Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
You do! She does! You cannot see. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:52 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: ... those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to infallibly read the Scriptures I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either. 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: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I don't think so Lance; I see you as the one with the eye problems. You come across on TT as one withoverweening pride but the reality is that you are someone with very low self esteem. You appear to haveassurance but it is not the assurance that comes through abiding in Him and having His Words abide in you. On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:30:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do! She does! You cannot see. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: ... those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either. 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: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 06:58 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to sugg
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse,
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a si
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Lance wrote: ... those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to infallibly read the Scriptures I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either. 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.
