Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

Lance what is so hard about the plain facts which are that .... It is impossible to be "Holy, Pure and sinless" and ATST "sinful and fallen in the first Adam". Think about it - SERIOUSLY .....   On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:28:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So then, Judy, should Jesus' human nature actually have been other than your 'reading' of Scripture........? ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 17, 2006 16:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ?? Thanks for your input Dean; I have no problem with Jesus having a human flesh body... but I have a "huge" insurmountable problem with the idea that Mary's child, the one called by the angel "the holy pure sinless offspring" born of her and called the Son of God" (Luke 1:36 Amp) ATST had a "fallen" Adamic nature.  Make no mistake this is nothing more than speculation by religious men who have no understanding about spiritual realities.   On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:54:00 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:  Nor do we reject one or the other - we just don't relate to him in the fallen state of man- and I see us regenerated towards His higher state.  I am wondering why we cannot be understood on this statement - what force works against Judy and I on this?  Is it an us against them thingy or is it Satan that stills this seed?  There is no us against them with me there is only truth as best as I understand it.  Respectfully     From: Taylor These are great passages, Dean; they speak to his divinity, his being God. Ours has been a discussion of his humanity, his being human. To reject one or the other is to reject him.   cd: Yes I like them also-part of my favorite passages.Question: Did that divinity leave him while on earth-What does he say in the New Covenant that differs from Prov.8?   Bill