Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/14/2005 3:20:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken up and redeemed in Christ. Bill Yes indeed. Thanks John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill writes:I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken up and redeemed in Christ.Bill jt: I think it is a refusal on our part to identify with the cross of Christ and to part with the old man who should bereckoned dead and buried so that we can walk in newness of life. It's akin togetting about withthis corpse on one's back and suffocating in the stench of rotting flesh. God has done all He is going to do, His hands are tied. If we love the old stinkin' flesh nature so much, He will let us have it. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:11:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Do you believe the first Adam was "something other than human" also? Hi Judy, I take it you are speaking of the first Adam inhis pre-fallen state. And so, the answer is, No, I do not believe he was something other than human -- neither do I believe that Adam needed "saved" prior to the fall. But he did after it. And so did all humanity after the fall. jt: Yes all humanity procreated throught he first man Adam were born with a "fallen" human nature with an inheritance of iniquity through "the fathers". Jesus however, was not procreated through the first man Adam. He was born of the woman without ahuman father and the iniquities of the fathers come down generationally through the male. And that is the humanity Christ came to save: i.e., fallen humanity. To have assumed a nature other than the one he came to save would be to leave that which was fallen untouched and unredeemed, still in its sin. That is what the early church meant when it said things like the unassumed is unsaved and that which was not taken up in Christ was not saved. In fact, I'll shareseveral quotes with you from early Christians. jt: I don't see any statement or concept like thisin all of the New Testament Bill. He did not assume our human nature, he paid the price for our sin and took these upon Himself at Calvary. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, The unassumed is the unhealed; but what is united to Christ is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then what Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of him who was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. (Ep.,101; cf. Or., 1.23; 22.13) And in a similar statement Gregory Nyssen wrote, He who came for this cause, that he might seek and save that which was lost (i.e., what the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep), both finds that which is lost, and carries home on his shoulder the whole sheep, not just the fleece, that he might make the man of God complete, united to God in body and soul. And thus he who was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin, left no part of our nature which he did not take up into himself. (Anter. con. Eun., Jaeger, 2. pg. 386) And in another Basil argued, If Christ had not come in our flesh, he could not have slain sin in the flesh and restored and reunited to God the humanity which fell in Adam and became alienated from God. (Ep., 261.2) And years earlier it was Athanasius who wrote, It was impossible to pay one thing as a ransom in exchange for a different thing; on the contrary, he gave body for body and soul for soul and complete existence for the whole man. This is the reconciling exchange of Christ. (Con. Apol., 1.17) And while you may not respect these guys, and you may not give what they say any bearing in your interpretive framework, you should know that when you go against them, you are cutting against your own heritage as a Christian. These are the great defenders of our Faith, upon whose statements the church universal was made able to stand in orthodoxy against the heresies of both the Arians and the Apollinarians. jt: It's not upon these men, however great, that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ stands. It is upon the doctrine of Christ as taught by Jesus Himself and the apostles in which there isnone of this. And you should know this, too, Judy, that when youreject this teaching, it is you who takes the side of the heterodox and not they; and it is they who stand in the stream of classic orthodoxy and not you.This may not concern you, I know -- but it should. jt: Bill I follow the voice of the Chief Shepherd and "sola scripture" rather thanany record of "classic orthodoxy" IMO these men took upon themselves a ministry that was never ordained byGod. Men don't get anyone into the Kingdom and they can't put anyone out even someone they believe to bea heretick. When the disciples brought Jesus' attention tosome who were baptizing and were not of them he said to "let them alone". Paul took the same stand regardingthose who preached Christ out of a wrong motive. It's all about letting God be God in the lives of ppl since none of us is empowered tocome to Jesus aside from the Father's drawinganyway and the power to become a son is inactive aside from continuing inHis Word anyway. So this stream of "classic orthodoxy" isextra Biblical. Something of which the reformers were aware. ___ Judy wrote We are not born into this world "alive to God" Bill, in fact we are dead in trespasses and sin (see Eph 2)
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:35:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivities that produce evil within humanity Thanks for the explanation. Excellent. Question: with the above in mind, what of those "evils" that tend to define us (apart from the influence of Christ but remain even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness, selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:27:45 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote If "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? Bill: Hi John, The distinction I am drawing is not at all adverse to the idea that sanctify means to set apart. What I am saying is that sanctification, if it is truly going to sanctify us, has to be internal to us and not external only. In other words, it is not enough to be "sanctified" if that only means you are going to remove yourself from exposure to sin and the evil elements of the world; and this is because the sin problem is internal to you and all of us, before it becomes externalized in ourbehavioralacts. If what Jesus meantwhen he said he sanctifies himself wasonly that he was being an example that his disciples might see and emulate, then we -- his disciples -- are still in our sins and cannot help but fail to follow the example. But ifwhen he said this, he was speaking to an internal sanctification on his part, then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivitiesthat produce evil within humanity, in order that his disciples might then be able to be sanctified as well. I am arguing that that is exactly what he did mean and that he didthis throughout his life -- which was a true sanctification of the human nature; in other words, there is genuine holiness in this. jt: If you are depending on the above in your own life Bill then you are still in your sin because this is not how Jesus makes us free. He said it is "if you continue in My Word" Jn 8:3,32 because His Word cleanses. He said the disciples were clean by the Word He had spoken to them. Once the tyrants were defeated in Christ, and he was resurrected innew humanity, and he sent his Spirit to indwell us,well, that isChrist in us, the hope of Glory! That is when we, his disciples, truly can be sanctified by the Word of God. We are now internally equipped to follow his external example, because in him -- and for us, andthus in us as well --the internal volitions were defeated and a new humanity resides in place of the old. Hallelujah!Bill jt: So your heart is completely cleansed now and for you "the goal of the instruction is love from a pure heart" is already an accomplished fact? because it wasn't for the early Church and it hasn't been for me. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it.BillIf "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill Taylor wrote: Why do you think Jesus did not say, And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth? That would be a long way of saying it. Much better to say, ... I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth (John 17:19). Bill Taylor wrote: It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- ... Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Jesus is certainly more than an example to us, but this passage seems to speak about the power his example provides for us. We are creatures who tend to get it better when someone shows us how rather than when someone lectures us from heaven above or from their ivory tower. :-) If you think I am overlooking something, please feel free to explain more fully. 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] Original Sin
I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other thanthis,because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken up and redeemed in Christ. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:35:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivities that produce evil within humanityThanks for the explanation. Excellent. Question: with the above in mind, what of those "evils" that tend to define us (apart from the influence of Christ but remain even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness, selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
I address this more fully in a post to John. You can consider it if you like. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Bill Taylor wrote: Why do you think Jesus did not say, And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth? That would be a long way of saying it. Much better to say, ... I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth (John 17:19). Bill Taylor wrote: It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- ... Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Jesus is certainly more than an example to us, but this passage seems to speak about the power his example provides for us. We are creatures who tend to get it better when someone shows us how rather than when someone lectures us from heaven above or from their ivory tower. :-) If you think I am overlooking something, please feel free to explain more fully. 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] Original Sin
John wrote: ... what of those evils that tend to define us (apart from the influence of Christ but remain even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness, selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8. Bill Taylor wrote: I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken up and redeemed in Christ. Amen! Bill, you sound like a holiness preacher disguised as a theologian. :-) 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] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/14/2005 6:00:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: ... what of those "evils" that tend to define us (apart from the influence of Christ but remain even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness, selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8. Those evils are the Flesh. Whether or not we walk in them or in the Spirit is a true choice that we have IF we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Whichever path we choose is what defines us. Izzy Yes, of course. But I was asking the question of Bill in the context of his comments on "sanctification." Pride, conceit, selfishness and the like are named as sin in NT scripture. I agree that we have a choice when it comes to sin -- whether event sins or linear evils. I do not have to be a selfish person, or a conceited one, or a bigot, or one who covets - but, sadly I will make choices that find me bound to one or the other. I see these sins in each member of this very forum. And, of course, the biblical message expressly tells me that the possession of sin [to some degree -- hopefully to a decreasing degree] will be a fact in my life. It is not that it HAS to be that; rather, only that it WILL be. At no time in our lives are we without the need for unmerited saving grace. It does not have to be that way -- but it will be that way. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
UTTERly Ridiculous Written like a true perfectionist[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! There goes the nieghborhood [sic]Written like a true anti-intellectual.JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
jt: Do you believe the first Adam was "something other than human" also? Hi Judy, I take it you are speaking of the first Adam inhis pre-fallen state. And so, the answer is, No, I do not believe he was something other than human -- neither do I believe that Adam needed "saved" prior to the fall. But he did after it. And so did all humanity after the fall. And that is the humanity Christ came to save: i.e., fallen humanity. To have assumed a nature other than the one he came to save would be to leave that which was fallen untouched and unredeemed, still in its sin. That is what the early church meant when it said things like the unassumed is unsaved and that which was not taken up in Christ was not saved. In fact, I'll shareseveral quotes with you from early Christians. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, The unassumed is the unhealed; but what is united to Christ is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then what Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of him who was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. (Ep.,101; cf. Or., 1.23; 22.13) And in a similar statement Gregory Nyssen wrote, He who came for this cause, that he might seek and save that which was lost (i.e., what the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep), both finds that which is lost, and carries home on his shoulder the whole sheep, not just the fleece, that he might make the man of God complete, united to God in body and soul. And thus he who was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin, left no part of our nature which he did not take up into himself. (Anter. con. Eun., Jaeger, 2. pg. 386) And in another Basil argued, If Christ had not come in our flesh, he could not have slain sin in the flesh and restored and reunited to God the humanity which fell in Adam and became alienated from God. (Ep., 261.2) And years earlier it was Athanasius who wrote, It was impossible to pay one thing as a ransom in exchange for a different thing; on the contrary, he gave body for body and soul for soul and complete existence for the whole man. This is the reconciling exchange of Christ. (Con. Apol., 1.17) And while you may not respect these guys, and you may not give what they say any bearing in your interpretive framework, you should know that when you go against them, you are cutting against your own heritage as a Christian. These are the great defenders of our Faith, upon whose statements the church universal was made able to stand in orthodoxy against the heresies of both the Arians and the Apollinarians. And you should know this, too, Judy, that when youreject this teaching, it is you who takes the side of the heterodox and not they; and it is they who stand in the stream of classic orthodoxy and not you.This may not concern you, I know -- but it should. ___ Judy wrote We are not born into this world "alive to God" Bill, in fact we are dead in trespasses and sin (see Eph 2) The language to which you refer is metaphorical, Judy,and is not to be taken in your dualistic frame of reference. Again, it was not until Augustine that Christians began to think in the dichotomous terms of physical life in spiritual death. Jesus was never ever "dead in trespasses and sin" other than during that 3hrs on the cross. Yes he defeated principalities and powers but there are many who "believe" the good news who are still just as bound by them as they were before they believed. So why is that? They probably believe something similar to what you are teaching, Judy. Hence, they are in bondage because they believe in something less than the truth (I hope that's I nice way of putting it). But when one believes the good news of his salvation and receives the Holy Spirit,that person has received the Truth, and that truth makes him free, and he does not return to the indwelt bondages of his prior beliefs, when he lived in the lies of this world. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:05:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Yes - I agree with you - Jesus was born witha human spirit inside his human body like all humans have. The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive "a measure" whenwe are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our human
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Bill If "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Bill If sanctify is more than to set apart, what are the additional nuances? JD I Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. sanctify To set apart for sacred use; consecrate. To make holy; purify. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow: sanctify a marriage. To give social or moral sanction to. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
John wrote If "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? Hi John, The distinction I am drawing is not at all adverse to the idea that sanctify means to set apart. What I am saying is that sanctification, if it is truly going to sanctify us, has to be internal to us and not external only. In other words, it is not enough to be "sanctified" if that only means you are going to remove yourself from exposure to sin and the evil elements of the world; and this is because the sin problem is internal to you and all of us, before it becomes externalized in ourbehavioralacts. If what Jesus meantwhen he said he sanctifies himself wasonly that he was being an example that his disciples might see and emulate, then we -- his disciples -- are still in our sins and cannot help but fail to follow the example. But ifwhen he said this, he was speaking to an internal sanctification on his part, then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivitiesthat produce evil within humanity, in order that his disciples might then be able to be sanctified as well. I am arguing that that is exactly what he did mean and that he didthis throughout his life -- which was a true sanctification of the human nature; in other words, there is genuine holiness in this. Once the tyrants were defeated in Christ, and he was resurrected innew humanity, and he sent his Spirit to indwell us,well, that isChrist in us, the hope of Glory! That is when we, his disciples, truly can be sanctified by the Word of God. We are now internally equipped to follow his external example, because in him -- and for us, andthus in us as well --the internal volitions were defeated and a new humanity resides in place of the old. Hallelujah! Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. BillIf "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
So, moderation today meansjumping in to stir the pot and to notify all as towhose side you are on, along with identifying and card filing those in the discussion?. Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled. Theobservationssound familiar though: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus". So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone whohears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent. jt On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this is crucial--all postscarry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of intepretation', theologically,is not yours; also, she maintains that it's onlyher 'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' in the background,like 'stealth'is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneuticin play isthat unlearnedness rules;in 'bible, bible, bible'posts laced with the authors''unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learningappears to bethe operative hermeneutical dynamic to account simultaneously for (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those who know by or throughlearning together--requiressome intelligence how couldonecut through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play? this is ahigh magnitude moderatorconundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I still don't understand, for that matter, why[jt] would say such things,
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
A smattering of applause from those who perceived the choice of 'thinkly' veiled to have been intentional. However Jt's 'deflector shields' allowed her to remain unscathed by Gary's 'phonton torpedoes'. Now we're talkin' 'rules of engagement'. (NB:she can't lose 'cause she can't be 'hit') - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 12, 2005 06:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin So, moderation today meansjumping in to stir the pot and to notify all as towhose side you are on, along with identifying and card filing those in the discussion?. Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled. Theobservationssound familiar though: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus". So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone whohears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent. jt On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this is crucial--all postscarry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of intepretation', theologically,is not yours; also, she maintains that it's onlyher 'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' in the background,like 'stealth'is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneuticin play isthat unlearnedness rules;in 'bible, bible, bible'posts laced with the authors''unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learningappears to bethe operative hermeneutical dynamic to account simultaneously for (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those who know by or throughlearning together--requiressome intelligence how couldonecut through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play? this is ahigh magnitude moderatorconundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I still don't understand, for that matter, why[jt] would say such things,
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Peter and John had a learning curve which effects ppl--the phrase'were unlearned' is past tense baby On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled. Of course it is thinkly veiled. Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual. JD "The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! "
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent. jt Actually, Judy, if you would take to time to read G's post, you would find a clear and positive statement about your intellectualism. I did not read it as a slam to you. Not at all - if anything, G was giving folks like me a point of view that allows for differing intellectualism from you. It helped me to understand you a little more. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
One of Alan Arkin's greatest roles. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 12, 2005 11:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.Of course it is thinkly veiled. Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual. JD"The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! "
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT: I was just trying to understand why you would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such things,but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a problem.Hm:Where are thethought policeon this one? Bill asks, scratching his head. jt: I say this Bill because to begin with noone has ever seen God and lived to tell ... Evenat Mt. Sinai Moses only saw His hinder parts and stillhad to put a veil over his face so as not to scare the people. The Israelites had sense enough not to want to go near that mountain because they would have been 'consumed' by His presence. This is the kind of glory that was layed aside and left in heaven when Jesus came to earth to takeupon Himself the body God had prepared for him in the womb of Mary. Bill had asked (for the second time):Was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel? jt answered: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can forcescripture to validateanything when they comewith a strongpreconceived notion. Jesus came here as the Son of God and during His incarnation He said and didonly what He first saw the Father doing and saying He said He hadno power in and ofHimself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?Why is this a big deal? In His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 10:4) What's the problem?? BT: I was just trying to understand why you would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such things,but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a problem.Hm:Where are thethought policeon this one? Bill asks, scratching his head.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your
statement is the opinion of apreacher namedDr. DeHaan of the
Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he
should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of
hisdefinition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing about
the subject today I would not even bother withall that and I'm not
even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate
this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the
term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even.
I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is
the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill that
we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old
Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue
over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is
the same as saying thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's
nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus"
was not an amalgomization in the sense thathis two natures came
together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His
two nature did not fuse to become a differentkind of new substance,
partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what theyboth
would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity
of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity ("thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's
nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity"). But you only think this way because you are thinking of
Jesus in terms of an alloy.But youridea of Jesusis
nothingother than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it
is their idea ofa demigod that you are upholding,Jesus being
"the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers
of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company).The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a
union --the union of twonatures coming together in one person:
fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we
would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting
that we would somehow become little gods, that we wouldbe a new
divinesubstance similar toGod. No, the "one" to which he speaks
can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together
to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance;
they become a union. That is what happened in the person of Christ between
his human nature and his divine nature; they formed a union, not an alloy.
Therefore God was in now way tainted by the fallenness of
humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the
tryants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming
perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he
suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel,NO PROBLEM. But think
of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have major
problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll have
problems with his humanity, and you will have problems with his divinity.
You will be saying things like "Jesus did not come here as God," on one day,
and he "took on part, but not all" of humanity, i.e.,"the flesh but
not the blood" on the next. Repent of your Greek concepts, Judy, and think
like Jesus, a Jew. There is no excuse for continuing in ignorance and
unlearnedness once you have heard the truth.
All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot
that notion in the foot - think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
today, and forever."
Yesterday he was the second
member of the Godhead. God is a
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Big mistake corrected below in BOLD
UPPERCASE!, smaller ones corrected, too.
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:00
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I wrote Never mind, Judy, I found it.
Your statement is the opinion of apreacher namedDr. DeHaan
of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It
seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the
obscurity of hisdefinition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing
about the subject today I would not even bother withall that and
I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so
many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came
up with the term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable
even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened
that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill
that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born
with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand
and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on
the other which is the same as saying thatGod (Emmanuel)has
now taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen
humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of
"Jesus" was not an amalgamization in the sense thathis two natures
came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming
brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a differentkind of
new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet dissimilar from
what theyboth would have been otherwise. This is what you propose
above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his
humanity ("thatGod (Emmanuel)has now
taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen
humanity"). But you only think this way
because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy.But
youridea of Jesusis nothingother than the syncretism
Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea ofa demigod
that you are upholding,Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a
mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company).The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is
a union --the union of twonatures coming together in one
person: fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms
of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed
that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not
suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we
wouldbe a new divinesubstance similar toGod. No, the
"one" to which he speaks can only be understood relationally, like a
husband and a wife come together to make one flesh. They do not become
an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a union. That is what
happened in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine
nature; they formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was
inNO way tainted by the fallenness of humanity in
the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life,
the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through
the things he suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel,NO PROBLEM. But
think of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have
major problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll
have problems with his humanity, and y
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy, I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say that he is one ofour "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is way into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while back -- they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But he is not one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still too Arminian for my liking;although he has done some good work relating to the problem of evil. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you are living in the world of Lance. Attached is a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might be interested. The reviewer points out the obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just all love and dancing with no responsibility. Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth. jt On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. jt: Their gospels are sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
I think the attachment is a Word Perfect
file. I had troubles also. Boyd is 'one of my boys'. I highly
enjoyed 'Repenting of Religion' but most of all find comfort in Boyd's attempts
at understanding suffering and evil (and he is one of the few
Trinitarianswho takes on spiritual warfare). While at the end of the
dayI would probably reject Open Theism I wholeheartedly appreciate its
attempts at challenging our ideas of suffering, prayer, and knowledge.
There is much in the Open view of God that is worth hearing and
digesting.
Jonathan lurking at Lance's desk
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 12, 2005 13:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
Judy,
I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't
read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say
that he is one ofour "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is
way into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while
back -- they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But
he is not one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still
too Arminian for my liking;although he has done some good work relating
to the problem of evil.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" -
TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
are living in the world of Lance. Attached is
a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
be interested. The reviewer points out the
obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't -
just
all love and dancing with no responsibility.
Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth. jt
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Bill: IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of
engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply
impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with
one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours Johns) are
sufficiently similar to do so.
jt: Their gospels are
sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of
engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter and John had a learning curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were unlearned' is past tense baby On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men = Now it's professor Peter and doctor John. -- 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] Original Sin
Bill Taylor wrote: Hey, David, would you tell me how you interpret Jesus' words in the following verses (feel free to draw from a larger context if you like)? John17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. In a nutshell, this passage teaches us that the word of God is truth, and it changes our hearts from that with which we were born. It causes us to be set apart as a peculiar people, a spiritual people, holy before God. This transformation occurs as we hear his word and believe his word, which is what trusting in Christ is. This passage also speaks about Jesus being our perfect example. He walked in this sanctifying process first, before us, that we also might be sanctified by the truth. It is by seeing how this worked itself out in the life of Christ that we know that we can do it too, and we can know what kind of response we will get in the world as we walk like this. This is the power of the incarnation. We might also observe here that it is not some magical work of Christ that sanctifies us, but rather we are sanctified by the word of truth that finds root in our hearts. We are sanctified in the same way that Jesus was sanctified -- by the word of truth. 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] Original Sin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! = Woe is us !! -- 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] Original Sin
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of hisdefinition for this word. jt: ... If I were writing about the subject today I would not even bother withall that and I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term. BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all. Do you find it ironic Bill that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is the same as saying thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity? BT: I will point out once again the deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was not an amalgomization in the sense thathis two natures came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a differentkind of new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what theyboth would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity "thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity" But you only think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy.But youridea of Jesusis nothingother than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea ofa demigod that you are upholding,Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company).The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a union --the union of twonatures coming together in one person: fully God, fully man. jt: I don't relate to the "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - alsoSpirit. I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us. ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as arepresentation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. This idea is not difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we wouldbe a new divinesubstance similar toGod. No, the "one" to which he speaks can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a union. jt: A husband and wife come together sexually as 'one flesh' which is a physical act. The Godhead is one Spirit which is a whole other kind of oneness. That is what happened in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine nature; they formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was in now way tainted by the fallenness of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. jt: If Jesus was born with an Adamic nature he would have to have thattaint if it comes through procreation. However, it appears that Adam was held responsible in the garden and men were held responsible for the spirituality of their families under the Old Covenant.DavidM and I were discussing thisin a biological way or by looking at natural generation. However, I note that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not give Jesus agenealogy after the flesh. Matthew traces the generations from Abrahamthrough Isaac (the son of Promise)to David and on to Christ(the Promise) and in Luke the genealogy goes all the way back to Adam genealogically and ends with Christ the son of Joseph (as was supposed) and we know that this is not so - which gives Jesus a spiritual rather than a natural genealogy - don't ask me to reconcile this with Greek syncretism. Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tryants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered. jt: How do we learn obedience by what HE suffered? If this is so then why do we have to learn all over again as God prunes us? Think of the two natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask questions like the one above. Jesus is
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Yes - I agree with you - Jesus was born witha human spirit inside his human body like all humans have. The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive "a measure" whenwe are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our human spirit passes from death to life). Any problems? Yes, big problems. You are making Jesus something other than human when you insist that he was equipped with things in his humanity that we are not in ours (i.e., a spirit that was alive to God whereas ours was dead), and then equip us with something in our humanity that he did not experience in his own person (i.e., a nature subject to the fall). Now humanity is a new creation in Christ's resurrection, born from above.And we receive theHoly Spirit if and when we believe the good news of our salvation. The spiritual-death thing can be pitched, because it is not a biblical concept. Jesus was alive to the things of God and so are we (because he defeated the powers which kept us in bondage), andif and when we stop believingthe lies of this world and its father and believe instead in the good news of our salvation, we are able to respond to our Father in heaven, because he sends us the Spirit of Christ with which to guide us. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of hisdefinition for this word. jt: ... If I were writing about the subject today I would not even bother withall that and I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term. BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all. Do you find it ironic Bill that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is the same as saying thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity? BT: I will point out once again the deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was not an amalgomization in the sense thathis two natures came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a differentkind of new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what theyboth would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity "thatGod (Emmanuel)has now taken on Satan's nature along withthe rest of fallen humanity" But you only think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy.But youridea of Jesusis nothingother than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea ofa demigod that you are upholding,Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company).The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a union --the union of twonatures coming together in one person: fully God, fully man. jt: I don't relate to the "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - alsoSpirit. I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us. ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as arepresentation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. This idea is not difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we wouldbe a new divinesubstance similar toGod. No, the "one" to which he speaks can only be unde
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered. jt: How do we learn obedience by what HE suffered? If this is so then why do we have to learn all over again when God prunes us personally? For the limited sake of this discussion I should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity was purifiedin relationship with his divinityin Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have been easier for you to understand. Nevertheless, in that he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from the Lambs book of life and in resurrectionwe will experience, not eternal life, but the second death, for which their is no salvation. Bill jt: If I remember correctly Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is important to you. But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated sin, death, and the devil. Yeshe did have victory over them in His own life and this is an example to us - Butit is the cross that is the power of God and from the cross we receivepower to overcome these things in our own lives. When he ascended he gave gifts to men and it iswhen we receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons of God. (John 1:12) Is this different from what you are saying above?
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Is this different from what you are saying above? Yes, but never mind. I love you, Judy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered. jt: How do we learn obedience by what HE suffered? If this is so then why do we have to learn all over again when God prunes us personally? For the limited sake of this discussion I should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity was purifiedin relationship with his divinityin Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have been easier for you to understand. Nevertheless, in that he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from the Lambs book of life and in resurrectionwe will experience, not eternal life, but the second death, for which their is no salvation. Bill jt: If I remember correctly Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is important to you. But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated sin, death, and the devil. Yeshe did have victory over them in His own life and this is an example to us - Butit is the cross that is the power of God and from the cross we receivepower to overcome these things in our own lives. When he ascended he gave gifts to men and it iswhen we receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons of God. (John 1:12) Is this different from what you are saying above?
RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
J Can we hear an Amen? Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:11 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin This reminds me, I found the rest of the saying ... :) Architects cover their mistakes with paint Doctors cover their mistakes with sod, Brides cover their mistakes with mayonaise Hypocrites cover themselves with ritual Theologians cover themselves with words (Should Iadd Greek ones?)
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
WOW all that to find out that PARTAKE means to UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Go Figure ! Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson'sat HOME! It might get misplaced along the way. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool. JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Be on guard against any tampering with the Word, whether disguised as a search for truth, or a scholarly attempt at apparently hidden meanings; and beware of the confusion created by the senseless rash of new versions, translations, editions, and improvements upon the tried and tested Bible of our fathers and grandfathers. Martin R DeHaan I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE GUILTY OF BEING OVERAMBITIOUS IN EARNESTLY 'CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH' (JUDE 3) THAN TO BE GUILTY OF COMPROMISE FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING OTHERS" (Bible Versions and Perversions. p. 31 1962 M R DeHaan). TURN FROM THOSE WHICH ARE THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF DOUBT, AND TURN TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WHICH IS THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF FAITH. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS RELIABLE BECAUSE IT TELLS US AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, and not what some galaxy of scholars (who, however learned, are but mortals like ourselves) think it ought to say" (IBID p. 26). He was a gravelly voiced KJV FUNDAMENTALIST preacher Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the opinion of apreacher namedDr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of hisdefinition for this word. He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' JT Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' JT In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. JT The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' JT The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. JT The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." JT When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know. Bill - Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judywrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago,
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! There goes the nieghborhood [sic] Written like a true anti-intellectual. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:52 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! There goes the nieghborhood [sic] Written like a true anti-intellectual. JD Better an anti-intellectual than a pseudo-intellectual. Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that callsHimEmmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesusdidrepresent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here(He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) andof course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministryHe hadlayed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likenessand he washereon earth asChrist Jesus,Messiah, Prince of Peace andLamb of God for the sole purpose of beingslain as a sacrifice for our sin. jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. Are you saying that you have never argued that the word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it means this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :) Please forgive me. jt: Not that I can recall, No. I regularly make a conscious effort not to add to or take away from what is written because I want to understand what God is saying rather thanwhat someone else thinks He said. No problem, thank you for sharing your thoughts Bill, Grace and Peace, Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:43:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John in bold print - we will have to clean this up nexttime around, I think. n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing. He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion - not capable of sinning. jt: His image did not make themCreators also. His image isbeingprimarily spirit with His nature and character. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. If Eve were in the image of God as according to you, she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait." jt: Sure she could and she did. She was deceived; see above for His image. They were still His creation, He didn't make them Gods. They were in His image just like Jesus came to earth and tookour likeness upon Himself. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choiceGod does not. Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do; God is not capable of such activity. Not capable. jt: Adam justified himself by blaming the woman "AFTER THE ACT" Also Adam was not God. Beingmade in God's "image and likeness" does not make him divine any more than Jesus being made in our "image and likeness" makes Him a sinner. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. jt: His nature was NOT the same as ours. Being made in the likeness of something is not exactly cloning/replicating the original. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ? of course not "propensity" you say - then I must agree jt: So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate inclination or tendency toward sin?" If this is so then the wise men who came to worship Him were fooled, and the angels along with Simeon and Anna were false prophets because they all called Him Holy. According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Sure He didand I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man. Man was created a free moral agent something God is not. Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin. jt: No my argument is taken from the Bible John. Where do you get the idea God is not free to do whatever He wants? When you are God who is there to tell you NO?He does exactly what He wants.Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring upAnd what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you? jt: Self fulfilling prophecy John? and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point?My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs. Does not happen. jt: Now you are, in effect (sarcasm), calling me a liar. I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. jt: No John, it's the wisdom of God and if youare not able to receive it you don't understand,righteousness, sin,and/or many other issues in God's Word. I don't care how long you've been in the ministry.If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. Do that, Judy. I always want scripture. God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that callsHimEmmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesusdidrepresent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here(He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) andof course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministryHe hadlayed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likenessand he washereon earth asChrist Jesus,Messiah, Prince of Peace andLamb of God for the sole purpose of beingslain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 11, 2005 08:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that callsHimEmmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesusdidrepresent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here(He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) andof course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministryHe hadlayed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likenessand he washereon earth asChrist Jesus,Messiah, Prince of Peace andLamb of God for the sole purpose of beingslain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that callsHimEmmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesusdidrepresent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here(He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) andof course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministryHe hadlayed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likenessand he washereon earth asChrist Jesus,Messiah, Prince of Peace andLamb of God for the sole purpose of beingslain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel? jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can forcescripture to validateanything when they comewith a strongpreconceived notion. Jesus came here as the Son of God and during His incarnation He said and didonly what He first saw the Father doing and saying He said He hadno power in and ofHimself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?Why is this a big deal? In His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 10:4) What's the problem??
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
*'we'*, meaning clearly that abilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below ..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation? ..in certain wars the DMZ for the North was also the DMZ for the South ..for now i think the'bilateral' notion applies, dependingon developments in the dialog/s how's Prudence? (hopefully thriving evenin herrented quarters:) cordially, G -- cc. David Miller On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Here *we* go with the.."ad hominems"..
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you are living in the world of Lance. Attached is a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might be interested. The reviewer points out the obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just all love and dancing with no responsibility. Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth. jt On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. jt: Their gospels are sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match. Repenting of Religion 2--10-05.wps Description: Binary data
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote: So you claim Jesus was born with an innate inclination or tendency toward sin? If this is so then the wise men who came to worship Him were fooled, and the angels along with Simeon and Anna were false prophets because they all called Him Holy. An innate inclination toward sin does not make a person unholy. The Scriptures call the brethren holy (Heb. 3:1, 1 Thess. 5:27), but this does not mean that their flesh was now without any innate inclination toward sin. 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] Original Sin
some feedback: no 'RoE', below,implies an eerie isolationism, perhaps like a mental handicap (to learning 'Truth') further, maybe yourapproach to hermeneuticsisbecoming clearer which is good; issummed up in the notion thattrue Christians know 'Truth'before it is learned while true thisinsight could assist our readers; what do you think? On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:37:28 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't know anything about "rules of engagement".. || ir[/]relevance to Truth. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote: The Brethren qualify because they are called out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those who are in Christ are; and they now have power to overcome any and all innate inclinations and/or tendencies. Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because of his ability not to follow them, he was holy. The flesh only defiles us if we follow it. Same with Jesus. He was holy even though his flesh was genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam. 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] Original Sin
BUY TRUTH - DON'T RENT ! Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *'we'*, meaning clearly that abilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below ..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation? ..in certain wars the DMZ for the North was also the DMZ for the South ..for now i think the'bilateral' notion applies, dependingon developments in the dialog/s how's Prudence? (hopefully thriving evenin herrented quarters:) cordially, G -- cc. David Miller On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Here *we* go with the.."ad hominems"..__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. So what? jt: So - that gospel is false and it is heresy. There is not a whole lot of difference between yours and theirs you are both making God totally responsible for everyone's choices and claiming that Adam's fall was appointed and predestined all along. The Mormons go so far as to say it was a good thing This is a little bit funny, actually. My doctrine is similar to the Mormon doctrine, you say. I ask, "So what?" And you respond by making the connection between what I believe and the Mormon teaching -- the similarity is that both are heretical and false. You do not seem to understand that your opinion of my belief structure is of no consequence on this forum. It has nothing to do with anything your might place into consideration in support of your point verses mine. You want to discuss issues, Judy, fine - and I will read your posted responses. But I will simply ignore any post that contains conclusions concerning my teachings that put me into the ranks of the truly heretical - and hence "the lost." Try to be nice and if thay is not to be, try to be silent. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. I might be wrong (but probably not) but maybe the "violation" of which you speak has something to do with our (Bill and me) taking our next breath !!! That seems to cause Judy the most pain. Just another good guy trying to share his wisdom, Johd David Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:53:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion. Coming from our friend, Judy Taylor (no kidding), this is a rather amazing observation. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
youhavesome for sale? On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:36:52 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BUY TRUTH ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Judy wrote: The Brethren qualify because they are called out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those who are in Christ are; and they now have power to overcome any and all innate inclinations and/or tendencies. Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because of his ability not to follow them, he was holy. The flesh only defiles us if we follow it. Same with Jesus. He was holy even though his flesh was genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam. Peace be with you. David Miller. Hey, David, would you tell me how you interpret Jesus' words in the following verses (feel free to draw from a larger context if you like)? John17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. Thanks, Bill -- 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] Original Sin
Bill had asked (for the second time):Was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel? jt answered: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can forcescripture to validateanything when they comewith a strongpreconceived notion. Jesus came here as the Son of God and during His incarnation He said and didonly what He first saw the Father doing and saying He said He hadno power in and ofHimself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?Why is this a big deal? In His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 10:4) What's the problem?? BT: I was just trying to understand why you would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such things,but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a problem.Hm:Where are thethought policeon this one? Bill asks, scratching his head.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
this is crucial--all postscarry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of intepretation', theologically,is not yours; also, she maintains that it's onlyher 'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' in the background,like 'stealth'is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneuticin play isthat unlearnedness rules;in 'bible, bible, bible'posts laced with the authors''unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learningappears to bethe operative hermeneutical dynamic to account simultaneously for (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those who know by or throughlearning together--requiressome intelligence how couldonecut through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play? this is ahigh magnitude moderatorconundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I still don't understand, for that matter, why[jt] would say such things,
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judywrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead andask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have thesource for the above quotation, where you saythat metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing whoor what itis. Did this come from a lexicon oris it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. Thefollowing is a sampling of what I have on this word: Friberg Lexicon: metecho --(have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho --to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon:metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood --Hb. 2:14." Reinecker Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho-- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tensepoints to the historic event of theIncarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man andaccordingly one withmankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition beingdistinctly different than these? If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'"Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think,in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have somethingto do with the fact that the eternal/divineLogos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there hechose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely,flesh and blood.What does your source say? Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9). Anyway, I'll talk to you later, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool. JD In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word: Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these? If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood. What does your source say? Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9). Anyway, I'll talk to you later, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the opinion of apreacher namedDr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of hisdefinition for this word. He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' JT Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' JT In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. JT The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' JT The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. JT The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." JT When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judywrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead andask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have thesource for the above quotation, where you saythat metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing whoor what itis. Did this come from a lexicon oris it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not l
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson'sat HOME! It might get misplaced along the way. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool. JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact th
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs.
Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.
Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?
He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same.
According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good"
He did not create a "fallen Adam"
Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this. So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were. When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve. At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected Christ. The creation event, for man, is not completed outside the reception of the Christ, His ministry of reconcilition and the spirtual process we know as "growth" resulting in a spiritual home with God in Christ. The "fall" makes this conclusion irresistable. But the "fall" did not mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam, himself. Look at the record of the fall. See there in its pages, the very same processes we, you and I, go through before a sin event. We have the association with evil influences, an intellectual openness to the consideration of sin, the act of justification, the sharing of evil opinion with others, the denial of the truth of God ("you will surely die"), the reaching out for sin, the act of taking into your possession the very opportunity for sin (plucking the fruit from the tree) all before the actual sin event. How is all this possible if they did not have the same capacity for sin, the same human nature, as we?
Remember -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. JD
There can be whatever God says there can be and Adam sinned by choice without
any propensity. Jesus OTOH refused to sin aside from any propensity. JT
Now, you know that Jesus was "tempted." God is not temptable. What is the difference between Jesus and God? His flesh. He became like us in every respect. The fact is this: Christ could have sinned and chose to do otherwise, condemning all those who say, "I am flesh, I have no choice." When it comes to sin, it is not that we can or cannot sin; rather, it is that we will or will not. I do not sin because I have to. I sin because I want to. An ugly fact that condemns us all.
God has not propensity for sin, and, consequently will never sin. He cannot sin.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were madein God's image which ispure, holy, and unblemished. Eve took the bait and became deceived because shelistened to the wrong voice. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam"Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. Johnhow is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it alwaysturn personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; I just happen to believe thatyou are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment.God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teachesthat God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginningin the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness)the seed of the womanis Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more clear? More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this. You are being "too careful" John because God can use any timeframe he wants to and none of us were there were we? No it wouldn't take God the Word 24hrs to make a statement. However you don't know how long it took God the Spirit to bring it to pass do you? We can only know what has been revealed, the secret things belong to the Lord. So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were. Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. I don't see a whole lot ofdifference. You are in effect making God responsible for the fall and saying it was appointed and predestined all along. No wonder you are so hung up on this eternal sonship doctrine. When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve. This is heresy John. Adam and Eve were complete; they were innocent and pure, naked and unashamed. They fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing; their job was to begood stewards over what God had already given them. The saying "Be patient with me God is not finished with me yet" is an excuse for our offences toward Him and others because
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
not divest himself of divinity in the kenosis, the taking on of human form; instead he maintained and demonstrated divinity via the path of humbling service, even unto death. In nothing less than a staggering pronouncement we read in verses 9-11 that this pleased the Father, who exalted this God-man, his Son Christ Jesus to the glory that had previously only been exercised in divinity. Thus it was in the exaltation that Christ established his Lordship --indeed in resurrection, over humanity and all creation, a human being becoming equal with God. And so we see that the Son did not become less than God in his service to humanity, indeed quite the opposite: in service he came to reveal the heart of God:"Then Jesus said to them, 'When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM (ego eimi), and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things'"(John 8.28). - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were madein God's image which ispure, holy, and unblemished. Eve took the bait and became deceived because shelistened to the wrong voice. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam"Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. Johnhow is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it alwaysturn personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; I just happen to believe thatyou are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment.God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teachesthat God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginningin the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness)the seed of the womanis Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more clear? More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this. You are being "too careful" John because God can use any timeframe he wants to and
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:51:01 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? Please allow yourself to consider what I've written pertaining to Philippians 2.5-11 (see below*). jt: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that refers to Him as Emmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. But earlier Judy wrote For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teachesthat God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginningin the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. No, Judy, that is not so. Moreover, you do not realize what you have done. In the same post youhave denied both Jesus' divinity and his humanity. Jesus did not come in the similarity of a man; forI am aware thatthis is what you mean. No, the Son of God took upon himselfthe likeness of manin that he was also fully human. jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. To uphold the human nature of Jesus is not to say that his divine nature was anything less than wholly divine. Jesus was fully human and fully God, two natures in one person. jt: I don't believe I am saying what you think that I am saying Bill. What I object to is the idea that Jesus had a "fallen human nature" in the image of the first Adam which is what the rest of us who are born by means of procreation inherit along with the 'iniquities of the fathers' If I may, I would like tosay, as it pertains to your comments about his humanity, that you are making the mistake that many, many Christians make today, in that you are attempting to make the human nature of Jesus somethingother thanwhat it was -- completely human --and this in order to uphold the integrity of his divinity (although as I consider your comments above I can only wonder why). But that is not necessary: jt: I don't know exactly what you mean by "completely human" Bill. I have no problem with Jesus being fully human on the same order as the first Adam before the fall along with a full measure of the Holy Spirit but He was not exactly like us. He received worship. the human nature of Jesus was not divine, andthe divine nature of Jesus was not human; the humanity was human and the divinity was divine and the two came together to form an inseparableunion in the one person of Jesus Christ. And because the two natures were not equal, in thathis human nature was infinitely inferior to his divine, yet never once overwhelmed by it (cf Phil. 2.5-11 see below), the incarnationalrelationship between the two natures must always be considered asymmetrical. Being human, Jesus was frail in every manner commensurate to humanity, even in that he could sin and that he was fraught with the same proclivities as we; butbeing divine, he was able to overcome that frailty in every instance -- throughout his life gaining victory over that which from the time of the fall had held humanity in bondage. jt: I don't understand your thinking Bill because it is so theological but I do understand the person of Jesus and yes he had the same limitations we dobecause of his humanity and he overcame temptation in the wilderness by the Word of God which is honored by God the Father, not because He was divine (he layedthat aside - remember?). His teaching was from the Father and the works were from the Father also. He said the Father is greater than I - Hence he was able to reverse that captivity, taking it captive anddefeating it in himself --finally and forever, once and for all. O but to recognize and embrace this truth is not to diminish the divine characteristics of our Lord; nor is it to make him less than or other than what he was; it is to worship Emmanuel, God with us, pure and holy, to exalt him and to glorify him for who he was: Mary's son, theSon of God--for what he did, none other could do. Thank you, Jesus. Bill jt: I don't believe I am diminishing any of that Bill; but He could not have had a fallen human nature and be pure and holy ATST. My belief is that He took the form of man upon himself with it's human limitations, everything other than it's fallenness.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God... And again later she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that refers to Him as Emmanuel also calls HimEverlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? __ jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. Are you saying that you have never argued that the word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it means this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :) Please forgive me. Peace to you, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
I John in bold print - we will have to clean this up next time around, I think. n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity. No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey. Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing. He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion - not capable of sinning. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. If Eve were in the image of God as according to you, she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait." Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choice -- God does not. Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do; God is not capable of such activity. Not capable. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame of course not with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ? "propensity" you say - then I must agree According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Sure He did --- and I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man. Man was created a free moral agent . something God is not. Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin. Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring up and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs. Does not happen. I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. Do that, Judy. I always want scripture. God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You have missed the point, entirely. I read the Genesis account, make note of what happened, in detail, immediately prior to the actual eating of the forbidden fruit, and draw my conclusions. About as scriptural as one can get. What we -- I guess I should say "I" -- what I see IN THE RECORD of Adam and Eve up until the time of the sin event is the character of two individuals AS THEY WERE CREATED. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more clear? Creation is a narrative account of the act of creation by God. The purpose of the creation story was the establishment of the 7th day rest. Moses is
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *note subject change Subject was " Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin" Bill Taylor wrote: ... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned to them as sin until that time that they have both a cognitive and a moral awareness of the law, i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9). Izzy wrote: Agreed. Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5? The following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man: Romans 5:18 (18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Several verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation: Romans 5:14 (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression The concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions. These people who experienced death did so because of someone who sinned before them. Furthermore, they had no real understanding that that their actions were sinful because there was no law. I have to admit that I tend to look at matters the way you two do, but I fear that much of that is because of my culture and upbringing. These passages challenge my way of thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you can. I am very interested. David Miller. Allow me one comment. When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 5:12. We are complicit with Adam because we, ALSO, have sinned. Adam's sin opened the door to death -- but his life did not condemn us apart from our own failings. No need to respond to this. I will butt out for now. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
John wrote: When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 5:12. We are complicit with Adam because we, ALSO, have sinned. True enough. I think we all agree with this. However, the issue raised by Bill was that their transgressions are not reckoned to them until that time that they have both a cognitive and moral awareness of the law. It was said that if they don't have an understanding of why their transgressions are sinful, then their transgressions are not reckoned to them. If this were true, why then the argument by Paul that men were condemned even though their sin was not like Adam's sin? And how was it not like Adam's sin? They had no knowledge that they were sinning. Yet, they continued to die. Why? Because Adam's sin was imputed to them, and they all sinnned. They continued to sin in ignorance, yet they still suffered condemnation. One transgression resulted in condemnation to all men (Rom. 5:18). 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] Original Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:33:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Allow me one comment. When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 5:12. jt: Don't let us forget Romans 5:14 either"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned" So infants are born into a culture of death no matter which way you look at it. We are complicit with Adam because we, ALSO, have sinned. jt: We and our offspring are complicit with Adam because we are born into the spiritual death he embraced when he chose to disobey God. Adam's sin opened the door to death -- but his life did not condemn us apart from our own failings. jt: His life condemned us to be born under the curse ofdeath rather than born into life (by natural generation) and there is just one way to reverse the curse and move from death to life. No need to respond to this. I will butt out for now. jt: No problem John... In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *note subject changeSubject was " Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"Bill Taylor wrote:... I do not think their transgressions are reckonedto them as sin until that time that they have both acognitive and a moral awareness of the law,i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgressionof such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).Izzy wrote:Agreed.Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5? The following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man:Romans 5:18(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnationSeveral verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:Romans 5:14(14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgressionThe concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions. These people who experienced death did so because of someone who sinned before them. Furthermore, they had no real understanding that that their actions were sinful because there was no law. I have to admit that I tend to look at matters the way you two do, but I fear that much of that is because of my culture and upbringing. These passages challenge my way of thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you can. I am very interested.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
See comments below: - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin *note subject change Subject was " Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin" Bill Taylor wrote: ... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned to them as sin until that time that they have both a cognitive and a moral awareness of the law, i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9). Izzy wrote: Agreed. Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5? The following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man: Romans 5:18 (18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Several verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation: Romans 5:14 (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression The concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions. I think you mis-perceive my perception. :) This is where I find disagreement with Izzy and you, I believe, if I correctly remember your position. Were it not for their inclusion in Christ, by way of his atoning representation of them, young children (along with all humanity), would remain under the condemnation of Adam's offense, and should they die, they would die under the judgment of that same offence.Hence, I wrote to Izzy that I had great difficulty thinking of them as "innocent": Were it not for Christ, their guilt in Adam would condemn them, even before they have "sinned"(Paul touches on the same thingin verse 14, although in 2Cor 5.19 he clarifies that God did not impute their trespasses to them).BUT this is not the rest of the story.Verse 18 goes on tostate: "even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all [humans], resulting in justification of life."Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation of humanityand remain so until they refuse him and therefore that justification of life. Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon Izzy disagreed,arguing instead that they don't need to be saved because they have not sinned. If I remember you correctly, I think you take a similar position. Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
These passages challenge my way of thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you can. I am very interested. Peace be with you. David Miller. David, I see orginal sin as the inherited sin nature. I believe that you have stated in the past that God judges us for our committed sins. (Not for our inherited sin-tendency.) A newborn infant has committed no sin. Whenever he reaches the age of accountability/understanding/conscience then he can (and does) sin. Until then he is just doing whatever he has been conditioned to do by those around him. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill Taylor wrote: Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and therefore that justification of life. One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the observation of death. I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in regards to humans being born into death. Those who are born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did prior to Christ's incarnation. Do you see it differently? Bill Taylor wrote: Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't need to be saved because they have not sinned. If I remember you correctly, I think you take a similar position. No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do not need to be saved because they have not sinned. I admit that I have trouble seeing how guilt would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 18 supports this view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death and are in a state that is separated from God. There are questions about all of this that I am still trying to work out in my mind. The Augustinian tradition seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt. I suppose I tend toward that perspective. There also appears to be different kinds of condemnation, the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority over us (hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth geneartion) versus the condemnation for sin committed in ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed wilfully and obstinately. If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any condemnation due to those who commit sins in ignorance. If I am hearing you wrong on this, please clarify. Thanks. 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] Original Sin
It may not bother y'all to read all my spelling mistakes (thank you for being sogracious),but it bothers me very much when I make them-- so, as a form of penitence, I have corrected some mistakes below: Thanks, Bill - Original Message -From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:43 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original SinBill Taylor wrote:Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and therefore thatjustification of life.David responds One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the observation of death. I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in regards to humans being born into death. Those who are born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did prior to Christ's incarnation. Do you see it differently?Yes, David: as long as God is patient, not willing that any should perish but come to repentance, humans will continue to die for the same reason that Adam died after he sinned: they will remain removed from the tree of life, lest they eat of it and live forever under the conditions of the fall. (See below for more comments on this)Bill Taylor wrote:Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't need to be saved because they have not sinned. If I remember you correctly, I think you take a similar position.David responds No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do not need to be saved because they have not sinned. I admit that I have trouble seeing how guilt would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 18 supports this view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death and are in a state that is separated from God. There are questions about all of this that I am still trying to work out in my mind. The Augustinian tradition seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt. I suppose I tend towardthat perspective. There also appears to be different kinds of condemnation, the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority over us (hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation) versus the condemnation for sin committed in ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed willfully and obstinately.If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any condemnation due to those who commit sins in ignorance. If I am hearing you wrong on this, please clarify. Thanks.David David, I do very much think thatall Christians today need to be very diligent in thinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on their anthological interpretations. He has had a colossal impact on our thinking in this area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue to agree with him, which is their prerogative. My suspicion, however, is that most are unaware of his influence on their theological perspectives and will want to adjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through his theology, and realized the influence of Manicheaism on his thought processes.To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as I stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity. Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I think, hm. I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward sin, Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. But in his victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification of ALL life (which is why God in his forbearance did not "impute" their trespasses to them), including life after death, which will be granted to deceased children via their inclusion in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like to look into this a bit further before being any more specific.Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:28 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent inthinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on theiranthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our thinking inthis area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue to agreewith him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is that most areunaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and will want toadjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through histheology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his thought processes. jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's been dead for so long? BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you "heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone else, didn't they? Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the source of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think you go to the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of other Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to disagree: Is it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? The truth is, you bring things with you to your study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. It is his business as to why he doesn't bring wellmeaning Christians to consensus on every theological point, but he does not, and he does not tell us why this is so. Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical text. It is a technical term that you read into the text in your study of Scripture, as it pertains to the human condition. If it is a correct theological term, in that it is an accurate conclusion, you have Augustine to thank for this: it is his term, which you areemploying now as if it were a true biblical concept. I happen to think it comes to us as a result of the dualism he operated under, because of the Manichaeism in his past. As I said before, you may read Augustine and find that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover thatmuch of what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in Augustine's arguments. To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the termsyou are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the treeof life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity. jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in (a state of) iniquity my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl) BT: Yes, indeed he does. And our same Bible also says that from the fruit (and think in terms of the sperm) of his genitals, Jesus would be born (through Mary, of course; see Acts 2.30). Why do you also deny below that Jesus was born under the same propensities as David, from his fathers back to Adam? Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I think,hm. jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I respectfully disagree. The iniquities (generational curses) come downthrough the Fathers and those who spoke prophetically over him at the temple when he was an infant along with the angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all referred to Him as "that holy thing" BT: This conclusionreflects upon your deficient understanding of the word "holy." Holy is first and formost a term which speaks to the quality of the relationship within the Godhead, the mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is what is in view in the above mentioned statements. What I am saying pertaining to "the judgment of that condemnation" is that, being human, Jesus to was born under the sentence of death, and this in part (at least) because of the post-lapsarian (which means after the fall) exclusion of humans from the tree of life. I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward sin,Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. jt: Jesus could have
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's been dead for so long? BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you "heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone else, didn't they? jt: Depends what you mean by gospel. The first time I heard that I needed to come to Jesus was at a Billy Graham rally and I came fwd but it took another 17yrs for me to take that commitment seriously and this was when I began to study the scriptures for myself. Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the source of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think you go to the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of other Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to disagree: Is it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? jt: Do I agree with the scriptures or the "other Christians" who go to them? The Holy Spirit is not confused and He is the one we should depend upon to lead us into All truth. I can only speak for myself, I don't know what other Christians are up to. The truth is, you bring things with you to your study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. jt: I know you won't believe this Bill but I had no assumptions before I began sitting under certain teachers. Being a Medical Transcriptionist by profession I am able to take good notes and I began to see a lot of contradictions. This was also true in some books, the onesthat had to do with explaining what the scriptures were saying - so I layed them all aside and started over and this is when the scriptures really began to open up and speak to me. It is his business as to why he doesn't bring well meaning Christians to consensus on every theological point, but he does not, and he does not tell us why this is so. jt: I know why this is so Bill. It is because His hands are tied. When we look to men rather than to God we are open to every wind of doctrine and doctrines of men take the heart captive and blind the eyes. They also cause division. Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical text. jt: Those exact words may not be there but the concept is because Adam died the day he ate the fruit from the wrong tree and we know that he didn't die physically. Why do you have such a difficult time with this? What is "life and death are in the power of the tongue" talking about? - physical or spiritual death. It is a technical term that you read into the text in your study of Scripture, as it pertains to the human condition. If it is a correct theological term, in that it is an accurate conclusion, you have Augustine to thank for this: it is his term, which you areemploying now as if it were a true biblical concept. I happen to think it comes to us as a result of the dualism he operated under, because of the Manichaeism in his past. jt: I don't know about Augustine and his Manichaestic dualism but that's not where I'm at. I believe God man man a triune being. God is Spirit and being made in His image we are also primarily spirit beings who have a soul and who live in a body. So you see my beliefs are not patterned after those of Augustine. As I said before, you may read Augustine and find that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover thatmuch of what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in Augustine's arguments. jt: Why can't I be honest with God's Word? I don't need Augustine as a mediator. IMO this is the problem. We can not discuss or fellowship around God's Word alone. Why is that? To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity. jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in (a state of)
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:21:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as I stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity. Yes -- this is most interesting to me as well. I have never seen "condemnation" dealt with in quite the way David has approached it. Is the death of Adam and Eve spiritual or physical. It seems to me to be physical. God says they will die if they eat of the one tree. They are driven from the garden specifically because of their proximity to the other tree " .. if they eat they live forever . " In fact, the existence of the tree of life is somewhat of a surprise to the reader of the Genesis story. It is never even hinted at until "death" has become an issue. Plan B theology (as I call it) is a problem for me. Perhaps the two of you will say something in your discussion that will open a door on that issue for me. But please do not gear the discussion to that end. If something is said that inadvertently effects that thinking on my part -- so be it. I am just thinking out loud. I will shut up. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's been dead for so long? go back to sleep Judy. Bill and David do not need any help. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity. No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. Remember -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity. No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Remember -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. JD There can be whatever God says there can be and Adam sinned by choice without any propensity. Jesus OTOH refused to sin aside fromany propensity. JT
RE: [TruthTalk] Original sin
DavidM wrote: Rather than belabor our discussion, please just look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as the rest of humanity? Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) Judy: The above tells me that Jesus partook of flesh and blood which I have never disputed. It is the kind of blood that flowed in his veins that we are discussing I feel that we are wrangling over words to no profit, so my response will be brief. In this passage, you seem to be doing everything humanly possible to dodge the clear message of the passage. It does not just say that he partook of flesh and blood. It speaks of the kind of flesh and blood which he partook of. It was the SAME as ours. It is written, FOREASMUCH THEN AS the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise TOOK PART OF THE SAME. Green's literal translation reads: Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, IN LIKE MANNER He Himself ALSO SHARED THE SAME THINGS. Jesus shared the same kind of flesh and blood as we do. He was descended genetically from Adam, Abraham, and David. This is the testimony of Scripture. You can deny it all you want, but the Bible is clear on this matter. There is no need to argue it away. Judy wrote: and this is because if he had blood from the family of man that is through the first Adam then just like the Levitical priests - he would need a sacrifice for his own iniquities which still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all and be accepted. What is this foolishness? What do you mean by saying, It still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all? If the high priest could enter the holy place offering the blood of animals, could not Jesus also enter it offering his own blood? Surely you are aware that the Scriptures tell us of the animal sacrifices that were offered for Jesus Christ when he was born (Luke 2:24). Why was that done from your perspective? Something else to consider is that if Jesus was not born of a woman, of the same flesh and truly descended physically from Adam, Abraham, and David, then he would not be subject to the law and sacrifices that were commanded. Think about that. Was Jesus under the law or not? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] Original sin
DavidM wrote: If the blood of a lowly lamb can atone for sin, how much more can the blood of a righteous man born of the seed of Adam atone for sin. Judy wrote: The blood of lowly lambs was a temporary measure which never did atone for sin - it only covered the sin of Israel as a nation one year - they all looked ahead to the coming of the promised seed. The blood of lambs, while temporary, most certainly did atone for sin. Atonement means covering, so you contradict yourself when you say that it never did atone for sin - it only covered the sin. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest SHALL MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 4:32-35 KJV) DavidM wrote: On the other hand, if Jesus did not have the blood of Adam coursing through his veins, he would have been disqualified from being an eternal sacrifice for our sin. Judy wrote: What basis in fact do you have for the above statement? This is the conclusion I have come to from years of studying why God had to be clothed with flesh. Why did Christ become flesh? Jesus had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. There also are legal reasons for it. The Bible teaches that Satan is the god of this world, and he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of this world if he would worship him. How did Satan get all this? By deception and stealing. God had the power to take it all away from him by force. Why become flesh? Why suffer? Why humble himself per Philippians 2? The answer comes to us when we consider the legal aspects of ownership and authority. Jesus had to become a man to rightful redeem man. If you deny that Jesus Christ became flesh of the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David, you have a whole lot of explaining to do about why become a man at all which was subject to the pain and misery that Jesus experienced. Such was unnecessary if his true humanity was unnecessary. Judy wrote: The blood of Adam is a contaminant and this is why we are in need of redemption. On what basis in fact do you make this claim? Does the blood of humans prevent the Holy Ghost from indwelling us? Do you imagine some physical change in our blood that happens upon conversion? Judy wrote: You did not answer my question re the 'virgin birth' DavidM. Why the need for a virgin birth if your theory is correct? I did answer your question. There is absolutely no need for the virgin birth, other than it serving as a prophetic sign, like the shadow of the sun dial moving back 10 degrees. DavidM wrote: If Jesus had come through some other way, he would have been a thief and a robber. However, Jesus came through the door, that is to say, his flesh. Judy wrote: The door is Jesus Himself, (you have added the word flesh) Jesus is our door, but human flesh was the door by which Jesus came into the sheepfold to lead and guide us and redeem mankind. Judy wrote: ... Jesus is NOT a flesh body. Have you not read the testimony of Scripture? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:39-43 KJV) For MANY DECEIVERS are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] Original sin
. Judy wrote: ... Jesus is NOT a flesh body. Have you not read the testimony of Scripture? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. Jesus was fully man. He took on flesh,. He was born of a woman. As he grew, he INCREASED in wisdom and stature. He felt hunger and thirst and pain, He died. Yet Jesus was also fully God. God is the SAME, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He was God in Genesis 1:1, He was God in the womb, He was God on the cross, He is God today and will be God forever. The SAME! Don't ask me to explain it. Just look at God's word. Terry -- 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] Original sin
Judy wrote: Jesus became flesh and yes he was called the son of man but he was not of the same genealogy as Adam ie: But He whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (Hebrews 7:6,7). The phrase, whose descent is not counted from them refers to the fact that Melchisedec was not descended from the SONS OF LEVI. This says nothing about Jesus not coming from Abraham or Adam. Why do you think Luke spends so much time giving us the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line in Luke 3? Read Heb. 2:16 again. Jesus took on him the SEED OF ABRAHAM. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but HE TOOK ON HIM THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18 KJV) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. (2 Timothy 2:8 KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-4 KJV) Judy wrote: I do deny that Jesus Christ was of the same genetical seed as Adam, Abraham, and David. Scripture reveals that he is the King of Salem Melchizidec to whom Abraham gave a tithe. Hebrews 7:16 tells us he as our Great High Priest is not made after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. Read the verse just BEFORE this one. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec there ariseth ANOTHER priest. (Hebrews 7:15 KJV) The Scriptures do NOT teach that Melchisedec and Jesus were the same person. Melchisedec was a type of Christ, much like Joseph was, and much like the passover lamb was. Rather than belabor our discussion, please just look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as the rest of humanity? Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) And the following verses give the context: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] Original sin
Judy wrote: Only if he was a man with Adam's blood coursing through his veins which would impart Adam's iniquity and disqualify him as a sacrifice for our sin. I'm not buying what you're selling, Judy. :-) If the blood of a lowly lamb can atone for sin, how much more can the blood of a righteous man born of the seed of Adam atone for sin. On the other hand, if Jesus did not have the blood of Adam coursing through his veins, he would have been disqualified from being an eternal sacrifice for our sin. Only the son of man could redeem man. If Jesus had come through some other way, he would have been a thief and a robber. However, Jesus came through the door, that is to say, his flesh. Jesus became man that he might redeem man rightfully so. Satan came in his own form and as a thief usurped the authority of man. Jesus came in the flesh of man so that he rightfully possessed that which belonged to him as a man. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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.
