date:20060109

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




I note that DM identified your position with 
sabellianism (God is one being, one person who takes on three different forms or 
manifestations - 3rd century). He also recollected his own , unsuccessful, 
attempts to address both the humanity of Christ and the Incarnation in dialogue 
with you.

DM has made much of your/his position on 'inspired' 
interpretation. It'd appear that such has its limitations. Iff there is truth 
concernation the person and work of Christ. Iff his position differs from yours 
then, one of you has NOT apprehended the truth concerning the person and work of 
Christ.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 08, 2006 16:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then 
  it was not a "simple" question.
  You seem to have some axe to grind and come 
  across as a very angry man.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:24:48 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
And I believe that you can't answer a simple 
question.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of 
  Lords
  Head of the Church which is His 
  body
  Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at 
  the RH of the Father in Heaven.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Because I'm trying to understand what you believe 
concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house 
on shifting sand.

Bill

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  Why would you ask such a 
  question?
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Are you now saying that Christ was 
never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? 

It was God in Christ -- that makes 
Him deity, in this case. 

Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus 
the son of man, making himChrist the Son of 
God.


When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was 
he the divine Christbefore that time?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  
  On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in 
question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that 
word. That attachment is a personification and does 
not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are 
good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just 
think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or 
"God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the 
text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for 
confusion. 

  

Why would Paul "want to" add to 
what God says when there are warnings against doing this. 
When he spoke on marriage and it 
was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe 
Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there 
for reasons of clarity. 

Your logic versus your own 
rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to 
the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you 
admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that 
itshould be and therefore is. Do you know 
what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your 
own rules . 

Another accusation 
JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or 
subtracting from the Word of God. What I am 
saying here is that the word Father goes along with the 
clear
meaning of the text. 
Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling 
anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the 
Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and 
it is written about himoften 
enough. You are a good example of how 
doctrine can blind ppl.


Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the 
insertion of "Father."Areasonable

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor






On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  I believe he has equal status in the 
  Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - 
  remember?
  
  That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do 
  you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater 
  than he? 
  
  Because He said it and since you hold 
  Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an 
  important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came 
  to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so 
  that we could live by beingreconciled to the 
  Father.
  
  
  Correction, she writes as one who 
  knows the One who knows all truth
  
  I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. 
  Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully 
  understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of 
  the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into 
  ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you 
  see why I might misunderstand you from time to time?
  
  No Bill I don't ... when all I am 
  doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in 
  heaven.
  
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are 
her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what 
you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has 
changed herperspective.

Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been 
askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated 
elsewhere.

Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set 
me up with your questions
and whatever answer I come up with is never good 
enough, never the right
one so far as you are concerned.. This is not 
what I call dialogue

On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the 
"Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've 
asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or 
takes the windingroad yet again.

I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with 
the other two members.
God is ONE - remember?

By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. 

Just a civil, respectful approach would be 
much appreciated

Though she writes as one who knows all truth, 

Correction, she writes as one who knows 
the One who knows all truth

she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along 
with
patience. I'll try to be better.

Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind 
.

Anyway, till next time,Bill

--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




Augustine/Athanasius held different 
understandings regarding the trinitarian nature of God. 

Please explain 'what spirit YOU are of'! Both you 
and DM seem given to 'warnings/accusations/threatenings'

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 08, 2006 16:29
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel 
  from the heretic
  
  Methinks you know not what spirit you are of 
  ... and you have undoubtedly become
  just like your teachers ... (Augustine, 
  Athanasius et al) Where's the love???
  
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ...

I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, 
Judy. 
I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are 
rooted in Scripture.


... have you at least been open with 
him about that?

I am sure there is much I do not know about Street 
Preaching: 
do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head 
down there? 
Mind your own business, heretic. Bill

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  You can call me whatever you like so long as it's 
  OK with the moderators, it's your conscience
  that should be being defiled by such 
  bitterness.I don't understand 
  whywhen you agree that 
  this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit 
  under Baxter Kruger 
  and hear all about the 
  "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why 
  don't you admit 
  to him that it is a 
  group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open 
  with him about
  that?
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
 "because the understanding 
you have come back with is that of the Church 
Fathers ..."

If the Church fathers make 
the difference, then you are correct, Judy: 

when speaking of God, I am 
orthodox --and that makes you the heretic. Got any 

problems with that, then 
whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share 

the bottle with you. 
Bill

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  You may need to take another trip Bill 
  because the understanding you have come back with
  is that of the Church Fathers who by their 
  words and actions (fruit) negated their 
profession.
-- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




Perhaps 'model' would've been more 
appropriate.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 08, 2006 17:07
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel 
  from the heretic
  
  Who set me up as your teacher - certainly not 
  me?
  Whats more this is a lie -You 
  should be ashamed of yourself Bill Taylor
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:11:45 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- 
but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I 
amsimply modelingyou, my teacher.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  None of what you are saying has anything 
  to do with me
  You are completely and totally 
  responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind 
  them)
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  

This must be an aberrent type 

I don't know, Judy. I've always thought 
it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from 
you.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 
  2:46 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More 
  drivel from the heretic
  
  I've read books on "tough love" and 
  none ever included bitterness and name calling.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Methinks you know not what spirit 
  you are of ... 
  I know what 
  Spirit I am of. 
  
  and you have undoubtedly become 
  just like your 
  teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) 
  You have more 
  in common with Augustine than I. 
  
  Where's the love??? 
  
  You don't see 
  the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. 
  
  One would 
  think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it 
  yourself.
  
  Bill
  
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
... when you agree that 
this is where your beliefs are rooted 
...

I do not agree that this is where my beliefs 
are rooted, Judy. 
I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics 
which are rooted in Scripture.


... have you at least been 
open with him about that?

I am sure there is much I do not know about 
Street Preaching: 
do what want Dean to come clean on that before 
we head down there? 
Mind your own business, heretic. 
Bill

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  You can call me whatever you like so 
  long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your 
  conscience
  that should be being defiled by such 
  bitterness.I don't 
  understand whywhen you agree that 
  this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get 
  Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger 
  and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This 
  should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit 
  
  to him 
  that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have 
  you at least been open with him about
  that?
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
 "because the 
understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers 
..."

If the Church 
fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: 

when speaking 
of God, I am orthodox --and that makes you the 
heretic. Got any 
problems with 
that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad 
to share 
the

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir

Expert witness.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 08, 2006 16:41
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)

  Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie Sawczak is so 
  interested in what I am saying and doing then why
  doesn't she join the list and put in her two cents? 
  .. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when she
  has you to do it for her - but you seeking out her 
  opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking 
  about things that she obviously can not relate to and 
  has no understanding about though she obviously believes
  her opinion to be 
  valuable. 

  Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your expert 
  witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you 
  post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares herimpressions and they are 
  totally one sided.
  What is one to say? "Oh that's nice?" 
  What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to TT? I'm
  certainly not requestingher 
  counsel.

  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 

To: Lance Muir 
Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God 
(Judy)

You see? She sometimes does believe in the 
deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because 
of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly 
about what they are saying,and then finds, surprise surprise,she 
is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try 
to"dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much 
her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a 
complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but 
hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that 
when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable 
things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it 
would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored 
and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is 
neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful 
elsewhere.

D

  I don't deny 
  Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is 
  God JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




I suspect not but, more importantly, is it 
reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 08, 2006 22:19
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Humble apologies profered for messing up the scenario 
  inActs 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may
  not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact 
  that he was walking "G" Did he have a horse?
  Is this an important part of your orthodoxy 
  G?
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
.. that 
she simultaneouslyre-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., thereis 
nodonkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that 
notion

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..evidence 
  suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, 
  below
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..yo, 
Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be 
reductionistic as well as expansive

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth 
  (mother Mary matters, M'am)
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
I believe He is King of Kings and 
Lord of Lords
Head of the Church which is His 
body
Our Prophet, Priest, and King who 
sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven.
||
..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus 
the son of man, making himChrist the Son of 
God.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir

Gravity.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: January 08, 2006 18:33
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)

Christine - What a blessing you are, a breath of
fresh air
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:14:24 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Debbie wrote:She is neither
learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You
do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I
learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe
she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great
forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I
suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim
of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to
air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you
would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was
condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

-
Original Message -
From:
Debbie Sawczak

To: Lance Muir
Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God
(Judy)

You see? She sometimes does believe in the
deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody
because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of
thinking properly about what they are saying,and then finds,
surprise surprise,she is contradicting her own belief. That is what
makes it so maddening to try to"dialogue" (misnomer if ever there
was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant
sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing
is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm
sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's
doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be
participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable
just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes
about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor
teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.

I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny
the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God
JD

Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto
Books. You design it and well bind it!

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar 
theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of God 
and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you 
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but God is 
the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't 
need to stone me over it or even question me closely 
for that matter.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations of 
  himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- and 
  sometimes back again, and back and forth.
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

Modalism -- One God, three 
manifestations which is different from three 
persons. That's how I remember the above -- correct? 


jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  Some analogies are better than others. None 
  arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away from ones 
  which tend towardmodalism.
  
  Just my opinion,
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)


cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God 
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the 
Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this 
explanation.




  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in 
  question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that 
  word. That attachment is a personification and does 
  not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good 
  reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think 
  that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or 
  "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the 
  text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for 
  confusion. 
  
  Why would Paul "want to" add to what God 
  says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke 
  on
  marriage and it was his own thoughts he 
  said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father 
  is in there
  because it fits and is supposed to be 
  there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! 
  You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book 
  are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in 
  the text but think that itshould be and therefore 
  is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You 
  simply do not follow your own rules . 
  
  
  Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of 
  "Father."Areasonable argument, by the 
  way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is 
  italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is 
  added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is 
  Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is 
  a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a 
  part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to 
  reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe 
  worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His 
  Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. 
  
  
  Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going 
  to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to 
  reconcile
  ppl back to the Father which is the focus 
  of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a 
  bias. Are

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




Neither of us have run down even one heretic 
and killed him so far Lance; if there are any
warnings, accusations, or threatenings they are 
from God Himself by way of His Word which
is the vehicle used by His Spirit to reveal 
Himself.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:13:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Augustine/Athanasius held different 
  understandings regarding the trinitarian nature of God. 
  
  Please explain 'what spirit YOU are of'! Both you 
  and DM seem given to 'warnings/accusations/threatenings'
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Methinks you know not what spirit you are 
of ... and you have undoubtedly become
just like your teachers ... (Augustine, 
Athanasius et al) Where's the love???


On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted 
...
  
  I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, 
  Judy. 
  I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are 
  rooted in Scripture.
  
  
  ... have you at least been open with 
  him about that?
  
  I am sure there is much I do not know about Street 
  Preaching: 
  do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head 
  down there? 
  Mind your own business, heretic. Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You can call me whatever you like so long as 
it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience
that should be being defiled by such 
bitterness.I don't understand 
whywhen you agree that 
this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit 
under Baxter Kruger 
and hear all about 
the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. 
Why don't you admit 
to him that it is a 
group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open 
with him about
that?

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

   "because the 
  understanding you have come back with is 
  that of the Church Fathers ..."
  
  If the Church fathers 
  make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: 
  
  when speaking of God, I 
  am orthodox --and that makes you the heretic. Got any 
  
  problems with that, then 
  whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share 
  
  the bottle with 
  you. Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You may need to take another trip Bill 
because the understanding you have come back with
is that of the Church Fathers who by their 
words and actions (fruit) negated their 
  profession.
  -- This message has been scanned 
for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
to be clean.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




So what qualifies her? Why are you so sure she knows 
the Truth?

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:14:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Expert witness.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie Sawczak is 
so interested in what I am saying and doing then why
doesn't she join the list and put in her two cents? 
.. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when she
has you to do it for her - but you seeking out her 
opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking 
about things that she obviously can not relate to 
and has no understanding about though she obviously believes
her opinion to be 
valuable. 

Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your expert 
witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you 
post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares herimpressions and they are 
totally one sided.
What is one to say? "Oh that's nice?" 
What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to TT? I'm
certainly not requestingher 
counsel.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  
  You see? She sometimes does believe in the 
  deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody 
  because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of 
  thinking properly about what they are saying,and then finds, 
  surprise surprise,she is contradicting her own belief. That is what 
  makes it so maddening to try to"dialogue" (misnomer if ever there 
  was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant 
  sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing 
  is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm 
  sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's 
  doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be 
  participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable 
  just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes 
  about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor 
  teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.
  
  D
  
I don't deny 
Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father 
is God JD

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




Ask DM as you appear to respect HIS 
opinion.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:27
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  So what qualifies her? Why are you so sure she knows 
  the Truth?
  
  On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:14:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Expert witness.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie Sawczak 
  is so interested in what I am saying and doing then why
  doesn't she join the list and put in her two 
  cents? .. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when 
  she
  has you to do it for her - but you seeking out 
  her opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking 
  
  about things that she obviously can not relate to 
  and has no understanding about though she obviously believes
  her opinion to be 
  valuable. 
  
  Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your 
  expert witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you 
  
  post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares herimpressions and they are 
  totally one sided.
  What is one to say? "Oh that's nice?" 
  What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to TT? I'm
  certainly not requestingher 
  counsel.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
From: Debbie Sawczak 


You see? She sometimes does believe in the 
deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody 
because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of 
thinking properly about what they are saying,and then finds, 
surprise surprise,she is contradicting her own belief. That is 
what makes it so maddening to try to"dialogue" (misnomer if ever 
there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant 
sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing 
is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since 
I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT 
she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not 
be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more 
charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs 
off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither 
learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful 
elsewhere.

D

  I don't deny 
  Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the 
  Father is God JD

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




I don't think so Lance, how does one 'model' 
how to live from afar and on a computer?
You know and Billknows (if you are 
honest) that I am not bitter, angry, and do not call either 

of you names. Also there is the issue 
ofBill holding me suspect andnot accepting anything I 

write to TT at face value because of conflicts 
with the patristic fathers, Baxter, Torrance, Polyani 
and because of what 
he considers to be my ignorance.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:15:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps 'model' would've been more 
  appropriate.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Who set me up as your teacher - certainly 
not me?
Whats more this is a lie -You 
should be ashamed of yourself Bill Taylor

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:11:45 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- 
  but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I 
  amsimply modelingyou, my teacher.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

None of what you are saying has 
anything to do with me
You are completely and totally 
responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind 
them)

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  This must be an aberrent type 
  
  I don't know, Judy. I've always 
  thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from 
  you.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 
2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
More drivel from the heretic

I've read books on "tough love" and 
none ever included bitterness and name 
calling.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Methinks you know not what 
spirit you are of ... 
I know what 
Spirit I am of. 

and you have undoubtedly become 
just like your 
teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) 

You have 
more in common with Augustine than I. 


Where's the love??? 

You don't 
see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always 
spouting. 
One would 
think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it 
yourself.

Bill


On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ... when you agree that 
  this is where your beliefs are 
  rooted ...
  
  I do not agree that this is where my beliefs 
  are rooted, Judy. 
  I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics 
  which are rooted in Scripture.
  
  
  ... have you at least 
  been open with him about that?
  
  I am sure there is much I do not know about 
  Street Preaching: 
  do what want Dean to come clean on that 
  before we head down there? 
  Mind your own business, heretic. 
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 

You can call me whatever you like 
so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your 
conscience
that should be being defiled by 
such bitterness.I 
don't understand whywhen you agree that 
this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get 
Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger 
and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This 
should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit 

to him 
that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have 
you at least been open with him about
that?

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

   "because

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




No, it reflects the fact that sometimes I am 
tired in the evening and should wait until the
next day to respond - 

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I suspect not but, more importantly, is it 
  reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Humble apologies profered for messing up the 
scenario inActs 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may
not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact 
that he was walking "G" Did he have a horse?
Is this an important part of your orthodoxy 
G?

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  .. that 
  she simultaneouslyre-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., thereis 
  nodonkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that 
  notion
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..evidence 
suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, 
below

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..yo, 
  Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be 
  reductionistic as well as expansive
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
myth 
(mother Mary matters, M'am)

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I believe He is King of Kings and 
  Lord of Lords
  Head of the Church which is His 
  body
  Our Prophet, Priest, and King who 
  sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven.
  ||
  ..God the Holy Spirit in 
  Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of 
  God.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




Why would I ask DM? He isn't the one running 
everything by her for some exalted opinion
you are.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:34:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Ask DM as you appear to respect HIS 
  opinion.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 09, 2006 06:27
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

So what qualifies her? Why are you so sure she 
knows the Truth?

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:14:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Expert witness.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie Sawczak 
is so interested in what I am saying and doing then why
doesn't she join the list and put in her two 
cents? .. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when 
she
has you to do it for her - but you seeking out 
her opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking 

about things that she obviously can not relate 
to and has no understanding about though she obviously 
believes
her opinion to be 
valuable. 

Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your 
expert witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you 

post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares herimpressions and they 
are totally one sided.
What is one to say? "Oh that's 
nice?" What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to 
TT? I'm
certainly not requestingher 
counsel.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  
  You see? She sometimes does believe in 
  the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with 
  somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, 
  instead of thinking properly about what they are saying,and then 
  finds, surprise surprise,she is contradicting her own belief. 
  That is what makes it so maddening to try to"dialogue" (misnomer 
  if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but 
  her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of 
  time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also 
  that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when 
  she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and 
  admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at 
  all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered 
  till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper 
  God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but 
  is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.
  
  D
  
I don't 
deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or 
the Father is God JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does not 
say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word be mistaken? What do you 
believe 'all truth' to mean?

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:12
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

I believe he has equal status in the 
Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - 
remember?

That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then 
do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was 
greater than he? 

Because He said it and since you 
hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find 
this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was 
for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to 
lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father.


Correction, she writes as one who 
knows the One who knows all truth

I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. 
Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully 
understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of 
the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into 
ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do 
you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time?

No Bill I don't ... when all I am 
doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in 
heaven.

Bill

  From: Judy Taylor 
  From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are 
  her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what 
  you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has 
  changed herperspective.
  
  Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been 
  askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's 
  stated elsewhere.
  
  Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to 
  set me up with your questions
  and whatever answer I come up with is never good 
  enough, never the right
  one so far as you are concerned.. This is 
  not what I call dialogue
  
  On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the 
  "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. 
  I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it 
  or takes the windingroad yet again.
  
  I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with 
  the other two members.
  God is ONE - remember?
  
  By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. 
  
  Just a civil, respectful approach would be 
  much appreciated
  
  Though she writes as one who knows all truth, 
  
  Correction, she writes as one who 
  knows the One who knows all truth
  
  she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought 
  along with
  patience. I'll try to be better.
  
  Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind 
  .
  
  Anyway, till next time,Bill
  
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
  salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
  
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and he will be subscribed.
  
  -- This message has been scanned for viruses and 
  dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




Studying the Word is good/commendable! I know of no 
one on TT who would dissuade you from that, Judy.IFO Amen you on 
that!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:22
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar 
  theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
  I don't study all that. I study the Word of God 
  and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you 
  call
  the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but God 
  is the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't 
  need to stone me over it or even question me closely 
  for that matter.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations of 
himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- and 
sometimes back again, and back and forth.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Modalism -- One God, three 
  manifestations which is different from three 
  persons. That's how I remember the above -- 
  correct? 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Some analogies are better than others. None 
arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away from ones 
which tend towardmodalism.

Just my opinion,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 
  9:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  
  cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God 
  pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the 
  Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of 
  this explanation.
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)



-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in 
question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that 
word. That attachment is a personification and does 
not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are 
good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just 
think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or 
"God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the 
text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for 
confusion. 

Why would Paul "want to" add to what 
God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he 
spoke on
marriage and it was his own thoughts he 
said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father 
is in there
because it fits and is supposed to be 
there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! 
You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the 
book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is 
not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore 
is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You 
simply do not follow your own rules . 



Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion 
of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the 
way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is 
italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is 
added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is 
Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It 
is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir

It was a purely pragmatic decision. It was NOT a revelation. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 08, 2006 20:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism  
  Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)

  Blainerb: The decision to allow Blacks the PH 
  was made afterweeks and evenmonths of agonizing prayer and 
  discussion, which prayer and discussion followed the great success Mormon 
  missionaries were having in Africa. The decision was made solely on the 
  basis of desire to include worthy Black malesfrom that continent in the 
  on-going work of the Lord--mostly missionary work, but other aspects as 
  well. The Mormon Priesthood has always been a lay priesthood, and it was 
  necessary to get those Blacks busy taking care of their own, rather than 
  having White men exercisingdominion over 
  them.

  In a message dated 1/8/2006 12:51:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine: I have an audio tape, surreptitiously obtained, of the 
thenprophet (1978)describing the 'revelation' (political 
decision) to permit non-whites into the priesthood.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 07, 2006 18:10
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism 
   Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)

  Blainerb: What John 
  andbrother Moore have written belowis the crux of what 
  God meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Protestant ministers of the 
  day taught doctrines of men, which had a form of Godliness, but denied the 
  Power thereof. In other words, they denied the "greater revelation," 
  or the possibility of "greater revelation" than that contained in the 
  Bible. 
  This will turn to their ultimate 
  condemnation, in the great hereafter, because God has all power--and is 
  the same today, yesterday, and forever--including having the right and 
  ability to give forth "greater revelation." 
  If the ministers of Protestant 
  religiondo not repent of this prideful stubbornness, then I am 
  thinking one of the most immediate consequences will be for God to 
  empower the Remnant of Jacob to go through, and destroy the wonderful 
  civilizationthat hasbeen built upover the past two 
  hundred years called the US of A. Those Mexicans, most of whom are 
  descendants of the Aztecs, who by the way worshipped 
  Quetzalquatl,who was described as being aWhite God who wore a 
  white robe and a beard, just keep coming over the border, don't 
  they? Despite efforts to stay them, and the prophecy contained in 3 Nephi 
  of the BoM creeps closer and closer to being fulfilled every day. I 
  hope when it happens, the "Remnant"will by then have recognized the 
  LDS Church as something other than a "White Guy's" church. 

  There is already evidence this is 
  true. The Navajo language has two words for White men: 
  Biligana, which is a derisive term, meaning something like, "White Enemy," 
  and another term which simply means "White brother."The 
  latterisusually applied to members of the LDS 
  Church. 
  I spent three years teaching Dine' 
  (Navajos) in Southern Utah, and I know that among them are many who have 
  adopted the Black man's symbol for Black Power--a raised, gloved 
  hand--except the fingers of the glove have been cut off, allowing the red 
  man's fingers to show through at the end of the glove, apparently 
  symbolizing the Red Power Movement that has grown from the Black Power 
  Movement.
  You Protestant cowboysmight 
  do well tostrap on your six-shooters, 'cause I believe the day will 
  soon come when the game we played as little kids--Cowboys and Indians--may 
  become a nightmarish reality .. 
  .

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




A little patronizing Lance 
...
So tell me why are DM and myself accused of 
modalism and sabellianism? Is it becauseyour
mentors have convinced you that - "Noone 
is able to apprehend the Truth because of the 
enlightenment
and the Holy Spirit is hamstrung so that he is 
unable todo what Jesus said He would do in the lives 

of those who believe?"

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:37:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Studying the Word is good/commendable! I know of 
  no one on TT who would dissuade you from that, 
  Judy.IFO Amen you on that!
  
From: Judy Taylor 

You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar 
theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of 
God and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you 
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but 
God is the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't 

need to stone me over it or even question me 
closely for that matter.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations 
  of himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- 
  and sometimes back again, and back and forth.
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

Modalism -- One God, three 
manifestations which is different from three 
persons. That's how I remember the above -- 
correct? 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  Some analogies are better than others. 
  None arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away 
  from ones which tend towardmodalism.
  
  Just my opinion,
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 
9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)


cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God 
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the 
Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of 
this explanation.




  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM 
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word 
  in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that 
  word. That attachment is a personification and 
  does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There 
  are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I 
  just think that if we allow for the omission of the words 
  "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added 
  those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less 
  possibility for confusion. 
  
  Why would Paul "want to" add to what 
  God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he 
  spoke on
  marriage and it was his own thoughts 
  he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word 
  Father is in there
  because it fits and is supposed to be 
  there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules 
  !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the 
  words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that 
  "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be 
  and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted 
  means?? You simply do not follow your own rules .

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




Exactly what it says 
Lance,
I did not change it to the plural did 
I?

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:40:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does 
  not say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word 
  be mistaken? What do you believe 'all truth' to 
  mean?
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  I believe he has equal status in the 
  Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE 
  - remember?
  
  That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then 
  do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was 
  greater than he? 
  
  Because He said it and since you 
  hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find 
  this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man 
  was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well 
  as to lay down His human life so that we could live by 
  beingreconciled to the 
  Father.
  
  
  Correction, she writes as one 
  who knows the One who knows all truth
  
  I was only trying to be respectful of your position, 
  Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able 
  to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the 
  Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into 
  ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do 
  you see why I might misunderstand you from time to 
  time?
  
  No Bill I don't ... when all I am 
  doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in 
  heaven.
  
  Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are 
her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe 
what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she 
has changed herperspective.

Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've 
been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things 
she's stated elsewhere.

Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to 
set me up with your questions
and whatever answer I come up with is never 
good enough, never the right
one so far as you are concerned.. This is 
not what I call dialogue

On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the 
"Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. 
I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses 
it or takes the windingroad yet again.

I believe he has equal status in the Godhead 
with the other two members.
God is ONE - remember?

By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. 

Just a civil, respectful approach would 
be much appreciated

Though she writes as one who knows all truth, 

Correction, she writes as one who 
knows the One who knows all truth

she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought 
along with
patience. I'll try to be better.

Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in 
mind .

Anyway, till next time,Bill

--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
to be clean.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




He genuinely misses he participation in the 'group' 
as he respected it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:38
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Why would I ask DM? He isn't the one running 
  everything by her for some exalted opinion
  you are.
  
  On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:34:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Ask DM as you appear to respect HIS 
opinion.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:27
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  So what qualifies her? Why are you so sure she 
  knows the Truth?
  
  On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:14:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Expert witness.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie 
  Sawczak is so interested in what I am saying and doing then 
  why
  doesn't she join the list and put in her two 
  cents? .. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when 
  she
  has you to do it for her - but you seeking 
  out her opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking 
  
  about things that she obviously can not 
  relate to and has no understanding about though she obviously 
  believes
  her opinion to be 
  valuable. 
  
  Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your 
  expert witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you 
  
  post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares herimpressions and they 
  are totally one sided.
  What is one to say? "Oh that's 
  nice?" What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to 
  TT? I'm
  certainly not requestingher 
  counsel.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
From: Debbie Sawczak 


You see? She sometimes does believe in 
the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with 
somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, 
instead of thinking properly about what they are saying,and 
then finds, surprise surprise,she is contradicting her own 
belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to"dialogue" 
(misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her 
insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a 
complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own 
time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often 
said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly 
worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in 
such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to 
leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes 
about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor 
teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.

D

  I don't 
  deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or 
  the Father is God JD

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




What you just did was an example of that which some 
find frustrating about you. IFO, mostly, do not. I do not see intent on your 
part when speaking this way concerning those named below. When I speak similarly 
concerning DM you see it differently, as did Iz. I'm actually in a better 
position to speak of DM than you are of those identified in this and, in 
numerous other posts. I assume that what you're getting at is that Scripture 
alone should be viewed and accessed as our authority in matters of 
faith/practice. May I ask whether you pulled all of your children from school so 
as to permit ONLY the reading of God's Word so as to free them from the taint of 
worldly wisdom? It'd appear that this was neither your solution nor that of DM 
or CM. Why?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:34
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel 
  from the heretic
  
  I don't think so Lance, how does one 'model' 
  how to live from afar and on a computer?
  You know and Billknows (if you are 
  honest) that I am not bitter, angry, and do not call either 
  
  of you names. Also there is the issue 
  ofBill holding me suspect andnot accepting anything I 
  
  write to TT at face value because of 
  conflicts with the patristic fathers, Baxter, Torrance, Polyani 
  
  and because of what he considers to be my ignorance.
  
  On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:15:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Perhaps 'model' would've been more 
appropriate.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Who set me up as your teacher - certainly 
  not me?
  Whats more this is a lie -You 
  should be ashamed of yourself Bill Taylor
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:11:45 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy 
-- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I 
amsimply modelingyou, my teacher.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  None of what you are saying has 
  anything to do with me
  You are completely and totally 
  responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind 
  them)
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

This must be an aberrent type 

I don't know, Judy. I've always 
thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from 
you.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 
  2006 2:46 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  More drivel from the heretic
  
  I've read books on "tough love" 
  and none ever included bitterness and name 
  calling.
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Methinks you know not what 
  spirit you are of ... 
  I know 
  what Spirit I am of. 
  
  and you have undoubtedly 
  become just like 
  your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) 
  
  You have 
  more in common with Augustine than I. 
  
  
  Where's the love??? 
  
  You don't 
  see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always 
  spouting. 
  One would 
  think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it 
  yourself.
  
  Bill
  
  
  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
... when you agree 
that this is where your beliefs 
are rooted ...

I do not agree that this is where my 
beliefs are rooted, Judy. 
I hold beliefs in common with the 
Patristics which are rooted in Scripture.


... have you at least 
been open with him about that?

I am sure there is much I do not know 
about

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-09 Thread Lance Muir




Am I, and the others, then to understand that your 
position on the 'godhead' is THE BIBLICAL POSITION? The 'Spirit' has led you 
into this 'truth' has He not?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 09, 2006 06:48
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Exactly what it says 
  Lance,
  I did not change it to the plural did 
  I?
  
  On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:40:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does 
not say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word 
be mistaken? What do you believe 'all truth' to 
mean?


From: Judy Taylor 

  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

I believe he has equal status in 
the Godhead with the other two members. God 
is ONE - remember?

That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why 
then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father 
was greater than he? 

Because He said it and since you 
hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find 
this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man 
was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as 
well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by 
beingreconciled to the 
Father.


Correction, she writes as one 
who knows the One who knows all truth

I was only trying to be respectful of your position, 
Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able 
to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will 
lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your 
own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you 
from time to time?

No Bill I don't ... when all I 
am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in 
heaven.

Bill

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they 
  are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't 
  believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you 
  think she has changed herperspective.
  
  Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've 
  been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things 
  she's stated elsewhere.
  
  Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying 
  to set me up with your questions
  and whatever answer I come up with is never 
  good enough, never the right
  one so far as you are concerned.. This 
  is not what I call dialogue
  
  On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the 
  "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, 
  contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see 
  if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again.
  
  I believe he has equal status in the Godhead 
  with the other two members.
  God is ONE - remember?
  
  By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. 
  
  
  Just a civil, respectful approach would 
  be much appreciated
  
  Though she writes as one who knows all truth, 
  
  Correction, she writes as one who 
  knows the One who knows all truth
  
  she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought 
  along with
  patience. I'll try to be better.
  
  Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in 
  mind .
  
  Anyway, till next time,Bill
  
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
  with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
  
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
  to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and he will be subscribed.
  
  -- This message has been scanned for viruses and 
  dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is 
  believed to be clean.

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 112 matches

Mail list logo