Some might draw a comparison between the 'witch of
Endor" and you but, I'd not place myself alongside such, Judy. You do appear to
have some sort of 'gift' for wrong descriptions of many on TT.
These back-and-forthis this morning JT, are simply
an informed opinion regarding you. I've said this often of you. You strike me as
a profoundly genuine; deeply committed believer. You are, IMO, in bondage to
your "rightness". That, IMO, is downright sad.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 28, 2006 08:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation'
concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did
you forget that?
That was HIS revelation - not mine.
My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and
pleasant.
Have you failed to read, from all of the
aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rs could 'see'. As
Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad
guys' 'lock and load'.
I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't
call them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking like
"witch of Endor?" Where is this
gift in New Covenant economy?
Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention
ie G, BT, DS etc. reveal themselves; what I read from
them
is mostly their opinions (of
others) - glowing ones about favorite theologians
and/or critical ones concerning
myself and many times DM. DS does produce a
little essay now and then which is well written but still
centers
around her and her opinion ... Do they live
out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to
determine this?
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you
(bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I
see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO
believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit
that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that
live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also?
Once more Lance you put what you are about on
to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little
or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The
difference between all of you and DM is that most of what
comes
from him is godly counsel; also he
shows love and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say
what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to
Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is
funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself
from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to
others.
Judy: DM an exception of course! How
utterly ironic that those two (JT & DM) who esteem themselves
more highly than others with respect to their capacity to
"infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those
very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest"
You wise ones will probably find it
amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I
also
perceive no humility at all, none of any
kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any
spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed
mind going on (of course DM not included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now
but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of
yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for
His.
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
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
|