too has heard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And so I rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrine as if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didn't. Just because a teaching is "out there" doesn't mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That a
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Where do you get the some Bill - You sure do like to add to the Word of God. "Now when He got into a boat, His disciples followed Him." I am aware of who he was talking to, Judy. My question concerns those who did follow him. In answer to your question - what do you think? Would someoneempowered by the Spirit of God for ministry still be walking in spiritual darkness and death? Your question can only be answered if I assume that they had been walking in"spiritual" darkness and death, Judy. I do not make that assumption. You do. That is why I asked youthe question: to get a better understanding of your position.You assume that these followers have been made spiritually alive -- but on what basis? Where is your Scripture which supports this claim? How is it that they could be made alive "spiritually" before Christ had died and rose again? Death had not yet been conquered. Or does his life, death, and resurrection have no bearing on whether one can be made alive, where he was once dead? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:40:25 -0600 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, Izzy et al, Jesus said, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." And some did. My question for you is this: What about those who did follow Jesus, do you think that they were "spiritually" alive? Bill Where do you get the some Bill - You sure do like to add to the Word of God. In my Bible it was one disciple whohe had called to go preach the Kingdom of God whoasked if he could go back and bury his father. In answer to your question - what do you think? Would someoneempowered by the Spirit of God for ministry still be walking in spiritual darkness and death? judyt From: Bill Taylor However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. Izzy et al, Are you willing to admit to me that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it to make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in other words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead." If you are willing toadmit this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those who refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with me." Here I do what you do: I attempt to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of"dead" and the second use of "dead." Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 That's a fine conjecture, Izzy.But it isonly that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstratethat you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true,you can do that, too-- as long as yourealize that it is conjecture either way. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint. However I dont know how else I would describe the losteven Jesus said Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
David writes: I hope that you allow that some of us have a different perspective on thispoint. Some here tout Joseph Smith while others tout Barth and Torrance. . . . and others Wesley and Dake. What's your point? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him.This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way,does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not.But again I am wondering what you think. Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because those are just my own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am setting forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs as authoritative, and thatthey have now become the "doctrines of men." Is that how it works? What if they were really Dake's beliefs all along -- and I mean his words verbatim --but I just acted as though they were my own,would that make adifference as far as their "authoritative" quotient in your estimation?These are the things that I am wondering about, because I am trying to understand what makes the espousal of one man's beliefs more "authoritative," in your eyes, than the espousal ofanother man's beliefs. In fact, I find it rather disturbing that you are so willing to give yourself and others a pass on this, but want to take issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. The truth is, I have written very sparingly concerning Barth, although I do esteem him highly. And I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs --which is indeed quite significant. But David, I want to say, so what? It is obvious that Wesley has had a similar impact upon the formation of your beliefs. What's the big deal about admitting this?Why are you so set on equivocating at this point? I don't get it.David writes some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men. Do you agree?Yes, David, I do. But I would not agree that this is prima facie a negative thing.Bill- Original Message -From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:59 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Not one person on this site believes in "doctrines of men." David Miller wrote: I hope that you allow that some of us have a different perspective on this point. Some here tout Joseph Smith while others tout Barth and Torrance. Bill wrote: ... and others Wesley and Dake. What's your point? I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, at least not on the level of Joseph Smith, Barth, or Torrance, but in anycase, my point is that some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men. Do you agree? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That also does not mean the second person who learned it owes anything to the first person. And it does not mean the first one who learned it was an authority for the second one, who might never have even heard anything about the first one. One cant just assume that because a famous person wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone else who may have the same/similar doctrine. Get my drift? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him.This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way,does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not.But again I am wondering what you think. Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because those are just my own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am setting forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs as authoritative, and thatthey have now become the "doctrines of men." Is that how it works? What if they were really Dake's beliefs all along -- and I mean his words verbatim --but I just acted as though they were my own,would that make adifference as far as their "authoritative" quotient in your estimation?These are the things that I am wondering about, because I am trying to understand what makes the espousal of one man's beliefs more "authoritative," in your eyes, than the espousal ofanother man's beliefs. In fact, I find it rather disturbing that you are so willing to give yourself and others a pass on this, but want to take issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. The truth is, I have written very sparingly concerning Barth, although I do esteem him highly. And I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs --which is indeed quite significant. But David, I want to say, so what? It is obvious that Wesley has had a similar impact upon the formation of your beliefs. What's the big deal about admitting this?Why are you so set on equivocating at this point? I don't get it.David writes some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men. Do you agree?Yes, David, I do. But I would not agree that this is prima facie a negative thing.Bill- Original Message -From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:59 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Not one person on this site believes in "doctrines of men." David Miller wrote: I hope that you allow that some of us have a different perspective on this point.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and thiswhen the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures. Moreover, one would have to havereceived her theology in a cave not to have heard of"spiritual death"on many occasions throughout her Christianexperience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too hasheard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And soI rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrineas if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didnt. Just because a teaching is out there doesnt mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That also does not mean the second person who learned it owes anything to the first person. And it does not mean the first one who learned it was an authority for the second one, who might never have even heard anything about the first one. One cant just assume that because a famous person wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone else who may have the same/similar doctrine. Get my drift? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 David writes I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction.Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him.This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way,does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not.But again I am wondering what you think. Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
David wrote concerning Terry's comment: I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote. ... There was definitely a problem in reading you. David, how do you presume to know this, other than in the say way the rest of us might? Terry's word will have to suffice, as far as I'm concerned. Are you privy to something we're not? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Terry wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not enough information to tell who would be the the most accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain to me where I would have gotten the information needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance. I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in reading you. You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature believer. Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this thread concerned only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way. That was perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something important in regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent in Scripture? 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. -- 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] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you found nothing dishonest in what he wrote? Are you trying to be manipulative? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Terry wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not enough information to tell who would be the the most accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain to me where I would have gotten the information needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance. I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in reading you. You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature believer. Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this thread concerned only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way. That was perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something important in regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent in Scripture? 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. -- 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] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
So that we all understand this: It is alright for Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the discussions of others, and it is alright for David to interject hisopinions concerningthe discussions of others, but it is not okay for Bill to ask a couple questions.Oh, and talk about being manipulative: I did not "accuse" David of anything: I asked him a question. Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives of others after the flesh," Judy: it "is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt." Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and this is what DavidM is replying to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be manipulative. IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the flesh is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' of you.) From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not enough information to tell who would be the the most accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain to me where I would have gotten the information needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance. I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in reading you. You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature believer." Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this threadconcerned only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something importantin regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent in Scripture? 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. -- "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. --"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 p
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Good enough. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Bill wrote: David wrote concerning Terry's comment: I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote. ... There was definitely a problem in reading you. David, how do you presume to know this, other than in the say way the rest of us might? Terry's word will have to suffice, as far as I'm concerned. Are you privy to something we're not? I was just expressing my opinion, Bill. I didn't want Terry to think that everyone had trouble understanding him. Sometimes I feel that way when one person ascribes evil motives to me and the rest of the list is silent. I didn't want Terry to feel like something was wrong with the way he was communicating. Bill wrote: By they way ... I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you found nothing dishonest in what he wrote? Are you trying to be manipulative? Manipulative? I have no idea what you mean. Terry perceived being accused of dishonesty. He wrote, If that comment is less than honest... My reason for posting was to encourage Terry. From my perspective, he was not even close to being dishonest. He was being misunderstood and the problem is more likely to be found to be from the evil surmisings in the minds of some of those who read him. I do not say this as a slam, but as something for us to consider soberly concerning why there is a problem with even the most innocuous of statements posted in this forum being misunderstood. 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. -- 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] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended ... As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent.That is, as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do. Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote. Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on TT. I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands,of times over the last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to my background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family, to my politics,to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and you've seen me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good" days and "bad" days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've had opportunity to see me at myworst. And in turn, I have had these same opportunities with each of you. With all of this background at his disposal, Terryclaimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base a decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew nothing. I took that asan insult. Terry does have enough information on me to know"whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question), between myself, with my background and many years of dedicationandstudy, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago (hypothetically) had never even read aBible. To say that he didn't have enough information, I thought, was a majorput down. Terry, however, claims that it was not intended as such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian gentleman."He claimshis yes does mean yes and his no means no, and he claimshis "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it says."I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this. I, on the other hand, do feel like I know you all quite well; in fact, I think there is opportunity here to get to know people better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our personal commitment to JesusChrist; hence we do get to "know each other" quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here on TT. I have read Terry enough to know that he is quite witty. I have also read him enough to know when he is employing that wit. On this occasion, however, I may have misread him. He says I did: I'll take his word for it. Bill Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and this is what DavidM is replying to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be manipulative. IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the flesh is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Yes, Judy, I did.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:12
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess
On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A'
living)
Yes, it is a question - and I stand corrected.
Sorry Imisunderstood.
But I have a question for you Bill. Are you
expecting DavidM to respond - Yes Bill
I am manipulating? Judyt
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So that we all understand this: It is alright for
Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the
discussions of others, and it is alright for
David to interject hisopinions concerningthe discussions of
others, but it is not okay for Bill to ask a couple questions.Oh, and
talk about being manipulative: I did not "accuse" David of anything: I asked
him a question. Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives of others after the
flesh," Judy: it "is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give
them the benefit of the doubt." Bill
From: Judy Taylor
Lance you fellows appear
to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill
and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to
be manipulative.
IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit
of the doubt. jt
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill
Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting'
of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues
other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason
Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been
quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that
was much'reading' of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By
they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of
dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he
wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not
enough information to tell who would be the the most
accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature
believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a
Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly
placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body
of the Church. If that comment is less than honest,
explain to me where I would have gotten the information
needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance.
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.
I was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it
was. There was definitely a problem in reading
you. You mention something in this post that is
somewhat interesting. You mention both "accurate
interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature believer." Do
you think these are related? Are more mature believers
more accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on
this threadconcerned only the ability to understand the
intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired
to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in
communicating on this is that some connect the idea of
"accuracy interpreter of scriptures" and "maturity of
believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas perhaps
part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret
Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of
theinvolvement of the Holy Spirit.
What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer
something importantin regards to the ability to understand
the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity a
requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent
in Scripture? 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. -- "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
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Do you feel like you know me better than you know Vladimir Kramnik? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Bill wrote: ... I think there is opportunity here to get to know people better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our personal commitment to Jesus Christ; hence we do get to know each other quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here on TT. This is a very interesting perspective, Bill, and kind of surprising to me. I will be thinking about this some more. My general perspective is that I know the people on TruthTalk much less than those I know in person. Furthermore, the people on TruthTalk who have never met me, from my perspective, do not know me very well at all. There is some merit to what you are saying in the sense that sometimes people expose themselves here more than they do in person, but if that extends to a better knowing of somebody... well, I will have to think about that some more. I certainly do not think that I interact more here than elsewhere. Anyway, thanks for giving me something to ponder. 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. -- 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] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Do you consider me a brother in the Lord, Judy? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Thanks for the explanation Bill, but IMO your expectation is still too high especially since Terry has written more than once that he does not share your understanding of scripture. As for the Russian fellow I don't know who he is and I doubt that Terry would either. Howare we to know how proficient he is so far as scripture is concerned? He may be Russia's top evangelical for all we know. I can understand also why Terry would say he doesn't know you. Knowing about someone is not the same as "knowing" them. To really "know" someone takes both time and communication. Sometimes ppl can live in the same house or even be married to ppl and not really "know" them - I've been on TT for quite a while and I wouldn't get offended if Terry said the same about me because we think differently and are at different places spiritually. This doesn't mean that I don't considerhima brother in the Lord and as such I don't believe he would write something with a deliberate intent to hurt or woun even someone he disagreed with. jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended ... As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent.That is, as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do. Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote. Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on TT. I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands,of times over the last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to my background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family, to my politics,to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and you've seen me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good" days and "bad" days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've had opportunity to see me at myworst. And in turn, I have had these same opportunities with each of you. With all of this background at his disposal, Terryclaimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base a decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew nothing. I took that asan insult. Terry does have enough information on me to know"whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question), between myself, with my background and many years of dedicationandstudy, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago (hypothetically) had never even read aBible. To say that he didn't have enough information, I thought, was a majorput down. Terry, however, claims that it was not intended as such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian gentleman."He claimshis yes does mean yes and his no means no, and he claimshis "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it says."I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this. I, on the other hand, do feel like I know you all quite well; in fact, I think there is opportunity here to get to know people better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our personal commitment to JesusChrist; hence we do get to "know each other" quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here on TT. I have read Terry enough to know that he is quite witty. I have also read him enough to know when he is employing that wit. On this occasion, however, I may have misread him. He says I did: I'll take his word for it. Bill Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and this is what DavidM is replying to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be manipulative. IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the flesh is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik, would you think there something amiss with my faculties? What do you think: 1) Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent' of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study, than you were two months into your reading of Scripture? 2) Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach new disciples to obey everything he had commanded? And in conjunction with this: Why did he not just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will be with you always, until the end of the age? What would you want us to conclude about you, David: 1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical authors, or 2) that you were better equipped two months into your study than you are today? Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing -- hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his study of Scripture)? Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone should be enough to suffice in answering the question? Tell me, David, would you think my intent was to insult you, if I responded, instead with, it's hard to tell based on the limited information I have on either man? Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Do you feel like you know me better than you know Vladimir Kramnik? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Bill wrote: ... I think there is opportunity here to get to know people better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our personal commitment to Jesus Christ; hence we do get to know each other quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here on TT. This is a very interesting perspective, Bill, and kind of surprising to me. I will be thinking about this some more. My general perspective is that I know the people on TruthTalk much less than those I know in person. Furthermore, the people on TruthTalk who have never met me, from my perspective, do not know me very well at all. There is some merit to what you are saying in the sense that sometimes people expose themselves here more than they do in person, but if that extends to a better knowing of somebody... well, I will have to think about that some more. I certainly do not think that I interact more here than elsewhere. Anyway, thanks for giving me something to ponder. 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. -- 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] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
I will be quite honest with you, David. I think you are playing with words here and being evasive. When I use the word study, I use it inclusively of all our activities having to do with the reading of Scripture, and not in some limited sense with regards to formal training. If you want to go back and re-answer the questions with that in mind, feel free to do so. If not, then drop it. Either way you have enough information now to know why I took offense at Terry's statement. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Bill wrote: Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik, would you think there something amiss with my faculties? Yes. Bill wrote: What do you think: 1) Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent' of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study, than you were two months into your reading of Scripture? I probably don't have enough information to answer this. :-) There are many reasons for my Biblical studies, but understanding the author's intent is not real high on the list. I would say that Biblical study more often gives me more confidence about my understanding of the author's intent. Bill wrote: 2) Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach new disciples to obey everything he had commanded? Because people have a tendency to stray away from obeying him. Exhorting one another and urging one another to walk in love helps us keep on track. Teaching is helpful, but not necessary. Bill wrote: And in conjunction with this: Why did he not just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will be with you always, until the end of the age? Because we are his mouthpiece on the earth. He teaches through us. We teach primarily because he is with us always, until the end of the age. Bill wrote: What would you want us to conclude about you, David: 1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical authors, or 2) that you were better equipped two months into your study than you are today? I don't see where being better equipped now means all that much in regards to the question of understanding the intent of the author. We have a very different perspective about this that is rather fascinating. I have been very surprised by your reaction to Lance mentioning your name, and even more so by the turmoil that you have raised over Terry's post. I can study for years, and then one day the Holy Spirit says, David, I am going to teach you now about what I meant when I said ... Well, I'm blown away. All the study in the world does not lead me to that understanding. My studies might confirm it, but study itself often leaves open many options concerning intent. It is only by revelation that we really know his intent. Bill wrote: Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing -- hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his study of Scripture)? No, I honestly would not be insulted in the least. Sorry. I think that perhaps the insult comes from your perspective that greater study means a better understanding of the author's intent. My perspective is that there are many factors to consider in knowing whether or not someone is going to grasp the intent of Scripture. Saying that you need more information to answer makes fine sense to me. Bill wrote: Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone should be enough to suffice in answering the question? No. I would hope this guy had such an encounter with God's Spirit that we both speak the same way and understand the Spirit's intent in the same way. I don't think he needs years of study in order to get that. I would hope that when I shared what I understood, the guy would say, yeah, that is exactly what I see too! When he shared, I would say, Amen! Actually, I have met men half my age and newly born again where I have had such experiences, so this is a little more than just hypothetical. Bill wrote: Tell me, David, would you think my intent was to insult you, if I responded, instead with, it's hard to tell based on the limited information I have on either man? No, Bill, I would not think that you would be intending to insult me. We honestly have different perspectives about what it takes for a person to have a proper understanding of Scripture. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Actually, David, I take that back: I do not think you are playing with words or deliberately being evasive in your answers. I think your answers are indicative of you, just the way you are -- and I need to accept that. Please just disregard my comments and forgive me for the ad hom. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) I will be quite honest with you, David. I think you are playing with words here and being evasive. When I use the word study, I use it inclusively of all our activities having to do with the reading of Scripture, and not in some limited sense with regards to formal training. If you want to go back and re-answer the questions with that in mind, feel free to do so. If not, then drop it. Either way you have enough information now to know why I took offense at Terry's statement. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Bill wrote: Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik, would you think there something amiss with my faculties? Yes. Bill wrote: What do you think: 1) Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent' of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study, than you were two months into your reading of Scripture? I probably don't have enough information to answer this. :-) There are many reasons for my Biblical studies, but understanding the author's intent is not real high on the list. I would say that Biblical study more often gives me more confidence about my understanding of the author's intent. Bill wrote: 2) Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach new disciples to obey everything he had commanded? Because people have a tendency to stray away from obeying him. Exhorting one another and urging one another to walk in love helps us keep on track. Teaching is helpful, but not necessary. Bill wrote: And in conjunction with this: Why did he not just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will be with you always, until the end of the age? Because we are his mouthpiece on the earth. He teaches through us. We teach primarily because he is with us always, until the end of the age. Bill wrote: What would you want us to conclude about you, David: 1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical authors, or 2) that you were better equipped two months into your study than you are today? I don't see where being better equipped now means all that much in regards to the question of understanding the intent of the author. We have a very different perspective about this that is rather fascinating. I have been very surprised by your reaction to Lance mentioning your name, and even more so by the turmoil that you have raised over Terry's post. I can study for years, and then one day the Holy Spirit says, David, I am going to teach you now about what I meant when I said ... Well, I'm blown away. All the study in the world does not lead me to that understanding. My studies might confirm it, but study itself often leaves open many options concerning intent. It is only by revelation that we really know his intent. Bill wrote: Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing -- hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his study of Scripture)? No, I honestly would not be insulted in the least. Sorry. I think that perhaps the insult comes from your perspective that greater study means a better understanding of the author's intent. My perspective is that there are many factors to consider in knowing whether or not someone is going to grasp the intent of Scripture. Saying that you need more information to answer makes fine sense to me. Bill wrote: Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone should be enough to suffice in answering the question? No. I would hope this guy had such an encounter with God's Spirit that we both speak the same way and understand the Spirit's intent in the same way. I don't think he needs years of study in order to get that. I would hope that when I shared what I understood, the guy would say, yeah
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry Isn't it amazing how much less information it takes to determinethe jerks among us? We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. By the way, Terry: Do you have to work and these, or do they come naturally? Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Lance Muir wrote: Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians 2 Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the outcome likely differ? Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! ==Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Now this is totally uncalled for,... jt Is it, Judy? How would you know --aren't you the one always claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, Lance,please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. Bill Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry Isn't it amazing how much less information it takes to determinethe jerks among us? We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on these, or do they come naturally? Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Lance Muir wrote: Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians 2 Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the outcome likely differ? Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! ==Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
