Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
cd; Thank you for this post Bill. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/2/2006 9:12:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly converting the will of man. By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judith H Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
It may be helpful to distinguish between duality
and dualism.
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T
UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil
having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of
Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to
the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the
power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the
person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly
converting the will of man.
By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so
many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are
problematic.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judith H
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T
UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself
-- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal
3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in
me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism.
jd
--
Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..same with
male female--'made He them' says
Moses
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth (acc
to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically
polar opposites)
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to
be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent. In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements or spirits. The term dualism can refer to a variety of doctrines, mainly in theology and philosophy, each involving the purported existence of two substances ( often opposites) of some kind. These opposites can be, among other things, opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories. Bill has been the one who has said themost concerning dualism , to my memory. And I have come to accept much of what has been written. In counseling, the habit of sin (activity) is chemically enhanced in the brain. Your long term preformance becomes blueprinted, if you will , into your psyche. That is why an action or activity can become addictive -- actually it is whypatteren activity WILL become "addictive." I was quite the dualist before TT and Bill Taylor. I am not one now. the "old man" of the bible is, to me, those thing I do or think that are harmful to me (the bible being an excellent guide in this regard, if not the final word.) But my life is not defined by these falings. The same principles of the pysche work in regard to repeated "good" activity. What we call "addiction" (IMO) is the attachment of whatever repeated activity to my personhood via this chemical process.It is the oneness of my person that speaks (for me) against the idea of dualism. The old man is alway there - he is that character we do not wish to be - for whatever reason. Paul tells us in Romans 6:11 to CONSIDER yourselves to be dead to sin but alive in Christ. If the old man were actually dead -- as in dead and gone -- I would not have to consider anything. I would be alive in Christ with no choices to make. Although I look forward to the freedom of not having to make choices anymore, such is not the case now. Eph 4 :20-24 reminds us of the continuing presence of the old man along with the new. I am what I have done coupled with what God sees me to be in Christ. The result is my person. And not every influence in my life is either "good" or "bad" in a moral sense. In addition to these, there is my level of intelligence, the intensity of my passions, my ability to overcome fear -- and so I say "what dualism?!!" bsp; I am not just good and bad. When it comes to matters of personhood, I am not a dualist.I am not the combination of only two natures.The probelm of sin is huge and complicated. And so it is that God contributes much more than His Spirit. Heroin addicts have a terrible history of recovery (less than 3%) Isthe addictgoing to hell because his pysche is locked into that which cannot be overcome (at least for the time being)? Well, when we cannot access the Spirit's influence, grace abounds and the blessing of the crossreveals itself -- saving man when he does not deserve to be saved. In Hebrews we are told that judgment day will include a consideration of the "intentions of the heart." And what is the greater struggle? To be clean and sober, free from addiction and a child of God or to be addicted beyond control, facing the Devil's work as he tries to persuade you to give up -- using your failur es to convince you that you are lost and without hope? Which is the greater battle? And who deserve the "credit" for trying? He who isvictor or he who will not let go of the hope within in spite of his failings -- believing that God is bigger than all that tries to bring him down. Both are noteworthy, of course, but the man of problems is not to be denied. Chrsit came not for the righteous but to seek and save the lost. It is before his master that he stands or falls and he will be made to stand !!! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly converting the will of man. By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judith H Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wholly good and ATST wholly evil
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/3/2006 7:38:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. cd; Yeah what he said:-) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly converting the will of man. By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judith H Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
NT evidence suggests that one dayGodhimselfbecamea rebellious 12 year old On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:13:53 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly fallen man
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Reply to my reply to my reply to..oh wellPERHAPS David Miller does NOT understand! L - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 15:59 Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: February 03, 2006 15:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wow. This was great. Amen and amen. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:38 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 08:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent. In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements or spirits. The term dualism can refer to a variety of doctrines, mainly in theology and philosophy, each involving the purported existence of two substances ( often opposites) of some kind. These opposites can be, among other things, opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories. Bill has been the one who has said themost concerning dualism , to my memory. And I have come to accept much of what has been written. In counseling, the habit of sin (activity) is chemically enhanced in the brain. Your long term preformance becomes blueprinted, if you will , into your psyche. That is why an action or activity can become addictive -- actually it is whypatteren activity WILL become "addictive." I was quite the dualist before TT and Bill Taylor. I am not one now. the "old man" of the bible is, to me, those thing I do or think that are harmful to me (the bible being an excellent guide in this regard, if not the final word.) But my life is not defined by these falings. The same principles of the pysche work in regard to repeated "good" activity. What we call "addiction" (IMO) is the attachment of whatever repeated activity to my personhood via this chemical process.It is the oneness of my person that speaks (for me) against the idea of dualism. The old man is alway there - he is that character we do not wish to be - for whatever reason. Paul tells us in Romans 6:11 to CONSIDER yourselves to be dead to sin but alive in Christ. If the old man were actually dead -- as in dead and gone -- I would not have to consider anything. I would be alive in Christ with no choices to make. Although I look forward to the freedom of not having to make choices anymore, such is not the case now. Eph 4 :20-24 reminds us of the continuing presence of the old man along with the new. I am what I have done coupled with what God sees me to be in Christ. The result is my person. And not every influence in my life is either "good" or "bad" in a moral sense. In addition to these, there is my level of intelligence, the intensity of my passions, my ability to overcome fear -- and so I say "what dualism?!!"n bsp; I am not just good and bad. When it comes to matters of personhood, I am not a dualist.I am not the combination of only two natures.The probelm of sin is huge and complicated. And so it is that God contributes much more than His Spirit. Heroin addicts have a terrible history of recovery (less than 3%) Isthe addictgoing to hell because his pysche is locked into that which cannot be overcome (at least for the time being)? Well, when we cannot access the Spirit's influence, grace abounds and the blessing of the crossreveals itself -- saving man when he does not deserve to be saved. In Hebrews we are told that judgment day will include a consideration of the "intentions of the heart." And what is the greater struggle? To be clean and sober, free from addiction and a child of God or to be addicted beyond control, facing the Devil's work as he tries to persuade you to give up -- using your failur es to convince you that you are lost and without hope? Which is the greater battle? And who deserve the "credit" for trying? He who isvictor or he who will not let go of the hope within in spite of his failings -- believing that God is bigger than all that tries to bring him down. Both are noteworthy, of course, but the man of problems is not to be denied. Chrsit came not for the righteous but to seek and save the lost. It is before his master that he stands or falls and he will be made to stand !!! jd -- Origin
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:09:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Guess again, Judy. Just because you can count to two is no evidence that "dualism" has occurred. Dualism, when applied to human nature, is not a characteristic count. That Christ is wholly God and wholly Man is not a dualism. jt: Of course it is; two opposite natures in the one person is just that. It makes him doubleminded and a doubleminded man is unstable in all of his ways. schizophrenic even. It is a statement of who Christ Incarnateis (He is still the Incarnate Christ, you know -- but with a glorified body.) jt: It is not a statementChrist ever made of himself, it was cobbled together by men who were not dealing with a full deck and who were in sin because they were anxious and fearful about hereticks. He has reconcilied all things in the body of His flesh - wholly Man and wholly God are wholly reconciled in the body of His flesh -- If they were opposing forces, Son of God versus Son of Man, you might have a point. And they were opposing forces until Christ. But they have been reconciled. jt: Things were reconciled at the time of the resurrection - not before. You have someone you are claiming is wholly God and wholly fallen man walking around during his time on earth and this is dualism. A few days ago, I liken thisto a glass of juice stirred together with a glass of water. In the stirring, in that confusion, the two substances become indistinguishable!! A very poor illustration. God and Man are reconsiled in Christ - they do not loose their distinctiveness. They now work together as man and God were intended. See G's earlier but brief post on this. Profoundly simple - profoundly so. [myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites] Until men (individuals) making up mankind as a whole repents from the heart and agrees to do things God's way - they are in fact polar opposites. Note: God was ready to kill Moses himself when he neglected to circumcize his son. jd -- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD anyone who states that Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man is a dualist. and this is you. judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:23:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Two things. 1. Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me. 2. You are a dualist and I am not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments a re meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
What makes you think that Jesus was in control of the timing of his own death JD? Scripture teaches that the times and seasons are in the hands of the Father. Are you now saying that Jesus is the Father? Manipulation is using devious means to get another to do your will without their consent and this is sin - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:17:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you mean to imply that "deception" is always sinfully wrong, then manipulation is not deception. You use manipulation often. "We're waiting, Bill !! Where is your anser Bill? Or , is this just another example of you taking your ball (gosh, I hope this is not another reference to King Dav .. oh, never mind) and run home." That is manipulation, Judy. Jesus was in control of the timing of His death - a form of manipulation. Like I said - you have no scripture on this - and sure enough, you don't. jd From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manipulation is sin JD. It is deception, working another person for your own ends. What's more it is not God's way. He gives his creation choices - always. It is the adversary who is the anger and control freak. You choose each day who you will serve. judyt On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion.? It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine. In fact, just the opposite is true. Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy. You have no scripture on this and will never have. The fact is this - Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day. jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
What makes you think that Jesus was in control of the timing of his own death JD? Scripture teaches that the times and seasons are in the hands of the Father.Your scripture reference is ??And are you saying that the knowledge of the Father is not shared with the Son? And are you saying that Jesus did not know of the time of His own death or that He had avoided death on an eariler occasion(s) but chose not to avoid death on this final occasion? Are you now saying that Jesus is the Father? I am most definitely affirming that the Father and Son are one. Manipulation is using devious means to get another to do your will without their consent and this is sin - Look the word manipulation up, Judy rather than expecting us to by into your personal and biased definition. JudySpeak is all you have on this one. Prove me wrong. judyt -- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] What makes you think that Jesus was in control of the timing of his own death JD? Scripture teaches that the times and seasons are in the hands of the Father. Are you now saying that Jesus is the Father? Manipulation is using devious means to get another to do your will without their consent and this is sin - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:17:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you mean to imply that "deception" is always sinfully wrong, then manipulation is not deception. You use manipulation often. "We're waiting, Bill !! Where is your anser Bill? Or , is this just another example of you taking your ball (gosh, I hope this is not another reference to King Dav .. oh, never mind) and run home." That is manipulation, Judy. Jesus was in control of the timing of His death - a form of manipulation. Like I said - you have no scripture on this - and sure enough, you don't. jd From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manipulation is sin JD. It is deception, working another person for your own ends. What's more it is not God's way. He gives his creation choices - always. It is the adversary who is the anger and control freak. You choose each day who you will serve. judyt On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion.? It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine. In fact, just the opposite is true. Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy. You have no scripture on this and will never have. The fact is this - Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day. jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
I am speaking of the nature of Christ.In Him, man and God work together as they should.Oneness, my dear. But, it you think it important to insist on otherwise, be my guest. jd -- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Judy wrote: ... two opposite natures in the one person is just that. It makes him doubleminded and a doubleminded man is unstable in all of his ways. schizophrenic even. No it does not. I have two natures in one person. My flesh is contrary to my spirit. However, because I have received the power of his spirit, I keep my flesh subject to my spirit. I am not doubleminded or schizophrenic. I simply walk in the spirit, according to the nature created after Christ Jesus. This does not mean that my flesh (which is by nature antagonistic to my spirit) no longer exists. For example, my spirit might lead me to fast, but my flesh would get hungry and tempt me not to fast. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly converting the will of man. By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judith H Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding? A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved? David M. p.s. I don't put down you, John. You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are. Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
David writes I affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. Bill wrote: David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. ... I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity and holiness which could only be of divine derivation. Yes, Bill, I do understand that. I hope you understand what Judy's concern is. How can Jesus be holy if he had a sinful nature within his physical body? It is a good question . It pertains to whether or not we can be holy while living in this life. Most people believe that we will always sin because we have a physical body with a sinful nature. Many have been so indoctrinated with this concept that they do not believe they will be completely victorious over sin until Jesus returns and we receive a new body. How can a person who accepts this premise truly recognize the full holiness and purity of Jesus if we are saying that he also had a body like our own? It is a difficult concept. The false assumptions must be dealt with first. In Judy, there are some additional concepts about the biological and spiritual contributions of fathers and mothers that also muddies the discourse. These must be dealt with one by one before she would be able to understand certain passages in the right way. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
'Home is the sailor, home from the sea. Yikes DM! Ya gonna trot this one out again? Don't kick a dead horse, DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' David writes I affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. Bill wrote: David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. ... I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity and holiness which could only be of divine derivation. Yes, Bill, I do understand that. I hope you understand what Judy's concern is. How can Jesus be holy if he had a sinful nature within his physical body? It is a good question . It pertains to whether or not we can be holy while living in this life. Most people believe that we will always sin because we have a physical body with a sinful nature. Many have been so indoctrinated with this concept that they do not believe they will be completely victorious over sin until Jesus returns and we receive a new body. How can a person who accepts this premise truly recognize the full holiness and purity of Jesus if we are saying that he also had a body like our own? It is a difficult concept. The false assumptions must be dealt with first. In Judy, there are some additional concepts about the biological and spiritual contributions of fathers and mothers that also muddies the discourse. These must be dealt with one by one before she would be able to understand certain passages in the right way. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
David wrote: In Judy, there are some additional concepts about the biological and spiritual contributions of fathers and mothers that also muddies the discourse. These must be dealt with one by one before she would be able to understand certain passages in the right way. Well, I'll leave that for you to do, David, as I realize that much of Judy's doctrinal repugnance is informed by her hatred for me. While I do not share your lackadaisical attitude concerning the person of Christ, I agree with your critique of my (our) approach. I backed Judy into a corner and presented her with only two options: either repent or FIGHT. My hope was that she would choose the former; of course, she did not. Hence the likelihood that I will be able to reach her at all is remote. Perhaps this could be a good lesson to us all . . . Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' David writes I affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. Bill wrote: David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. ... I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity and holiness which could only be of divine derivation. Yes, Bill, I do understand that. I hope you understand what Judy's concern is. How can Jesus be holy if he had a sinful nature within his physical body? It is a good question . It pertains to whether or not we can be holy while living in this life. Most people believe that we will always sin because we have a physical body with a sinful nature. Many have been so indoctrinated with this concept that they do not believe they will be completely victorious over sin until Jesus returns and we receive a new body. How can a person who accepts this premise truly recognize the full holiness and purity of Jesus if we are saying that he also had a body like our own? It is a difficult concept. The false assumptions must be dealt with first. In Judy, there are some additional concepts about the biological and spiritual contributions of fathers and mothers that also muddies the discourse. These must be dealt with one by one before she would be able to understand certain passages in the right way. 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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/1/2006 12:50:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! cd: John I respect your passion but slow down and read the other posts I sent. Ourgreatest difficulty for this entire group is understand each others without the our religious backgrounds causes us to jump to conclusions-and try and really listen to what Judy is actually saying-she is sharper than you guys think.Thanks bro jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Bill wrote: ... I agree with your critique of my (our) approach. I backed Judy into a corner and presented her with only two options: either repent or FIGHT. My hope was that she would choose the former; of course, she did not. Hence the likelihood that I will be able to reach her at all is remote. Perhaps this could be a good lesson to us all . . . From my perspective, you are challenging her beliefs passionately. Nothing wrong with that, but we do need to watch it a bit and not push someone too far over the edge. Jesus was also pushing people to the edge, and he could have easily pushed them over, but he is patient and pushes them out of their comfort zone just the right amount. It is not always easy to tell how far to push, but we should be conscious that we could push an issue too far. My hope is that you don't stop, but recognize when to ease off a little and when to press in a little more. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
IMHO DM is quite correct on this point. (Spoken as a frequent offender) LM - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Bill wrote: ... I agree with your critique of my (our) approach. I backed Judy into a corner and presented her with only two options: either repent or FIGHT. My hope was that she would choose the former; of course, she did not. Hence the likelihood that I will be able to reach her at all is remote. Perhaps this could be a good lesson to us all . . . From my perspective, you are challenging her beliefs passionately. Nothing wrong with that, but we do need to watch it a bit and not push someone too far over the edge. Jesus was also pushing people to the edge, and he could have easily pushed them over, but he is patient and pushes them out of their comfort zone just the right amount. It is not always easy to tell how far to push, but we should be conscious that we could push an issue too far. My hope is that you don't stop, but recognize when to ease off a little and when to press in a little more. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
I am saying what John the Apostle is saying. Did I not make that clear? Jesus was (is) God in the flesh. Philosophy did not give this to me. Neither is this from my own understanding. It is John who proclaims that one is not of God on the occasion of denial of this reality. Maybe words and thinking mean nothing to you, but, in this case, they are extremely important and for a host of reasons. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding? A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved? David M. p.s. I don't put down you, John. You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are. Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding? A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved? David M. p.s. I don't put down you, John. You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are. Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion.? It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine. In fact, just the opposite is true. Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy. You have no scripture on this and will never have. The fact is this - Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day. jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments are meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
What you actually do (how you live your life, the content of your character) IS what you believe. Other than this is abstract, theoretical and dualistic. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 14:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments are meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Two things. 1. Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me. 2. You are a dualist and I am not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments a re meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
JD anyone who states that Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man is a dualist. and this is you. judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:23:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Two things. 1. Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me. 2. You are a dualist and I am not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments a re meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Manipulation is sin JD. It is deception, working another person for your own ends. What's more it is not God's way. He gives his creation choices - always. It is the adversary who is the anger and control freak. You choose each day who you will serve. judyt On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion.? It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine. In fact, just the opposite is true. Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy. You have no scripture on this and will never have. The fact is this - Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day. jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Guess again, Judy. Just because you can count to two is no evidence that "dualism" has occurred. Dualism, when applied to human nature, is not a characteristic count. That Christ is wholly God and wholly Man is not a dualism. It is a statement of who Christ Incarnateis (He is still the Incarnate Christ, you know -- but with a glorified body.) He has reconcilied all things in the body of His flesh - wholly Man and wholly God are wholly reconciled in the body of His flesh -- If they were opposing forces, Son of God versus Son of Man, you might have a point. And they were opposing forces until Christ. But they have been reconciled. A few days ago, I liken thisto a glass of juice stirred together with a glass of water. In the stirring, in that confusion, the two substances become indistinguishable!! A very poor illustration. God and Man are reconsiled in Christ - they do not loose their distinctiveness. They now work together as man and God were intended. See G's earlier but brief post on this. Profoundly simple - profoundly so. [myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites] jd -- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD anyone who states that Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man is a dualist. and this is you. judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:23:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Two things. 1. Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me. 2. You are a dualist and I am not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments a re meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
If you mean to imply that "deception" is always sinfully wrong, then manipulation is not deception. You use manipulation often. "We're waiting, Bill !! Where is your anser Bill? Or , is this just another example of you taking your ball (gosh, I hope this is not another reference to King Dav .. oh, never mind) and run home." That is manipulation, Judy. Jesus was in control of the timing of His death - a form of manipulation. Like I said - you have no scripture on this - and sure enough, you don't. jd -- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manipulation is sin JD. It is deception, working another person for your own ends. What's more it is not God's way. He gives his creation choices - always. It is the adversary who is the anger and control freak. You choose each day who you will serve. judyt On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion.? It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine. In fact, just the opposite is true. Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy. You have no scripture on this and will never have. The fact is this - Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day. jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin? Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam. You are wrong! My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Lance wrote: Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended. You are mischaracterizing Judy. Judy believes that Jesus is real. Lance wrote: You and yours appear comfortable in giving offence (other than that given by the preaching of the GENUINE JESUS) but not in receiving it, even when warranted. I am never comfortable giving offense, and I never purposefully give offense. I feel just like Jesus on this, blessed is he who shall not be offended in me. Lance wrote: David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than the 'Z' word, IMO. I disagree. Zircon is used to illustrate the meaning that Judy reads into the meaning of likeness. It is helpful in the discussion because then I can say, ok, but a Zircon is a counterfeit diamond and Jesus is not a counterfeit, or likeness sometimes means close imitation in one way but not another, but sometimes likeness is caused by a genetic relationship, such as in identical twins. Even sinners know not to use the F word, and even profane gentlemen know not to say it around women and children, but unfortunately in today's culture, even educated Christian women will purposefully be obscene and speak that which is not holy in order to make a point. Shameful. It was not a necessary choice of words. It did not help make her point. It only served to offend those of us who cast down every evil thought and imagination. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) It may be that you take exception to 'language' more than I. Your nation Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 31, 2006 12:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Lance wrote: Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended. You are mischaracterizing Judy. Judy believes that Jesus is real. Lance wrote: You and yours appear comfortable in giving offence (other than that given by the preaching of the GENUINE JESUS) but not in receiving it, even when warranted. I am never comfortable giving offense, and I never purposefully give offense. I feel just like Jesus on this, blessed is he who shall not be offended in me. Lance wrote: David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than the 'Z' word, IMO. I disagree. Zircon is used to illustrate the meaning that Judy reads into the meaning of likeness. It is helpful in the discussion because then I can say, ok, but a Zircon is a counterfeit diamond and Jesus is not a counterfeit, or likeness sometimes means close imitation in one way but not another, but sometimes likeness is caused by a genetic relationship, such as in identical twins. Even sinners know not to use the F word, and even profane gentlemen know not to say it around women and children, but unfortunately in today's culture, even educated Christian women will purposefully be obscene and speak that which is not holy in order to make a point. Shameful. It was not a necessary choice of words. It did not help make her point. It only served to offend those of us who cast down every evil thought and imagination. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Lance wrote: Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ? Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body of Christ? I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false prophetess. Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else? How do you understand your function in the body of Christ? I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side of Christ which I describe to her. Maybe once you guys back off with your baseball bats and judgmental attitude, she will be in a better position to hear. For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of Christ is not error nor heresy. I affirm her position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
The teaching of anti-Christ doctrine is not deserving of patience. It is far to dangerous a theology to be allowed without proper recognition. This forum is not a church. Judy's attendance, then, is "welcomed" on that basis. You, David, see "prophet(ess), apostle, bishop, evangelist and teacher " as offices within the church , as if "office" catches the full implication of each word. I believe that the more important consideration in defining one as a ... is to be seen in the activity of that person. Whoever said that Judy wasa false prophetess was probably looking to the way she functions on this forum. She functions as a prophetess or teacher just as surely as David Miller does. It is simply not important how she "sees" herself. What is important is what she preaches in the name of the Lord. She has preached against the deity of the incarnate Christ for a good long while -- over a year. And I believe there is every reason to think that she came to this forum with that belief. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ? Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body of Christ? I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false prophetess. Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else? How do you understand your function in the body of Christ? I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side of Christ which I describe to her. Maybe once you guys back off with your baseball bats and judgmental att itude, she will be in a better position to hear. For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of Christ is not error nor heresy. I affirm her position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
JD wrote: She has preached against the deity of the incarnate Christ for a good long while -- over a year. This is not a proper characterization of what Judy believes. It is difficult to discuss truth when one side constantly misrepresents what the other side believes. Judy has never preached against the deity of Jesus Christ. She has been attempting to emphasize the deity of Christ when faced with the suggestion that Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of his flesh. These matters are not easily understood. I personally understand how someone might have trouble with the suggestion that Jesus Christ was flesh and blood just like you and me. I had difficulty with the concept when I first considered it. It was easier for me because nobody told me about it... I just read it in the Scriptures and believed it. It was easier for those living at the time to accept his humanity. They saw him everyday, and they observed his humanity far better than any of us. What was revolutionary for them was not that he was a man, but that he was the Son of God, the Messiah. After his ascension, then the Gnostics started with the idea that he really was not a man at all, but he only appeared to be a man. It was a lot easier to make up stuff about Jesus after he was no longer standing among them. In these days where people can't even agree on when life begins, or whether a spirit and soul exist, or only a spirit, or only a soul, or neither spirit or soul but only physical body exist well, the question gets complicated. I don't expect everyone to comprehend immediately. We testify to the truth, we share Scripture, we express truth, and through patience we help others comprehend the miracle of the incarnation, God made flesh. I have little doubt that Judy will see this well enough. The biggest obstacle to her right now is that the loudest proponents of this view treat her very unfairly. That speaks louder to her than any arguments that you might make. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
The reasons for her difficulty and the history lesson constitute information that is more than obvious, David. Unnecessary. She most definitely hasdenied that Jesus is God in the flesh.But you, of course, seem to think there are other matters that are more important, so maybe you missed it. I don't likegoing to the archieves, but on this one, I most definitely will. She believes there are at least two kinds of human "flesh," the one Jesus possessed and the one the rest of us own. Shedoes not believe in the physical blood-lineage of Jesus toDavid and Abraham. And she does not believe that Christ was actually God in the flesh. What are earth do you think we have been arguing about for the last two or three weeks ??? !!! jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: She has preached against the deity of the incarnate Christ for a good long while -- over a year. This is not a proper characterization of what Judy believes. It is difficult to discuss truth when one side constantly misrepresents what the other side believes. Judy has never preached against the deity of Jesus Christ. She has been attempting to emphasize the deity of Christ when faced with the suggestion that Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of his flesh. These matters are not easily understood. I personally understand how someone might have trouble with the suggestion that Jesus Christ was flesh and blood just like you and me. I had difficulty with the concept when I first considered it. I t was easier for me because nobody told me about it... I just read it in the Scriptures and believed it. It was easier for those living at the time to accept his humanity. They saw him everyday, and they observed his humanity far better than any of us. What was revolutionary for them was not that he was a man, but that he was the Son of God, the Messiah. After his ascension, then the Gnostics started with the idea that he really was not a man at all, but he only appeared to be a man. It was a lot easier to make up stuff about Jesus after he was no longer standing among them. In these days where people can't even agree on when life begins, or whether a spirit and soul exist, or only a spirit, or only a soul, or neither spirit or soul but only physical body exist well, the question gets complicated. I don't expect everyone to comprehend immediately. We testify to the truth, we share Scrip ture, we express truth, and through patience we help others comprehend the miracle of the incarnation, God made flesh. I have little doubt that Judy will see this well enough. The biggest obstacle to her right now is that the loudest proponents of this view treat her very unfairly. That speaks louder to her than any arguments that you might make. 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
David writesI affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. But lest your statement be misunderstood, I want to clarify that I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity and holiness which could only be of divine derivation. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Lance wrote: Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ? Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body of Christ? I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false prophetess. Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else? How do you understand your function in the body of Christ? I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side of Christ which I describe to her. Maybe once you guys back off with your baseball bats and judgmental attitude, she will be in a better position to hear. For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of Christ is not error nor heresy. I affirm her position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. 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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:08 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:What was revolutionary for them was..that he was [both] a man,[and] that he was the Son of God..
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt
