Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor Sent: 07/23/2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). Good to read this from you ... and what followed as well. "Great peace have they which love Thy Torah and NOTHING shall offend them." (Psalm 119:165) ... and OH how I do LOVE Thy Torah, it is my meditation all the day. That's King David in Psalm 119:97 and this servant of YHVH today. William Penn was jailed precisely because he refuted the trinitarian doctrine in his 'The Sandy Foundation Shaken' and was therefore accused of denying God. [Editorial note: There were three subtitles. The first was, 'Of One God, subsisting in three distinct and separate persons, Refuted'. Marlin Halverson had a friend/acquaintance that attacked me on this list denying this very simple truth. I have a copy in front of me from a VERY old book with 'The Sandy Foundation Shaken'.] Penn answered from his prison cell in the Tower of London with 'Innocency with Her open Face' that he did not deny God, but rather affirmed that The Saviour is the Only God there is. That writing was his 'Get out of jail' free card. William Penn and I agree, As also does The Almighty, Say then those who adhere to trinity, Does that then make us five or three? It may surprise you to learn that a strong part of my belief on this matter is precisely due to the matter of my view of The Almighty as a relational one. More on this later. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/23/2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves. When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis. I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us. On the other hand, the
JUDY ... Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
As to "nice surprises" how about this ... that 'More Excellent Way' book came to our home through one in our congregation. My wife has been reading it and said she sees a lot of good in it. jt: That is a "nice surprise" I'd be interested in what she thinks after she gets into it a bit more. I've been to GA for the first week of their two week Seminar. The first week is "For Your Life" and the second is "For Their Life" and it's focus is on ministering to others. If you are still living in California Pastor Wright is networked with some ministries there and their research is ongoing as probably yours is with alternative remedies. (is that the right term?) Anyway, it's an exciting time and there is a lot to learn. Looking to Jesus, judyt
Re: JUDY ... Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! "... and the last shall be first ..." TBN was born and grew up in my backyard in southern California in the 70s so I can imagine having CBN in your backyard. The only one of those Christian mega star TV outfits in which I ever saw much good value (and then not much) was ol' Gene Scott's -- ALSO in my backyard. As I was growing up there were constant, "Oh, if only Elton John or *fill in the blanks with STAR people' were Christian then we could REALLY reach people for Jesus". If a song made mention of "Lord" then "Did you know that so and so became a Christian?!?" (George Harrison and 'My Sweet Lord', Norman Greenbaum, Doobie Brothers and many ,many others including the off and on John Lennon and Paul McCartney rumors). You still see that like this morning with the "Bob Dylan is a messianic Jew" from the ill-informed of that ilk. As to "nice surprises" how about this ... that 'More Excellent Way' book came to our home through one in our congregation. My wife has been reading it and said she sees a lot of good in it. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/24/2004 11:31 AM Subject: JUDY ... Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all What a nice surprise Chris, glad to know I haven't alienated everybody :) I was going to write and thank you for the insight about Dylan and the interesting post about philosophy and the Church Fathers. Shame on us. Professing Christendom is still so into celebrity; I see it here also as CBN is in our backyard judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED]> \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED! Well, Judy ... bravo, very well put ... I am in complete agreement. Now ... folks are arriving to PRAISE & WORSHIP YHVH ... or as one very dear and precious elder in the faith is sometime wont to say -- YHVHShua -- so I must be going. Shabbat Shalom! Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/24/2004 11:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. I don't expect to get any bravo for this but it is true nonetheless so here goes - leaving the bravos for Dylan et al :). Jesus' blood does not go back to the first Adam because He did not have a human father and so was born holy without any taint from Adam's fall.. Jesus did not take upon Himself ALL HUMANITY. He took upon himself the seed of Abraham which is the 'seed of promise' Hebrews 2:16 The 'seed of promise' came through Isaac (Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18) and this is because he (Isaac) was the child of promise. You are trying to make what is spiritual biological by joining it to a bloodline. The ONLY way ALL humanity can reach God is if they come through the door by repentance and continue by faith. Note: Jesus didn't take anyone's flesh upon himself on the cross.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
In a message dated 7/24/2004 9:40:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nope! I'm an ordinary every day follower of Jesus who loves the truth of His Word. Understand I'm not against people in strange and in far-out systems (I've been through my share of them also including the RCC). I believe God works in spite of rather than because of them. This and a few other posts from Judy tell me that she agressively disagrees but is not nearly as judgmental in her response as we might suppose. and, I do agree that Judy is a well prepared disciple. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
True, jt—but they have to be there for Him to work in spite of them. J Izzy I believe God works in spite of rather than because of them.
JUDY ... Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
What a nice surprise Chris, glad to know I haven't alienated everybody :) I was going to write and thank you for the insight about Dylan and the interesting post about philosophy and the Church Fathers. Shame on us. Professing Christendom is still so into celebrity; I see it here also as CBN is in our backyard judyt From: "Chris Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED! Well, Judy ... bravo, very well put ... I am in complete agreement. Now ... folks are arriving to PRAISE & WORSHIP YHVH ... or as one very dear and precious elder in the faith is sometime wont to say -- YHVHShua -- so I must be going. Shabbat Shalom! Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/24/2004 11:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. I don't expect to get any bravo for this but it is true nonetheless so here goes - leaving the bravos for Dylan et al :). Jesus' blood does not go back to the first Adam because He did not have a human father and so was born holy without any taint from Adam's fall.. Jesus did not take upon Himself ALL HUMANITY. He took upon himself the seed of Abraham which is the 'seed of promise' Hebrews 2:16 The 'seed of promise' came through Isaac (Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18) and this is because he (Isaac) was the child of promise. You are trying to make what is spiritual biological by joining it to a bloodline. The ONLY way ALL humanity can reach God is if they come through the door by repentance and continue by faith. Note: Jesus didn't take anyone's flesh upon himself on the cross.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Judy:I don't understand your reluctance to 'own up' to being TT's resident theologian and exegete. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 24, 2004 12:00 Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. I don't expect to get any bravo for this but it is true nonetheless so here goes - leaving the bravos for Dylan et al :). Jesus' blood does not go back to the first Adam because He did not have a human father and so was born holy without any taint from Adam's fall.. Jesus did not take upon Himself ALL HUMANITY. He took upon himself the seed of Abraham which is the 'seed of promise' Hebrews 2:16 The 'seed of promise' came through Isaac (Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18) and this is because he (Isaac) was the child of promise. You are trying to make what is spiritual biological by joining it to a bloodline. The ONLY way ALL humanity can reach God is if they come through the door by repentance and continue by faith. Note: Jesus didn't take anyone's flesh upon himself on the cross.
JUDY ... Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED! Well, Judy ... bravo, very well put ... I am in complete agreement. Now ... folks are arriving to PRAISE & WORSHIP YHVH ... or as one very dear and precious elder in the faith is sometime wont to say -- YHVHShua -- so I must be going. Shabbat Shalom! Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/24/2004 11:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. I don't expect to get any bravo for this but it is true nonetheless so here goes - leaving the bravos for Dylan et al :). Jesus' blood does not go back to the first Adam because He did not have a human father and so was born holy without any taint from Adam's fall.. Jesus did not take upon Himself ALL HUMANITY. He took upon himself the seed of Abraham which is the 'seed of promise' Hebrews 2:16 The 'seed of promise' came through Isaac (Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18) and this is because he (Isaac) was the child of promise. You are trying to make what is spiritual biological by joining it to a bloodline. The ONLY way ALL humanity can reach God is if they come through the door by repentance and continue by faith. Note: Jesus didn't take anyone's flesh upon himself on the cross.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
John
I do not have a problem with "Adam" referring
to "mankind," not if mankind came through Adam. I also believe that God
did create us all, just not all of us at the same time. I'll let you write on
and see where you are going.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:33
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor
and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Hi Bill. Don't get me wrong
on this one. I am not one who takes the creation claims as
allegory. Chapter 1:26,27 presents (to my thinking) a
contextual consideration that allows (if not demands) the text to say that
"mankind" is the view. I actually researched this one before drawing my
conclusion and found that most scholars (actually, I am being too kind here;
all scholarship in my possession) in my humble library call for "mankind" in
the translation rather than "Adam" ("let us create Adam in our image
..." doesn't even sound right to me). There is much
going on in the ancient world at the time of Adam and Eve.
Populations are exploding and cities are being built. Adam and Eve are
recorded because of the very point you mention below -- the
bloodline, an excellent point on your part. Beans
My Sweetie just called me to breakfast. To be continued
later. a brother, John
SmithsonIn a message dated 7/24/2004 7:10:50
AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi John, There are numerous
theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the
creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are
not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For
several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline.
Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go
back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity
in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he
is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. Nevertheless, John, I am
thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of
the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his
insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning
fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have
been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first
parents not rebelled. Thanks, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Hi Bill. Don't get me wrong on this one. I am not one who takes the creation claims as allegory. Chapter 1:26,27 presents (to my thinking) a contextual consideration that allows (if not demands) the text to say that "mankind" is the view. I actually researched this one before drawing my conclusion and found that most scholars (actually, I am being too kind here; all scholarship in my possession) in my humble library call for "mankind" in the translation rather than "Adam" ("let us create Adam in our image ..." doesn't even sound right to me). There is much going on in the ancient world at the time of Adam and Eve. Populations are exploding and cities are being built. Adam and Eve are recorded because of the very point you mention below -- the bloodline, an excellent point on your part.
Beans My Sweetie just called me to breakfast. To be continued later.
a brother,
John Smithson
In a message dated 7/24/2004 7:10:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi John,
There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us.
Nevertheless, John, I am thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first parents not rebelled.
Thanks,
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Hi John, There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. Nevertheless, John, I am thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first parents not rebelled. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:06:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better. billYou're a good man, Bill Taylor. By the way, I am about to revise my leanings in regard to Adam and this image of God thing. The single most important contribution I see in Kruger (to date) is his well worded defense of the relational Godhead (he would say Trinity but I just can't do that) and the idea that central to the essence of God is this thing we call fellowship -- The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit (and these are my words, I know) finds purpose as He indwells (fellowships) the disciples of Christ. In the Genesis account, I am thinking the proclamation "Let us make man in Our image" (1:26) and the fulfillment of that announcement "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him -- male and female He created them" are not specific references to Adam and Eve -- rather a declaration about "mankind." Mankind is in the image of God. If the essence of God is fellowship, would not the community of human beings known as "mankind" have, as its essence, the property of fellowship? Community demands fellowship does it not? And so it is that mankind was created in the image of God (a collective deity) The resulting conclusion is almost forced upon us -- that when fellowship is perverted into warring factions and sectarian spirits, the end result is the destruction of those who participate in that misuse of community.Just thinkingJohn (I'm listening) Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:06:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better. bill You're a good man, Bill Taylor. By the way, I am about to revise my leanings in regard to Adam and this image of God thing. The single most important contribution I see in Kruger (to date) is his well worded defense of the relational Godhead (he would say Trinity but I just can't do that) and the idea that central to the essence of God is this thing we call fellowship -- The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit (and these are my words, I know) finds purpose as He indwells (fellowships) the disciples of Christ. In the Genesis account, I am thinking the proclamation "Let us make man in Our image" (1:26) and the fulfillment of that announcement "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him -- male and female He created them" are not specific references to Adam and Eve -- rather a declaration about "mankind." Mankind is in the image of God. If the essence of God is fellowship, would not the community of human beings known as "mankind" have, as its essence, the property of fellowship? Community demands fellowship does it not? And so it is that mankind was created in the image of God (a collective deity) The resulting conclusion is almost forced upon us -- that when fellowship is perverted into warring factions and sectarian spirits, the end result is the destruction of those who participate in that misuse of community. Just thinking John (I'm listening) Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better. bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all I enjoyed reading this application of Kruger thought. I enjoyed it because I agreed with it's conclusions. The parenthetical remark concerning JudyT caused some concern, however. JohnIn a message dated 7/23/2004 8:23:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves. When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis. I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us. On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments. Blessings, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
I enjoyed reading this application of Kruger thought. I enjoyed it because I agreed with it's conclusions. The parenthetical remark concerning JudyT caused some concern, however. John In a message dated 7/23/2004 8:23:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves. When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis. I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us. On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments. Blessings, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow.
Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian
doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once
delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are
not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about
your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws
you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you
either).
I once heard a sermon, the theme
being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to
go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my
point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in
terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered,
self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and
healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other
words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we
cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves.
When we say that everything God does he does for
himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element
within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we
consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think
poorly of those around us who do live for and love
only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the
healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism
and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It
is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is
but a symptom of our own deep psychosis.
I know you have never thought of it in these terms
(or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a
relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being
(I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a
singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had
to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all
there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for
relationship with us.
On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it,
is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the
Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this
relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three
to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others
and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of
God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own
essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the
nature of love, being healthy, is always and still
other-preoccupied.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you
may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments.
Blessings,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor
and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
\o/ !HALALU
Yah! \o/
Greetings in the Matchless
Name of YahShua
!
Taylor is held in high regard by the
Canucks, and would seem to be the resident trinitarian scholar as well, so I
thought to include you. Thought the story might be of interest or a note
of amusement to you.
My apology if you were
offended.
Ahava b'
YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch
YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
Chris Barr
a servant
of
YHVH
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/23/2004 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson,
Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Thanks Chris, tell us though: What does Taylor
have to do with the Canucks. Taylor is from the high plains of eastern
Colorado. He once worked one very cold winter in the taconite mines of
Northern Minnesota, replacing burned out bricks in very hot furnaces and
wind ducts, and so he knew a few Canucks, but that is his only
immediate connection with the bunch -- oh and the Avalanche were once
Canadians but not Canucks. So, tell him, sir, what's the
connection?
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:07
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor
and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! Taylor is held in high regard by the Canucks, and would seem to be the resident trinitarian scholar as well, so I thought to include you. Thought the story might be of interest or a note of amusement to you. My apology if you were offended. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/23/2004 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all Thanks Chris, tell us though: What does Taylor have to do with the Canucks. Taylor is from the high plains of eastern Colorado. He once worked one very cold winter in the taconite mines of Northern Minnesota, replacing burned out bricks in very hot furnaces and wind ducts, and so he knew a few Canucks, but that is his only immediate connection with the bunch -- oh and the Avalanche were once Canadians but not Canucks. So, tell him, sir, what's the connection? - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! I have never been much of one for listening to preaching tapes. The exceptions to that have been Robert Bayer (sometimes called "the Walking Bible" for his command of Scripture all committed to memory) and John Ekstadt. Bayer I have seen many times, and spent some considerable personal time with as well. John Ekstadt I never met. John Ekstadt was a peculiar treasure of The Almighty. Smithson may have some particular appreciation for him. Ekstadt became a UPC preacher that UPC preachers often loathed as he taught with Scriptural authority against their pet rapture doctrine as well as many other pat pet pablum standard fare of UPC. However, he was not always a UPC preacher. Upon his death several UPC ministers reportedly were heard chuckling as another said in a mocking tone, "Well, the old prophet is dead." Eckstadt was a Canuck from eastern Canada (Nova Scotia if memory serves). He was an unruly terror as a boy and as a young man -- full of fight. He came by it natural as his father was the same. Eckstadt began to go to a Baptist church which his father tolerated though with much mocking. He also was warned not to go too far with religion and especially to stay away from the holy rollers. Making a long story short he was baptized in The Holy Spirit with the Assemblies of God but kept it from his father. One day his father came home quite early from work very unexpectedly to come upon his son in the loft praying in tongues. "That's IT", his father exclaimed and threw all his belongings out the upstairs window crying out, "Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition"! Ecstadt became a preacher for the AG. He was a terror to the UPC, as he preached against Oneness and baptism in The Name with such fervor and authority that he converted many away from UPC to the AG. Then as with The Apostle Paul the bright Light of the World shined down. The Word revealed Himself to Eckstadt, he was baptized in The Name, and preached with the result that even more were converted to Oneness than he ever had converted to the trinity. On one tape set he preached the trinity in such a convincing manner that he warned Oneness listeners as he began that they should not listen unless they would immediately follow it with the next tape that gave answer with Oneness, for fear that their faith would be shaken. UPC tolerated him due to the strength of The Anointing upon him and his command of Scripture though they did not herald him much in their ranks. I have found it so with UPC that the grandest of their preachers as far as anointing and command of Scripture are not heralded, while those they herald I have found to generally be as Bill Shakespeare wrote, "Much Ado About" not all that much. I have found UPC to stand most accurately for Union of Pentpolitical Churches. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Thanks Chris, tell us though: What does Taylor have to do with the Canucks. Taylor is from the high plains of eastern Colorado. He once worked one very cold winter in the taconite mines of Northern Minnesota, replacing burned out bricks in very hot furnaces and wind ducts, and so he knew a few Canucks, but that is his only immediate connection with the bunch -- oh and the Avalanche were once Canadians but not Canucks. So, tell him, sir, what's the connection? - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! I have never been much of one for listening to preaching tapes. The exceptions to that have been Robert Bayer (sometimes called "the Walking Bible" for his command of Scripture all committed to memory) and John Ekstadt. Bayer I have seen many times, and spent some considerable personal time with as well. John Ekstadt I never met. John Ekstadt was a peculiar treasure of The Almighty. Smithson may have some particular appreciation for him. Ekstadt became a UPC preacher that UPC preachers often loathed as he taught with Scriptural authority against their pet rapture doctrine as well as many other pat pet pablum standard fare of UPC. However, he was not always a UPC preacher. Upon his death several UPC ministers reportedly were heard chuckling as another said in a mocking tone, "Well, the old prophet is dead." Eckstadt was a Canuck from eastern Canada (Nova Scotia if memory serves). He was an unruly terror as a boy and as a young man -- full of fight. He came by it natural as his father was the same. Eckstadt began to go to a Baptist church which his father tolerated though with much mocking. He also was warned not to go too far with religion and especially to stay away from the holy rollers. Making a long story short he was baptized in The Holy Spirit with the Assemblies of God but kept it from his father. One day his father came home quite early from work very unexpectedly to come upon his son in the loft praying in tongues. "That's IT", his father exclaimed and threw all his belongings out the upstairs window crying out, "Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition"! Ecstadt became a preacher for the AG. He was a terror to the UPC, as he preached against Oneness and baptism in The Name with such fervor and authority that he converted many away from UPC to the AG. Then as with The Apostle Paul the bright Light of the World shined down. The Word revealed Himself to Eckstadt, he was baptized in The Name, and preached with the result that even more were converted to Oneness than he ever had converted to the trinity. On one tape set he preached the trinity in such a convincing manner that he warned Oneness listeners as he began that they should not listen unless they would immediately follow it with the next tape that gave answer with Oneness, for fear that their faith would be shaken. UPC tolerated him due to the strength of The Anointing upon him and his command of Scripture though they did not herald him much in their ranks. I have found it so with UPC that the grandest of their preachers as far as anointing and command of Scripture are not heralded, while those they herald I have found to generally be as Bill Shakespeare wrote, "Much Ado About" not all that much. I have found UPC to stand most accurately for Union of Pentpolitical Churches. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
