----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of
view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the
"just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get
hooked.
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 09:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
What kind of person could you be, Judy, if you
would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have.
You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best
in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business.
Imagine: a Judy who isn't always causing trouble. Heck, you might even be
likable. As it were, though, you will prove once again your
denial.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies
for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing,
but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not
intentionally so -- that you would suggest that I
or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If
you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:>) and myself
well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely
you do know that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can
all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us
all.
ATST Bill it is insulting to me -
(and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that
Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture
clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today,
and forever)and that He is the second Adam.
And so I was hoping that
out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your
prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to
consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that
may be.
Let go of truth out of some
misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more
mature than to fall for this.
I know, for example, that John is getting
frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The
truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And
while I am confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which
perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am
also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the
issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something
I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it
will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very
important doctrine.
It is written Bill - the
last and best words are written already and you can take them to the
Bank. Believing them is the
problem.
Why would you want to malign
Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place?
I would like to suggest that you take a similar
approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity. Ease off a
little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind,
but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't.
Dean, I'll try to post a response to your
questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime, I hope you will consider
my request. Sincerely,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
John writes > No one in this
discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean.
cd responds >
Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful
nature that is what one is saying John.
No, Dean, it is
not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Your hearing,
however, is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and
Debbie and Lance, and even David on this one, are coming from a
different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you
can see well enough from your perch to identify things from ours? I
began my previous post with an assurance that none of us view
Jesus as a sinner; John did the same with his; yet you
continue to speak only from a limited view, rather than budge just
a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some
reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in
sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that
flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why
not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see
things from our perspective?
cd: Wow tough response Bill-I hope my
response to David concerning didn't influence you to do likewise as the
topic are different-I am suppose to give my life- if God put
me in that position- for the brethren. I can also assume one
can defend those same brethren from looking like fools. Let's not carry
our conversation to that same order of battle-okay? I have not
read anything on Debbie belief of this issue to support you stance-I
would like to read them. When we first started this debate most of the
group stated Christ to be as "common man"-I objected to that and tried
to show He was not common-but rather more than common as man went to a
state of sin that Christ did not go too.Bill -this is a very significant
difference. If you have changed you view or make a mistake in your
earlier statement by claiming Christ the same as "common man" then say
so and we move on. Believe it or not I am not focused on proving you wro
ng as I am impressed by you and want to learn what God has given you but
on this matter it would seem that God gave knowledge to me-but at
your level there is much I can learn from you.Can the foot say to
the hand:" Hey stop walking and start clapping !". Concerning David
M. there is a lot of truth with him and He has a lot to offer us but I
cannot find a place of trust for Him (may God show me error if it
exists). If my belief is limited I can only hope it is limited to the
bible.
You have a Christ
who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews
clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and
that it was only after "having been perfected" -- that is, after
his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of
salvation.
cd: Bill as I have shown before.
Suffering for a Christian in this world comes from resisting sin and
therefore becoming opposed by people that sin.If I am not
resisting I am not suffering because I am giving into sin and
have no opposition to suffer from. There is also a suffering of the
flesh that comes from that flesh wanting sin and our instructed to bring
that flesh into subjection to the spirit-but as both Wesley and
I believe-there is a place where on can put the flesh under so much
subjection that it breaks completely leaving one free from the drawing
of the flesh towards sin or even the thoughts of sin this is called
"Total sanctification"-I believe Jesus put His flesh under total
control. With us it is still possible to fall back into that sin after
the second(or deeper level of) sanctification-yet
unlikely- but for Christ as it was not possible as He made that
falling into sin not possible for Himself through Godly fear.Hope this
make sense to you as it works for me.
You have a Christ
who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify
myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the
truth."
cd: Our difference in the area of
sanctification has to do with the definition of sanctification and how
one applies that term. I believe this to mean:" I keep myself Holy for
God to do His work so that you too can become Holy for God because of me
and by the truth I live and speak. This meaning does not conflict with
what I am stating Bill. Christ kept Himself from sin to help us-no
common man ever came close to doing this-so what is being missed in
the majority of this group thought?
y SANC'TIFY, v.t. [Low L. sanctifico; from
sanctus, holy, and facio, to make.]
1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious
use.
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.
You have a Christ
who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes
that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that
he might condemn sin in the flesh.
cd: I believe Christ put on a flesh
(covering) like ours but did not conform to this world which follows
Satan as we have as "common men" therefore He was not as we were but as
we now are- because of Him ( speaking of course of a mature
Christian). Satan had to be giving his chance to lose or hold the world
so Christ came in the state Satan controlled (the flesh)-and had
claim too in order to take that claim away. He came to the strong man
house to bind the strong man in his own house.He defeated the strong man
by staying pure and proved He was stronger than the strong man through
resistance to impurity.
You have a Christ
who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born
of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer
to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself
likewise also partook of the same," ... that he might assume the
nature of Abraham's offspring.
cd:Bill - you misunderstand me in
this area-Christ did share in our humanity-even in flesh and blood as
David and Abraham's offspring.
Indeed their is
enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge,
then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about
things you cannot see.
cd: Sorry Bill I chose not to remain
silent as that would mean not to offer a different view and I encourage
you to also not keep silent by answering my last post to you on
this issue or simple go on to another issue.Here's one that John brought
to the table:Can Children sin and be accountable for sin-your thoughts?
By the way be nice:-) Thanks bro.
Bill --
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be
clean.
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG
Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release
Date: 1/27/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG
Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release
Date: 1/27/2006
|