from:"knpraise"


Did I miss an introduction??!!   
 
Anyway  -- the post below is spoken as well as a works salvationist can muster.   Proper wedding attire is not the key to my salvation.   Actually,  I don't even own a suit !!   
 
Now, on the other hand,  if you reference  Gal 3:26-27 and the  "putting on Christ,"   I stand corrected.      That attire is the only attire that works for me.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
He has invited all to the banquet JD but most are too busy to bother which is evident by their rhetoric. So too many will not be properly attired when the wedding feast actually happens.
Sadly!!!

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful.  It is what you are about.    But be that as it may.   
 
What we believe is one thing, Judy.   What we teach others is another matter altogether.   James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers."  Why?  Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God.  
 
There is nothing,  nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student.   I menationed a "truce" sometime ago  -- something you ignored.  When I write something to Dean, for example,  you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your  brand of logic.   I woke up this morning, in more ways than one.    I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh.   It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh"   is a line drawn in the sand.   I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT.   I only care that he did.    In not mentioning the reason for the remark,  I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. 
  Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would it be a timeless moment of revelation.   If you choose to disagree,  I am not interested.  
 
David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers."   Niether is the case.   And in that description,  you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too  --  a teacher or prophetess. Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter.  
 
But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man.   Not at all.   You are correcting us,  warning others of our false doctrine,  associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on.  
 
And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are  ..   Dean's post of this morning.   He is a good guy -  a Christian.  But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith.    No other faith has God as its founder.  If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man.    And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all.  Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come."   In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ.    I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God.   If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is to opposed.    If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize.   But that is not going to happen, is it !!  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person.  I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you.   judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


We all know that I am the one who makes a big deal of Rom 5:12  and the part that says  ".through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all BECAUSE ALL HAVE SINNED."   
 
Well, thank God for Billy T .   Look to point #4:
 

4. "He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life from His birth." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the first Adam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. 
 
I now have the language I need to connect what I see as critically important in 5:12 with the Adamic sin and consequence.   Bill says "Christ's response to the fall was not to sin !!"  And Paul is saying [of the rest of us]  that our response to the 
Adamic situation was to go and do likewise {because all have sinned] !!    Such was (is) the nature of our response.  
 
jd
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Judy, you write as though you think you are disputing my comments; however, you are not:

 1. "Bill you are totally into flesh and blood - even your theology is earthly."    Not only is this an ad hominem argument, it is also untrue. If of late my focus has been upon Christ's human nature, it is only because the humanity of Christ has been to topic of our discussion. At no time, however, have I failed to also uphold the truth of his divinity. This post included.
2. "The first Adam was fruitful and he did multiply - in the flesh." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy: Adam's sin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included. However, it was only after the fall that he did this; hence all of his posterity were born under the curse of sin -- Jesus included.
3. "The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the fall."    Christ was born of the fruit of David's genitals, Judy. He is the Offspring of David and the Seed of Abraham. Both David and Abraham are Adam's descendants; hence Christ is Adam's descendant too. "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, . . ." (Acts 17.26) 
4. "He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life from His birth." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the first Adam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. 
5. "He didn't generate any physical life though and he died unmarried and childless."    This so stupid as to not even warrant a response.
Bill

 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I'd have to disagree with every point made by Bill in his post about the two Adams; He had Cain, Abel, Seth and no telling how many others since he lived for 967 or so years.
The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the fall. judyt-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Your works-oriented theology is over-heated at this point.   And misinformed.   
 
to think that the woman is not as infected as the man is nonsense.  Job 25: 4 reads this wise:   How then can man be righteous before God?  And how can he be pure who is born of a woman?
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Christ is not the literal seed of David's genitals Bill and by your insistance that he is you have far more scripture to explain away than I do.
The reason the Messiah was to be born of the woman was because she is less responsible than Adam for the transgression.  She was deceived, Adam was not.  He shirked his responsibility and then chose to go with the woman rather than take a stand for righteousness. The curse comes by way of the father and Jesus is the ONLY one begotten this way.  I could go on and on but I won't.
judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


What is too difficult for God?   You use this very qustion to win the day.  But I ask the same question of you.  Indeed, Judy, if nothing is too difficult for  God, then why can't God mean what He actually says concerning Jesus being from the you -know-whats of David !!!
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through men of the cloth. Also I believe that going on and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre.
What is too difficult for God?  Does he have to do things the same way every time? Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure and holy - without the taint of the first Adam.  This is what I believe.   judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


David writes:  
 
 

 
John wrote:> I used to believe that man, apart from Christ,> had no choice when it came to sin.> I no longer believe that to be the case.> Man does have a choice.  Adam had a choice.
 
Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely.  You are moving close to that position.  Such leads to moral government theology and open theism.  Make sure that is where you want to be.
 
David Miller. 
 
 
 
I really do not care where it might lead.  Should I??   The fact of the matter is this:  God expected Adam and Eve to do what He told them to do.   He expected the same of Cain, of Abraham, of David, of Samson,  of the Babylonians, of the people of Nineveh,  those who listened to the Sermon on the Mount, to the adulterous woman  -   to us all.   
 
Adam , with the very same human nature I have,  finally responds porrly to his condition and in so doing, changes his situation.   Our response to that Adamic circumstance is to go and do likewise !!  We all die because we have joined adam in his response to his human nature  (Ro 5:12)  Only Christ responds differently to the condition of the First Adam.   
 
It is not that we cannot accomplish great good -  rather, that we will , given enough time, commit sin that condemns.    We don't have to -  but we will.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


DM,
 
You, of course, preach personal effort all the time.  "Repent or perish" is a part of your ministry.   And your belief that your personal victory over sin -  that you do not sin - is  of the power of the Spirit is nothing more than will worhsip with a tag on it that reads "Born of the Spirit."  When Paul speaks of "fellowship of the Spirit,"  he is talking about joint participation with the Spirit.  Such is impossible without personal effort.  
 
You ask  ---  Why would you continue to preach personal effort if you have already achieved sanctification by grace through faith?
Salvation is not limited to a free pass from hell.   It is also a definition of me being saved from me.    I am saved immediately  ("there is therefore, NOW, no condemnation  ")   I have been reconciled in Christ  yet I am to be reconciled.  And so I am sanctified wholly and completely, as a gift of grace,  while , at the same time,  being expected to join the spirit is this thing we often refer to as "spiritual matureity."  
 
Such is my answer.
 
jd
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > ... try to see why we continue to preach > > obedience and personal effort > > Why would you continue to preach personal effort if you have already > achieved sanctification by grace through faith? > > I personally do not preach personal effort. The reason that you find people > like me sometimes talking about your view promoting sin is because you still > preach personal effort and you still testify to having no hope to keep from > sinning in the future. My problem is that if your testimony is that you > will sin in the future, then how can you call that sanctification? > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to
 answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

You make some good points, DH.
What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ?
He is one busy hombre, that's for sure.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want
to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear.For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise.However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something
particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too?
DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to him. My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by waving underwear on the sidewalk.David Miller wrote:

Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech.
The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.
If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debat

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Your arugment is with scripture.  It is the Apsotle who proclaims "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God...and is of the Anti-Christ"  (I Jo 4:3).  This is the same Apostle who writes  "...the Spirit..  gives us understanding ..  that we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.  THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE "  (I Jo 5:20).
 
Your conclusion about me and the Spirit has been stated over and over again for well over a year now.   My conculsion about you is tied to the above scripture.  
 
jd
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



The only knowledge of Christ available to us is that which comes by way of the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme Christ in this age is to blaspheme his Spirit. "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Perceptive post Lance?  Give me a break!  You ppl are so into opinions ... Morality is a thing to be desired so why malign this also by adding the "self" like you know something that nobody else is aware of.  You've not even heard the first one of them preaching on the street have you?
To JD .. blaspheming the name of Jesus is not what gets you in trouble, it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit that is the unpardonable sin and you don't appear to have a clue about Him.
Judyt-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Aaaa, another scripture that does not go to the discussion.   The fact of the matter is this,  in using that scripture I am illustrating the consideration that was the preveailing thought in Jewish thinking concerning what you call "the generational curse."   That Christ was born of a woman made Him no different in nature than anyone else and, for the Jew, this meant that He was not pure.
 
If "generational curses" are true and apply to all of mankind,  then Christ was not pure.   
 
The fact that you eliminate the woman from this "genertional curse"  is only JudyLogic.    If the "generational curse" doctrine is true,  then you have a biblical problem in this Job refeence.   But scripture is not your guide.  You are.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Job is not alluding to what you are trying to say JD.  You need to study what God has to say rather than trying to put words in His mouth like you do with the rest of us constantly. Sin comes down generationally by way of the father.  I understand Mary had a father also but that's just the way it is.  You see Israel in Nehemiah's day as a nation repenting for the iniquities of their fathers.  Maybe you should take a seminar with Bill and he can teach you word meanings.  judyt.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


No conflict for me.   Again, you are not reading posted messages  -- just reacting to them.  No point responding to comments that have nothing to do with what I wrote. 
 
:-)
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No JD Billy T has not solved the conflict  for you because "death reigned from Adam to Moses even for those who had not sinned" because they were "sinners"  - they all died anyway.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


I am saying what John the Apostle is saying.  Did I not make that clear?  
 
Jesus was (is) God in the flesh.   Philosophy did not give this to me.   Neither is this from my own understanding.   It is John who proclaims that one is not of God on the occasion of denial of this reality.   Maybe words and thinking mean nothing to you,  but, in this case,  they are extremely important and for a host of reasons.   
 
jd
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding?  A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved?
 
David M.
 
p.s.  I don't put down you, John.  You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are.  Your ideas will change.  You as a person will not change.
 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful.  It is what you are about.    But be that as it may.   
 
What we believe is one thing, Judy.   What we teach others is another matter altogether.   James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers."  Why?  Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God.  
 
There is nothing,  nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student.   I menationed a "truce" sometime ago  -- something you ignored.  When I write something to Dean, for example,  you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your  brand of logic.   I woke up this morning, in more ways than one.    I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh.   It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh"   is a line drawn in the sand.   I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT.   I only care that he did.    In not mentioning the reason for the remark,  I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. 
   Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would it be a timeless moment of revelation.   If you choose to disagree,  I am not interested.  
 
David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers."   Niether is the case.   And in that description,  you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too  --  a teacher or prophetess. Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter.  
 
But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man.   Not at all.   You are correcting us,  warning others of our false doctrine,  associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on.  
 
And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are  ..   Dean's post of this morning.   He is a good guy -  a Christian.  But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith.    No other faith has God as its founder.  If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man.    And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all.  Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come."   In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ.    I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God.   If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is to opposed.    If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize.   But that is not going to happen, is it !!   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person.  I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you.   judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


What does this mean:  Your ideas will change.  You as a person will not change?
 
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding?  A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved?
 
David M.
 
p.s.  I don't put down you, John.  You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are.  Your ideas will change.  You as a person will not change.
 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful.  It is what you are about.    But be that as it may.   
 
What we believe is one thing, Judy.   What we teach others is another matter altogether.   James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers."  Why?  Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God.  
 
There is nothing,  nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student.   I menationed a "truce" sometime ago  -- something you ignored.  When I write something to Dean, for example,  you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your  brand of logic.   I woke up this morning, in more ways than one.    I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh.   It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh"   is a line drawn in the sand.   I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT.   I only care that he did.    In not mentioning the reason for the remark,  I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. 
   Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would it be a timeless moment of revelation.   If you choose to disagree,  I am not interested.  
 
David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers."   Niether is the case.   And in that description,  you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too  --  a teacher or prophetess. Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter.  
 
But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man.   Not at all.   You are correcting us,  warning others of our false doctrine,  associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on.  
 
And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are  ..   Dean's post of this morning.   He is a good guy -  a Christian.  But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith.    No other faith has God as its founder.  If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man.    And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all.  Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come."   In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ.    I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God.   If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is to opposed.    If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize.   But that is not going to happen, is it !!   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person.  I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you.   judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
Could you make a line-item response, similar to what  David does.  For me to respond to you, specifically,  and have you write something that is not responsive allows for endless debate.   
 
"Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature."   I have a human nature that is given to sin.  I can refuse to so act -  but given enough time,  I will commit sin.   I and you - respond to our human nature in the same way as Adam.  Christ chose not to sin.
His life makes us all liars when we say that we cannot act righteously.   
You say that God does not ask us to do what we cannot do.   Well, he asked the Jews to live the law long before He gave a personal indwelling  ...  proving that we can live the law without the Spirit's indwelling    according to your reasoning.  Perhaps the Spirit's Indwelling accomplishes other purposes if we, in fact, can live a righteous life without it?   Wow !!
 
For me, "cannot" and "will not" have the same conclusion in my life.   The only difference, as I see it, is that the first consideration makes God guilty  (creating me with no chance at doing what He commanded),  the second reveals my own complicity.   And, as if there were any question,  Jesus assumes my nature and does what I might argue "cannot be done,"  making me a liar and deserving of sin.  
 
I have long believed that Christ's life and oral ministry left me deserving of death and without excuse.   His death on the cross  took that condemnation away.  
 
 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 9:57:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 
In the KJ , the translation is "in all things" which is the same, OF COURSE, as "in all respects."   I do not use the KJ in my studies.   
 
Christ did what no other man had done  -  He lived that covenant partnership perfected with the same human nature you and Judy and Adolph Hitler have.  When it suits your purposes,  you and Judy often argue " he wouldn't ask us to do something we couldn't do" while over looking the fact that with the Old Law,  God asked His people to live it perfectly !!   Christ told the unborn again woman,  "Go they way and sin no more."   go refigure.
 
Further, if you think I believe that you are sinless in your daily walk, right now,  well,  sorry but I do not believe that.  
 
There is only one kind of human flesh and Judy's constant misuse of I Cor 15 does not contradict that statement.   
 
jd
---
cd: John consider it this way-How am I different from Christ as a born again believer-yet I have changed to a whole new man. How can Christ be the same as the old me and the same as the new me?Jesus and Hitler being the same-how you given this much thought??God told his people in the OT to keep the commandments-they failed in that they heeded the flash and wanted sin more. God would not have given laws to us that we were unable to keep.Even in the NT He gives us Laws and the Holy Spirit to help us keep those Laws. Christ himself did not come to do away with the law He came to fulfill the part of the law that require us to be cleaned up from our sins to sin no more and to be perfect even as He was perfect-Christ would also not have directed us to do something we are not able to do with God's help of the Holy Spirit.

 
 
jd
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 9:15:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 

 
cd: I think I can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. 
 
jd wrote this text.not Bill.   The scritpure you asked for is in the paragraph.  
 
 
 
Secondly,  we know that Christ was like us, in every respect.  That is the declaration of scripture.   You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!!    What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human  --  like us??  I do not think you can answer this question.  

 
cd: John where is the words" in every respect" in the below Hebrews 2:14-18? As a lost heathen I was a captive of Satan was Christ also a lost man held captive by Satan? There is a difference. Can you hear the answer I am giving to your question?
 


Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 
Heb 2

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


No hate, here.  The point that Bill has brought into  this discussion ala Acts 2:30 , the very point David is trying to get across to Judy is what Judy denies.   There is no doubt about what is being said, here.   
 
One simply cannot understand the gopel message apart from the notion that Jesus Christ is the True God   ( I John 5:20 and since God is unchanging ,  since specifically, Jesus Christ is the same throughout all time (Heb 13:8),  He was God in the flesh   -  a flesh shared by David (Acts 2:30).  
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



IFO DO NOT HATE JUDY nor anyone else on TT.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 01, 2006 08:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 11:20:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

David,  Actually I am saying the same as Dean.  I believe Jesus walked about in a flesh and blood body.  I just don't accept that it was a fallen (under the Adamic curse) flesh and blood body which is what I am understanding the rest of you to be saying.  Dean is the only one whose Christology I can relate to.
cd: I have found her to be saying the same as I am also-but her words get twisted by others alot and their have been attempts to lead her into mistakes and confusion because they hate her and want to defeat her more than they want truth-similar to what happens to you on campus-I know that because they do the same to me one campus and will do so soon here.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion. ?  It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine.   In fact, just the opposite is true.   
 
Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy.   You have no scripture on this and will never have.    The fact is this  -  Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin?  Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam.  You are wrong!  My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ.  judyt

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ



cd: Works don't get one saved because we depends on the works of another even Jesus-but we are saved for a work-so you expect to receive a payday from God without working-this from a God who promotes non- laziness? What are you teaching john?
 
Any "payday"  given to us as a result of obedience is viewed as a payment of indebtedness,  Dean.   If benefit is based on obedience, then God owes us soemthing when we obey !!!  
 
"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt"  (Romans 4:4.)
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 11:47:58 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

Did I miss an introduction??!!   
 
Anyway  -- the post below is spoken as well as a works salvationist can muster.   Proper wedding attire is not the key to my salvation.   Actually,  I don't even own a suit !!   

 
cd: Works don't get one saved because we depends on the works of another even Jesus-but we are saved for a work-so you expect to receive a payday from God without working-this from a God who promotes non- laziness? What are you teaching john?


Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 
Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end; 
---
Now, on the other hand,  if you reference  Gal 3:26-27 and the  "putting on Christ,"   I stand corrected.      That attire is the only attire that works for me.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
He has invited all to the banquet JD but most are too busy to bother which is evident by their rhetoric. So too many will not be properly attired when the wedding feast actually happens.
Sadly!!!

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David


Cash the check before it is too late  !!!   
 
King of sounds like "save yourself," doesn't it?  
 
Seriously,  go ahead and put it in the bank.   
 
yf jd
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

yep--you should receive the bat from Minnesota soon--as soon as it's turned--let me know when it arrives what you think, etc., and i'll cash the check
 
thank you!
 
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:48:27 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

g, did you get my check?  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

if you're thinkin' of askin' JCs Momma, pray she doesn't ask him to handle it for her
 
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:15:54 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

.. I wonder what [ppl] might be thinking after reading ..
 
I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill.
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



The union is hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christ defeated sin in his own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from beyond the tomb, where sin, death, and the devil cannot reach us -- if, that is, we daily put to death that old man who still wants to rear his head. 
 
Dean, I say this with the utmost sincerity: You really do need to let go of your alloy view of Jesus; it can only confuse you.
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 11:19:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 
cd writes: So I ask you How is one able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit for men?

 
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 
-- 1 Corinthians 15.45-47
The first Adam was made from dust and received from God the breath of life. His mandate was one: "Be fruitful and multiply." But rather than doing what he was told, Adam chose instead to do the inexplicable. Adam's sin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included. What did the first Adam produce? He produced death. 
The second Adam was born into the fall of the first. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the first Adam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. Then Christ paid the ultimate price: he died on their behalf. Ah, but because he had defeated in his own flesh that which had condemned the flesh of Adam, death had no power to hold him. Now in ascension the Second Adam sends his spirit to give life to those who could only die without him. Who is the Second Adam? He is the life-giving Spirit.
---
cd:Right-Then how can can the Second Adam be the same as the first? You guys are stating that Christ was no different than Hitler but Hitler was the same as the first Adam "exactly the same"-in the above you show the second Adam to be different. This is our point.If Christ was the same as the first we are still in our sins Bill.
- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


David makes some good points, here, Dean.  
 
At some point in life, Hitler had a choice.   at some point in time, Hitler was not the devil we know him to be.   At some point in time,  he was as innocent and impressionable as your children.  
 
If there ever was a contrast in response to our Adamic nature,  it is seen in the lives of Jesus and Hitler.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > the same as the first? > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > Dean wrote: > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > different than Hitler > > Not true. > > Dean wrote: > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > "exactly the same"-in the above you show > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, > or both? We say his spirit was un
ique. His birth was unique. On the other > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with > Acts 2:30, Dean? > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Should I try your approach in my next counseling session?   
 
"O. !!  Glad you folks were able to make it.   My understanding is that you two queers  have some sort of misgiving about the perception of  others concerning your sodomizing way of life.   Hopefully, at the end of this session, you two faggets willl see the love I have for who you could be in the Lord as I do what I can to lead you away from the hell fire you are so deserving of because of your love for each others buns ..  and  ..  aahhh.   well  !!  at least I did the best I good.  If they won't listen to the truth, let the little faggets go to hell.   That is apparently what they really want !!  If they think I was hard on them,  they should see what the Lord tells me to say to the Mormons !!  
 
 
How am I doing?  Think it might work  -- to any degree.?   
 
I rest my case.  
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > The shock and awe you all experienced with > > the use of the f'in word is the same dismay > > many feel when the word sodomite is used. > > The context, however, is much different. Homosexuals should be ashamed of > the word sodomite. They should also be ashamed of the word Queer. However, > they are working hard for society to accept the word Queer as a nice term, > and they will do the same thing with the word sodomite. Right now, however, > society thinks of what sodomy means, and many people still consider this > sexual perversion. A very frequent question I am asked is whether or not > sodomy is acceptable between a man and a woman. When I respond that it is > not, they jest about being greatly disappointed. > >
; Do we know that people don't like the word "sodomy"? Of course. However, > we use it because 1) it is not a foul word like the F word, and 2) it brings > to light the perversion of what homosexuality is all about. I would rather > use the word sodomy or sodommite to make my point rather than trying to > detail exactly what is wrong with what they do. Some of us try hard to use > illustrations, such as an electrical cord with male and female ends, showing > who male to male does not work as it was designed. Sometimes, however, > people don't get it and we do have to more specifically describe what we are > talking about, much to the embarrassment of people who truly do not > understand the kind of life that homosexuals are promoting with their > agenda. > > Judy wrote: > > She brought out that passionate discontent > > rather brilliantly. > > Perhaps so, but she grossly fails to understand the spiritual reasons for
 > this discontent. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


I John 5:20  "--  Jesus is the true God."  
 
Making a distinction between "Lord" and "God" is to misunderstand exactly what Peter was saying when he pronounced Jesus as Lord and Messiah  (Acts 2:36). 
 
Peter is saying that Christ is both God and Messiah  !!!
 
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:23:52 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..cd
 
 
jd responds: 
 
You write it  - I think you believe it, Dean.   Tell me in the following exactly where I am speaking for you.  
 
Look at the following:  I say "I hope you are not coming to a decision that Jesus ... was not God in the flesh" and you say "  "That seems to be the direction .."
 
I will not slow down when referencing what you write. 
 
cd: I am stating that Christ is the Lord not God John-and as such is part of the GodHead-Judy is right on the Trinity issue-it leads one to mistake who Christ is. But you took that a step farther and seem to think I am anti-Christ as you think Judy is. Wrong on both counts.
 
jd
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Dean,  I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh.   This is a very serious matter.   
 
jd
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me good only God is good." statement of Chris..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


"..Jesus Christ came in the flesh  .."
 
The phrase is a declaration of the divinity of Christ.   If  He were not God on earth, Dean,  OF COURSE HE CAME IN THE FLESH.   Surely you do not believe that John is stating the obvious !!   I came in the flesh.  You have -  Judy has.  No, this is a statement that Jesus Christ was fully God in the flesh.   You doubt that this is the intention of John?   Again,  I point you to 5:20.   The Apostle has come the  believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.   For him.  "Jesus Christ"  = "God."   If Judy believes this, let her say so.   Are we agreed that Jesus Christ, in human flesh, was fully God?  Sorry but "of God" does not get the job done.  
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 9:39:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your arugment is with scripture.  It is the Apsotle who proclaims "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God...and is of the Anti-Christ"  (I Jo 4:3).  This is the same Apostle who writes  "...the Spirit..  gives us understanding ..  that we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.  THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE "  (I Jo 5:20).
 
Your conclusion about me and the Spirit has been stated over and over again for well over a year now.   My conculsion about you is tied to the above scripture. 
 
cd: John-Judy has stated many time she believes Christ appeared in the flesh and was of God.
 
jd
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



The only knowledge of Christ available to us is that which comes by way of the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme Christ in this age is to blaspheme his Spirit. "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Perceptive post Lance?  Give me a break!  You ppl are so into opinions ... Morality is a thing to be desired so why malign this also by adding the "self" like you know something that nobody else is aware of.  You've not even heard the first one of them preaching on the street have you?
To JD .. blaspheming the name of Jesus is not what gets you in trouble, it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit that is the unpardonable sin and you don't appear to have a clue about Him.
Judyt-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] John Dean Hitler and Christ


 Dean wrote:> > You guys are stating that Christ was no> > different than Hitler>> Not true.cd: Yes true -read John responces-he said this.
Dean  -- please paste the quotes from me that cause you to say this.  I am curious.  
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Date: 2/1/2006 9:04:04 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > > > > Dean wrote: > > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > > the same as the first? > > > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > > > Dean wrote: > > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > > different than Hitler > > > > Not true. > cd: Yes true -read John responces-he said this. > > > > Dean wrote: > > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > > "ex
actly the same"-in the above you show > > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his > spirit, > > or both? We say his spirit was unique. His birth was unique. On the > other > > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. > -- > cd: I have no problem with this as He was flesh and blood-but not as common > man. >  > How do you deal with > > Acts 2:30, Dean? > -- > cd: Leave to a church of God member to being up Acts 2 :-)I think it is a > good passage that I agree with David. Christ came from the loins of King 
> David as God swore with an oath-and you point? > --- > > > > David Miller > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
 unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


You do understand how I and many others might think you answer rather curious.  to speak one on one with different terminology than a speech offtered to a congregation of individuals  (hmm  congregation of INDIVIDUALS)   is a surprising consideration for one who preaches with the hope of convincing as many as possible (now and in the future) to give their lives to a God who has already given His life for them.   
 
My manner of speech in a closed session would have a very predicatable effect on those in attendance.  Ditto for the larger congregation.   
 
"Nigger" is used by blacks.  You get the point ?  
 
Sodomite is a name we call people just as "nigger" is a word that offends.      
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, John, that won't work. You have to learn to shift gears to understand > street preaching. I would never speak this way one on one. It only shuts > the person down. In street preaching, however, we can redirect our speech > toward others. We can bring out what the homosexuals are really about. > Take my banner, for example, that says, "Beware Queer University." When > people complain about the banner being offensive, I ask them to please tell > me what is offensive about it. If it is the word "Queer" I explain that the > word Queer is used by the homosexuals themselves, and that part of their > agenda is to make this word common place like the word Gay is now used for a > homosexual man. I sometimes ask a homosexual standing there, "sir, please > tell everyone her
e if I am speaking the truth. If I took off the word > "Beware" from this sign, and it only said, "Queer University," and I rallied > people, telling them that this University should be known to all as Queer > Univeristy, and all the Queers should come here to this University, wouldn't > you like that? Every time the homosexual will agree and say, yes, that > would be great. The point is that most people do not understand that this > is the homosexual agenda. Many of us do not want the University to become > Queer University. We only want it to be a place where homosexuals can > attend and find help to stop sexual behavior that God condemns. > > So my point is that a counseling session is conducted much differently than > a street preaching session. If you can't shift gears, stick with counseling > and let others do the street preaching. They will be more effective at it > than you would be. > > David Miller. > > -
 Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation > > > Should I try your approach in my next counseling session? > > "O. !! Glad you folks were able to make it. My understanding is > that you two queers have some sort of misgiving about the perception of > others concerning your sodomizing way of life. Hopefully, at the end of > this session, you two faggets willl see the love I have for who you could be > in the Lord as I do what I can to lead you away from the hell fire you are > so deserving of because of your love for each others buns .. and .. > aahhh. well !! at least I did the best I good. If they won't listen to > the truth, let the little faggets go to hell. That is apparently what they > really want !! If they think I was hard o
n them, they should see what the > Lord tells me to say to the Mormons !! > > > How am I doing? Think it might work -- to any degree.? > > I rest my case. > jd > > -- Original message -- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > JD wrote: > > > The shock and awe you all experienced with > > > the use of the f'in word is the same dismay > > > many feel when the word sodomite is used. > > > > The context, however, is much different. Homosexuals should be ashamed of > > the word sodomite. They should also be ashamed of the word Queer. However, > > they are working hard for society to accept the word Queer as a nice term, > > and they will do the same thing with the word sodomite. Right now, > > however, > > society thinks of what sodomy means, and many people still consider this > > sexual perversion. 
A very frequent question I am asked is whether or not > > sodomy is acceptable between a man and a woman. When I respond that it is > > not, they jest about being greatly disappointed. > > > > ; Do we know that people don't like the word "sodomy"? Of course. However, > > we use it because 1) it is not a foul word like the F word, and 2) it > > brings > > to light the perversion of what homosexuality is all about. I would rather > > use the word sodomy or sodommite to make my point rather than trying to > > detail exactly what is wrong with what they do. Some of us try hard to use > > illustrations, such as an electrical cord with male and female ends, > > showing > > who male to male does not work as it wa

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Let me add this thought:  you will accomplish no lasting good with the strategy you have revealed in this post.   And,  you may have put your daughter in harm's way.    
 
Your sign is so very wrong if, in fact,  you are trying to bring people to Christ rather than simply exposing them for the    ..   whatever.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
You do understand how I and many others might think you answer rather curious.  to speak one on one with different terminology than a speech offtered to a congregation of individuals  (hmm  congregation of INDIVIDUALS)   is a surprising consideration for one who preaches with the hope of convincing as many as possible (now and in the future) to give their lives to a God who has already given His life for them.   
 
My manner of speech in a closed session would have a very predicatable effect on those in attendance.  Ditto for the larger congregation.   
 
"Nigger" is used by blacks.  You get the point ?  
 
Sodomite is a name we call people just as "nigger" is a word that offends.      
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, John, that won't work. You have to learn to shift gears to understand > street preaching. I would never speak this way one on one. It only shuts > the person down. In street preaching, however, we can redirect our speech > toward others. We can bring out what the homosexuals are really about. > Take my banner, for example, that says, "Beware Queer University." When > people complain about the banner being offensive, I ask them to please tell > me what is offensive about it. If it is the word "Queer" I explain that the > word Queer is used by the homosexuals themselves, and that part of their > agenda is to make this word common place like the word Gay is now used for a > homosexual man. I sometimes ask a homosexual standing there, "sir, please > tell everyone her
 e if I am speaking the truth. If I took off the word > "Beware" from this sign, and it only said, "Queer University," and I rallied > people, telling them that this University should be known to all as Queer > Univeristy, and all the Queers should come here to this University, wouldn't > you like that? Every time the homosexual will agree and say, yes, that > would be great. The point is that most people do not understand that this > is the homosexual agenda. Many of us do not want the University to become > Queer University. We only want it to be a place where homosexuals can > attend and find help to stop sexual behavior that God condemns. > > So my point is that a counseling session is conducted much differently than > a street preaching session. If you can't shift gears, stick with counseling > and let others do the street preaching. They will be more effective at it > than you would be. > > David Miller. > > 
-  Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation > > > Should I try your approach in my next counseling session? > > "O. !! Glad you folks were able to make it. My understanding is > that you two queers have some sort of misgiving about the perception of > others concerning your sodomizing way of life. Hopefully, at the end of > this session, you two faggets willl see the love I have for who you could be > in the Lord as I do what I can to lead you away from the hell fire you are > so deserving of because of your love for each others buns .. and .. > aahhh. well !! at least I did the best I good. If they won't listen to > the truth, let the little faggets go to hell. That is apparently what they > really want !! If they think I was hard
 o n them, they should see what the > Lord tells me to say to the Mormons !! > > > How am I doing? Think it might work -- to any degree.? > > I rest my case. > jd > > -- Original message -- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > JD wrote: > > > The shock and awe you all experienced with > > > the use of the f'in word is the same dismay > > > many feel when the word sodomite is used. > > > > The context, however, is much different. Homosexuals should be ashamed of > > the word sodomite. They should also be ashamed of the word Queer. However, > > they are working hard for society to accept the word Queer as a nice term, > > and they will do the same thing with the word sodomite. Right now, > > however, > > society thinks of what sodomy means, and many people still consider this > > sexual perversio
n. A very frequent question I am asked is whether or not > > sodomy is acceptable between a man and a woman. When I respond that it is > > not, they jest about being greatly disappointed. > > > > ; Do we know that people don't like the word "sodomy"? Of course. However, > > we use it because 1) it is not a f

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


Two things.  
 
1.  Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me.
 
2.  You are a dualist and I am not.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > What does this mean: Your ideas will > > change. You as a person will not change? > > What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. > However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your > thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning > something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have > said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on > your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not > to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. > I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not > against you, even when you think they are. My comments a
re meant to help > you, and to help us better understand one another. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Cool.   I'll add this to that 10% I keep talking about.   
 
Turn about is fair play  --   your comments to Judy have been noteworthy.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > "Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature." > > Excellent point, John. A sinful nature provides a source of temptation, but > it is not synonymous with the idea of a sinning nature, a nature that must > sin despite whatever we think, say, or do. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Dean  -  I will use this as a benchmark statement.  David's post says it all.  Nothing else to say.   Please consider what he is telling you.   
 
Judy    you too.  
 
jd  
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Respectfully David -Judy has stated dozens > > of times that she believes Christ came in the > > flesh. Yet the group keeps denying she denying > > she said this. Why can't people hear her? > > We can't hear Judy when she says this because when we get down to discussing > the details, we learn that she redefines flesh. When she says flesh, she > does not mean flesh like you and I have. She means a very different kind of > flesh, one that is not under the curse that came upon Adam and came upon > Christ, Christ being under the law. He was made a curse for us and > ultimately came to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of > God. This was something that began the moment he became flesh.. Such is > taught
 in Philippians 2 and Isaiah 53. > > Philippians 2:6-9 > (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with > God: > (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a > servant, and was made in the likeness of men: > (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became > obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. > (9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which > is above every name > > Isaiah 53:1-5 > (1) Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD > revealed? > (2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of > a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, > there is no beauty that we should desire him. > (3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted > with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from h
im; he was despised, and > we esteemed him not. > (4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did > esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. > (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our > iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes > we are healed. > > If the flesh of Jesus was different, the statement that Jesus Christ is not > come in the flesh becomes meaningless. Why even tell us that this is the > spirit of AntiChrist? Study the history and you will see how the gnostics > claimed revelation about the creation and introduced many false ideas, > including the idea that Jesus was not really in the flesh like us but that > it was only an illusion. This same demon works in the doctrine of the > Muslims, who cannot fathom how it could be possible for God to touch this > sinful humanity and become human. The next step of this doctrine i
s to > claim that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but that was only an > illusion. The mystery of God is wrapped up in this understanding of Christ > coming in the flesh of man, of the seed of David and Abraham, and so once > your spirit sees it, you can't understand why others are blind to the > miracle of God in the flesh. Judy will continue to argue with her mind, but > eventually, perhaps in prayer, perhaps when she least expects it, the Spirit > will reveal even this unto her. > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and >
 he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Hi Dean.   I am not "oneness" as that term is used to define a particular theology.   That the Godhead is made up of Father , Son,  and their working in this world  (the Spirit) is a given.   
 
The "Godhead" is God.  And what is God?   The inter-personal relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit.  
 
When you speak of the "Godhead," are you aware that another translation is "divine nature.  At any rate, you are talking about God.   
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:48:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I John 5:20  "--  Jesus is the true God."  
 
Making a distinction between "Lord" and "God" is to misunderstand exactly what Peter was saying when he pronounced Jesus as Lord and Messiah  (Acts 2:36). 
 
Peter is saying that Christ is both God and Messiah  !!!
-
 
cd:John I am giving two passages that shows a difference between God and Christ and before the group jumps the gun and call me a heretic I am not saying that Jesus isn't part of the Godhead because He is. To answer more mailers I have to move on but there is a difference to those whom would see.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
 
 
 
 
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:23:52 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..cd
 
 
jd responds: 
 
You write it  - I think you believe it, Dean.   Tell me in the following exactly where I am speaking for you.  
 
Look at the following:  I say "I hope you are not coming to a decision that Jesus ... was not God in the flesh" and you say "  "That seems to be the direction .."
 
I will not slow down when referencing what you write. 
 
cd: I am stating that Christ is the Lord not God John-and as such is part of the GodHead-Judy is right on the Trinity issue-it leads one to mistake who Christ is. But you took that a step farther and seem to think I am anti-Christ as you think Judy is. Wrong on both counts.
 
jd
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Dean,  I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh.   This is a very serious matter.   
 
jd
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me good only God is good." statement of Chris..

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


So why is there no sin offering for children under the Old Law?   
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:19:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

David makes some good points, here, Dean.  
 
At some point in life, Hitler had a choice.   at some point in time, Hitler was not the devil we know him to be.   At some point in time,  he was as innocent and impressionable as your children. 
 
cd: That would only matter if one believes we are innocent-I don't believe such.The only impression Christ had was given by God Himself the rest is conjecture. Thanks-but Christ never became a heathen. 
 
If there ever was a contrast in response to our Adamic nature,  it is seen in the lives of Jesus and Hitler.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > the same as the first? > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > Dean wrote: > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > different than Hitler > > Not true. > > Dean wrote: > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > "exactly the same"-in the above you show > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, > or both? We say his spirit was un
 ique. His birth was unique. On the other > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with > Acts 2:30, Dean? > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


I forgot why we are having this discussion !!  Old age.  
 
Here is what I am saying about works and salvation  --   what gets us saved, keeps us saved.   
 
If grace through faith apart from obedience to law "gets us save,"   that is all that keeps us saved.   
 
Obedience, works,  these things are reponses to the Law within (the Spirit).   That "Law" is a dynamic and driving force in our lives.   It is as irresistible as is the process of growth or maturity.  
 
Who knows,  maybe there are degrees of reward, in heaven.   But I do know that works have nothing to do with securing a relationship with the Lord.  
 
jd
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:05:46 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


cd: Works don't get one saved because we depends on the works of another even Jesus-but we are saved for a work-so you expect to receive a payday from God without working-this from a God who promotes non- laziness? What are you teaching john?
 
Any "payday"  given to us as a result of obedience is viewed as a payment of indebtedness,  Dean.   If benefit is based on obedience, then God owes us soemthing when we obey !!!  
 
"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt"  (Romans 4:4.)
-
cd: John I clearly stated that grace is not by works-it is the gift of God-but there is a work to do after salvation. Consider the parable of the Talents and tell me how this has nothing to do with works if you can-please read this carefully before you answer.


Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 
Mat 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 
Mat 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 
Mat 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 
Mat 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 
Mat 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 
Mat 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me
 five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 
Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 
Mat 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gain
 ed two other talents beside them. 
Mat 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 
Mat 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard 
man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed: 
Mat 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 
Mat 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed: 
Mat 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I &
lt; /FONT>should have received mine own with usury. 
Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 
Mat 25:29 For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 
Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or nak

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation



jt: You Bill are full of malarkey.   Just wondering  -- is malarkey brown in color.   
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




jt:   Tell me - who is in denial around here??
 
 
You are.
 

- Original Message - 
From: Judith H Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

 
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:52:34 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


cd: Respectfully David -Judy has stated dozens of times that she believes Christ came in the flesh. Yet the group keeps denying she denying she said this.Why can't people hear her?
 
It is not a question of whether she believes in some form of flesh-like substance, Dean. It is a question of whether she believes Jesus came in the flesh identified in Scripture. 
 
jt: Identified in scripture?  Nowhere in scripture are you told that Jesus Christ is born into this world with a fallen Adamic nature.  You read this into scripture because of your "positional" type gospel Bill.
 
When John states that Christ came in the flesh, he is speaking of the very same flesh that Peter speaks of in his Pentecost sermon: flesh which came from the fruit of David's loins according to the flesh. 
 
jt: The word flesh in scripture "sarx" does not even have to mean the physical body Bill - flesh is also used for the carnal nature.  Mary and Joseph were both in David's lineage.  So??  Why the hangup with loins when Jesus had no earthly father?
 
Hence when John writes that it is a spirit of anti-Christ which claims that Christ did not "come in the flesh," he is speaking of a denial of this exact same flesh -- the very flesh which he later identifies as the "'Genos' of David" (see Rev 22.16). What is this genos? Our English versions of the Bible follow the KJV when translating this Greek word. They call it "offspring," as in, Christ is the "Offspring of David," which is fine, as long as we are aware that genos is also the root for our English word "genome," which is defined as "the ordering of genes in a haploid set of chromosomes of a particular organism; the full DNA sequence of an organism; 'the human genome contains approximately three billion chemical base pairs'" (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University). Am I arguing that John understood the intricacie
s of the human genome when using this word to speak of Christ's humanity? No, I am not -- and neither did the translators of the KJV, nor even most of the translators of our newer versions. 
 
jt: No Bill; what you and John are actually doing is denying the virgin birth 
 
But Jesus did, and it was he whom John was quoting in this passage (and this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!). Yes, it is possible that John wrote knowing only that Jesus was a direct descendant of David, but Jesus spoke knowing full well that it would be two thousand years before the full impact of his utterance could even begin to be felt!
 
jt: The Holy Spirit is the one who speaks through the prophets Bill... and none of them are saying what you claim.
 
And so, Dean, I ask you: What exactly is being denied when John speaks of the denial of Christ come in the flesh? It is the entire human substance of the Christ of Scripture: his complete human genome, nearly three billion pairs! What "flesh" is there left to affirm once one has denied its entire DNA sequence? My goodness, Dean, it is time to recognize that it is not just the Gnostics who deny a human Jesus. It is anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is the "Genetic Descendant of David"! 
 
jt: You Bill are full of malarkey.
 
Dean, it is one thing not to know what we do about genes and genetics and the human genome (all words which find their source in genos), and to then assume that Christ's flesh was made of some sort of substance similar to but unlike that of fallen humanity; but it borders on blasphemy to know what we do about the human genos and then claim that the flesh which John identifies as "Offspring" is not both explicitly and genetically linked to that of fallen David and Abraham -- and Adam. 
 
jt: No it is the seed of the woman germinated by the Holy Spirit.  Fallen humanity come here by way of procreation.  Jesus did not.
Tell me - who is in denial around here??
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 

From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 7:40:51 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

I don't hear Judy saying that a spirit taught her that the flesh of Jesus was not genetically related to his ancestors.  If she did, then we could readily judge that this spirit is not of God and direct her to reject this spirit.  I think Judy's perceptions come from her framework of understanding the Bible.  Furtherm

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Job is not alluding to what you are trying to say JD.   jt
 
And what is Job alluding to, Judy.   How can a man be pure when born of woman?   There is some kind of mystery in those words?  Something there that is hard to understand?   Talk is cheap, Judy.  Too bad it is also eternal.   If it (Job 25:4) doesn't mean what it says, what does it mean?  You have no explanation for that question that does not completely change the meaning of the written word.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Is Job a Jew JD?
Did the Jews recognize and acknowledge Christ in their generation
Go through scripture and look for some "iniquities of the mothers"
Why is it that men are so proud to take leadership roles except when it comes to responsibility?  Amazing!!
No wonder you want to put band aids on that old nasty fallen Adamic nature rather than die to it daily
 
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:48:53 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Aaaa, another scripture that does not go to the discussion.   The fact of the matter is this,  in using that scripture I am illustrating the consideration that was the preveailing thought in Jewish thinking concerning what you call "the generational curse."   That Christ was born of a woman made Him no different in nature than anyone else and, for the Jew, this meant that He was not pure.
 
If "generational curses" are true and apply to all of mankind,  then Christ was not pure.   
 
The fact that you eliminate the woman from this "genertional curse"  is only JudyLogic.    If the "generational curse" doctrine is true,  then you have a biblical problem in this Job refeence.   But scripture is not your guide.  You are.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Job is not alluding to what you are trying to say JD.  You need to study what God has to say rather than trying to put words in His mouth like you do with the rest of us constantly. Sin comes down generationally by way of the father.  I understand Mary had a father also but that's just the way it is.  You see Israel in Nehemiah's day as a nation repenting for the iniquities of their fathers.  Maybe you should take a seminar with Bill and he can teach you word meanings.  judyt.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself  --  what do we now  suppose??   Further,  Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ.   Jesus speaks of You in me,  I in you and they in us.   Kiss off dualism.
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

..same with male & female--'made He them' says Moses
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (acc to Moses, God & Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites)
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


Guess again, Judy.  Just because you can count to two is no evidence that  "dualism" has occurred.  Dualism, when applied to human nature,  is not a characteristic count.  That Christ is wholly God and wholly Man is not a dualism.  It is a statement of who Christ Incarnate is  (He is still the Incarnate Christ, you know  --  but with a glorified body.)   He has reconcilied all things in the body of His flesh  -   wholly Man and wholly God are wholly reconciled in the body of His flesh  --   If they were opposing forces, Son of God versus Son of Man, you might have a point.   And they were opposing forces until Christ.  But they have been reconciled.   
 
A few days ago,  I liken this to a glass of juice stirred together with a glass of water.   In the stirring, in that confusion, the two substances become indistinguishable!!   A very poor illustration.   God and Man are reconsiled in Christ  -  they do not loose their distinctiveness.   They now work together as man and God were intended.   See G's earlier but brief post on this.   Profoundly simple  -  profoundly so.  [myth (acc to Moses, God & Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites]
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

JD anyone who states that Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man is a dualist.  
and this is you.  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:23:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Two things.  
 
1.  Your manner of speech tells me what you think of me.
 
2.  You are a dualist and I am not.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > What does this mean: Your ideas will > > change. You as a person will not change? > > What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. > However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your > thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning > something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have > said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on > your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not > to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. > I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not > against you, even when you think they are. My comments a
 re meant to help > you, and to help us better understand one another. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


 
If you mean to imply that "deception" is always sinfully wrong,  then manipulation is not deception.   You use manipulation often.  "We're waiting, Bill !!  Where is your anser Bill?  Or , is this just another example of you taking your ball (gosh, I hope this is not another reference to King Dav  ..  oh, never mind) and run home."   That is manipulation, Judy.  Jesus was in control of the timing of His death  -   a form of manipulation.   Like I said  -  you have no scripture on this  -  and sure enough,  you don't.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Manipulation is sin JD.  It is deception, working another person for your own ends.
What's more it is not God's way.  He gives his creation choices - always.  It is the adversary who is the
anger and control freak.  You choose each day who you will serve.  judyt
 
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion. ?  It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine.   In fact, just the opposite is true.   
 
Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy.   You have no scripture on this and will never have.    The fact is this  -  Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin?  Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam.  You are wrong!  My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ.  judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Bizarre theories?   Your pastor and the leadership at BSF teach what is essentially being taught here by David, Bill, Lance,  and others.   You want Dean to believe that we are the minority, the bizarre, the weido's.  when it is you (and maybe Dean) who stands alone on this point.   Your position is the very definition of bizarre.   ROL Judy.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

I find it quite amazing Dean that these people can just ignore scriptures like those you post
below and go on and on about bizarre theories that contradict the clear word of truth, I thank
God for you... because even DM appears taken in by this one.
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:47:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:48:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I John 5:20  "--  Jesus is the true God."  
 
Making a distinction between "Lord" and "God" is to misunderstand exactly what Peter was saying when he pronounced Jesus as Lord and Messiah  (Acts 2:36). 
 
Peter is saying that Christ is both God and Messiah  !!!
-
 
cd:John I am giving two passages that shows a difference between God and Christ and before the group jumps the gun and call me a heretic I am not saying that Jesus isn't part of the Godhead because He is. To answer more mailers I have to move on but there is a difference to those whom would see.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
 
 
 
 
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:23:52 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..cd
 
 
jd responds: 
 
You write it  - I think you believe it, Dean.   Tell me in the following exactly where I am speaking for you.  
 
Look at the following:  I say "I hope you are not coming to a decision that Jesus ... was not God in the flesh" and you say "  "That seems to be the direction .."
 
I will not slow down when referencing what you write. 
 
cd: I am stating that Christ is the Lord not God John-and as such is part of the GodHead-Judy is right on the Trinity issue-it leads one to mistake who Christ is. But you took that a step farther and seem to think I am anti-Christ as you think Judy is. Wrong on both counts.
 
jd
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Dean,  I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh.   This is a very serious matter.   
 
jd
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me good only God is good." statement of Chris..

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality


Judy  -  what is this?   A post from sept , '05?   You've got to be kidding !!
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

None righteous on their own merits JD.  However, those who remain in Christ are not
unrighteous.  You cited Romans 16:17 earlier which speaks of separating from those who
don't hold the right doctrine.  Paul also writes that we should separate ourselves from a form
of godliness that denies the power.  This in my understanding is what it means to say we are
in Christ and belong to God yet we can not stop sinning.  Their is either power in the blood of
Christ and by the Spirit of God or there isn't.  I believe there is and that I don't have to sin
every day.  I can choose to cast down wild thoughts and imaginations.  I can choose His way
and my flesh has to follow.  The body has no mind of it's own.  We give it direction.  jt
 
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:39:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Thee are none righteous, no not one.  
 
  -Original Message-From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:35:24 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality



YES,
We are to pursue righteousness and sin not.  What is so complicated about that?
Girly men don't make it - JD
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:00:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



So you have to be sin free?   Oh, by the way  -  do you consider yourself to be effeminate?
 
Jd  From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Maybe in your translation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I am sure he has been told many times.   But I was wondering   -   are there going to be any gluttons in heaven?  
 
JD  From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]


If you use the word Christian to describe a follower of Christ, then this is an oxymoron.  Perverts go to Hell.  Christians go to Heaven.  There are no perverted Christians.   If this man is a homosexual, he is lost and needs to know it.  Maybe then he can become a Christian ex pervert.TerryP.S. I would not wait long to tell him..  God can punch his ticket before you know it and it will be forever too late.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



The post below is from a conversation I am having with a gay Christian.   I will not be calling him names anytime soon.   Patient dialogue is the only avenue open.   
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality


PERVERT ALERT!

Who were the other PERVERTS?

"It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied that some of the 
heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual."

Can you believe the Audacity of some to OUT-right deny the above
statement?

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  
> In case you were curious,  here is a rather well stated argument for
> homosexuality.  
> Enjoy.  
>  
> JD 
>  
>  
>   
> The Bible has often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as
> sinful or  immoral. It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied
that some> of the  heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The
story of Jonathan> and David > is one of the more obvious cases.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself unfold most of
> the story.
> 
> 
> 
> After David's heroic victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1
> Samual, 
> Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first time. 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,
> that the 
> soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved
> him as his 
> own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more
> home to his 
> father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he
> loved him 
> as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was
> upon him, 
> and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his
> bow, and 
> to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 
> 
> 
> 
> Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much that they
> made a 
> covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips
> before David, 
> who is much lower in rank and status.
> 
> 
> 
> In the next passages, David's popularity and military achievements
> are advanced, 
> and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention being paid
> to David. 
> In order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving him
> his 
> daughter, Michal, to wed. 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people may stop right here and say that if David married Michal,
> it's proof 
> that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. There
> are several 
> flaws to this argument. First, their marria

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


What does this mean  --  Death ruled from Adam to Moseseven over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesushaving such a nature. 
 
Your scripture for this.   Those between Adam and Moses did not sin.
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why must you insist on making distinctions that are nowhere in the text > of > scripture. Ephesians 2 describes perfectly what a fallen nature looks > like - and it > automatically makes one a child of wrath. Death ruled from Adam to Moses > even > over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesus > having such > a nature. judyt > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:08:54 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > > JD wrote: > > > "Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature." > > > > Excellent point, John. A sinful nature provides a source of > > temptation, but > > it is not synonymous with the idea of a sinning nature, a nature > > that must > > sin 
despite whatever we think, say, or do. > > > > 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 wa
nts to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


You talkin to me?  Bill wrote the piece.   But, since you asked  --  you are the one using the term "heathen sinful nature,"  not me.   It is a shame that you and Judy are using this phrase  - it is an obvious attempt to bias the readership  -  since it is not a biblical term.  
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 8:40:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christ defeated sin in his own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from beyond the tomb, where sin, death, and the devil cannot reach us -- if, that is, we daily put to death that old man who still wants to rear his head. 
 
Dean, I say this with the utmost sincerity: You really do need to let go of your alloy view of Jesus; it can only confuse you.
 
Bill
cd: This is also getting old John-Christ never came in the heathen state we were brought to His state as Christians. Think about it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 11:19:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 
cd writes: So I ask you How is one able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit for men?

 
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 
-- 1 Corinthians 15.45-47
The first Adam was made from dust and received from God the breath of life. His mandate was one: "Be fruitful and multiply." But rather than doing what he was told, Adam chose instead to do the inexplicable. Adam's sin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included. What did the first Adam produce? He produced death. 
The second Adam was born into the fall of the first. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the first Adam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. Then Christ paid the ultimate price: he died on their behalf. Ah, but because he had defeated in his own flesh that which had condemned the flesh of Adam, death had no power to hold him. Now in ascension the Second Adam sends his spirit to give life to those who could only die without him. Who is the Second Adam? He is the life-giving Spirit.
---
cd:Right-Then how can can the Second Adam be the same as the first? You guys are stating that Christ was no different than Hitler but Hitler was the same as the first Adam "exactly the same"-in the above you show the second Adam to be different. This is our point.If Christ was the same as the first we are still in our sins Bill.
- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



cd:There is not doubt that the Law failed and we needed the help of the Holy Spirit to keep the Law-  But you keep saying that God wouldn't ask us to do something we cannot do!!!  Care to change your mind on that one.  :Looks like you already have.   but it fail as a whole for many lived under that law and went to heaven. How about Elihja ,Isaiah, and Daniel-did they fail with the law? Of course.    How about Zacharias and Elizabeth were they not righteous  compare to others -  they were righteous but the fact remains that our righeousness is a filthy rags before the Lord and Jesus, Himself, perhaps thinking of relatives says" and if you [all] being evil know how to give give good gits, how much more   .  &
nbsp; before Christ came-if they could be righteous before the giving of grace why not us with grace and the Holy Ghost indwelling:  And why this point.  What does this have to do with anything?   I believe that "righteousness" is a gifted consideration in the mind of God (Ro 4:4) He sees faith and uses it as a substitute for [our] personal righteousness.   Why?   BECAUSE HE HAS TO !!   Those you mentioned, above, are not exception to the rule of Romans 4:4. Agreed?!
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 10:43:38 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 
Could you make a line-item response, similar to what  David does.  For me to respond to you, specifically,  and have you write something that is not responsive allows for endless debate.   
 
"Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature."   I have a human nature that is given to sin.  I can refuse to so act -  but given enough time,  I will commit sin.   I and you - respond to our human nature in the same way as Adam.  Christ chose not to sin.
His life makes us all liars when we say that we cannot act righteously.   
You say that God does not ask us to do what we cannot do.   Well, he asked the Jews to live the law long before He gave a personal indwelling  ...  proving that we can live the law without the Spirit's indwelling    according to your reasoning.  Perhaps the Spirit's Indwelling accomplishes other purposes if we, in fact, can live a righteous life without it?   Wow !!
-
cd:There is not doubt that the Law failed and we needed the help of the Holy Spirit to keep the Law-but it fail as a whole for many lived under that law and went to heaven. How about Elihja ,Isaiah, and Daniel-did they fail with the law? How about Zacharias and Elizabeth were they not righteous before Christ came-if they could be righteous before the giving of grace why not us with grace and the Holy Ghost indwelling:


Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 
cd: Brother it is getting old repeating myself over and over again-you need to listen as I have other things to do in my life.Your Calvinism doctorine is wrong John and you are not learning because you have closed yourself off to any other idea. This in itself (the above)should show you something is missing.
For me, "cannot" and "will not" have the same conclusion in my life.   The only difference, as I see it, is that the first consideration makes God guilty  (creating me with no chance at doing what He commanded),  the second reveals my own complicity.   And, as if there were any question,  Jesus assumes my nature and does what I might argue "cannot be done,"  making me a liar and deserving of sin.  
 
I have long believed that Christ's life and oral ministry left me deserving of death and without excuse.   His death on the cross  took that condemnation away. 
 
cd; Again we are talking after the cross not salvation but beyond.
 
 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 9:57:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 
In the KJ , the translation is "in all things" which is the same, OF COURSE, as "in all respects."   I do not use the KJ in my studies.   
 
Christ did what no other man had done  -  He lived that covenant partnership perfected with the same human nature you and Judy and Adolph Hitler have.  When it suits your purposes,  you and Judy often argue " he wouldn't ask us to do something we couldn't do" while over looking the fact that with the Old Law,  God asked His people to live it perfectly !!   Christ told the unborn again woman,  "Go they way and sin

Re: [TruthTalk] John Dean Hitler and Christ


Amen.  Awesome point  --   aaa, wait a minute  -- that was me who said that.  
 
and the point of the repost?  
 
jd

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 7:55:57 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] John Dean Hitler and Christ

 Dean wrote:> > You guys are stating that Christ was no> > different than Hitler>> Not true.cd: Yes true -read John responces-he said this.
Dean  -- please paste the quotes from me that cause you to say this.  I am curious. 
 
jd wrote on 1/31/06 
Christ did what no other man had done  -  He lived that covenant partnership perfected with the same human nature you and Judy and Adolph Hitler have. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Date: 2/1/2006 9:04:04 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > > > > Dean wrote: > > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > > the same as the first? > > > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > > > Dean wrote: > > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > > different than Hitler > > > > Not true. > cd: Yes true -read John responces-he said this. > > > > Dean wrote: > > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > > "ex
 actly the same"-in the above you show > > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his > spirit, > > or both? We say his spirit was unique. His birth was unique. On the > other > > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. > -- > cd: I have no problem with this as He was flesh and blood-but not as common > man. >  > How do you deal with > > Acts 2:30, Dean? > -- > cd: Leave to a church of God member to being up Acts 2 :-)I think it is a > good passage that I agree with David. Christ came from the loins of King
 > David as God swore with an oath-and you point? > --- > > > > 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 b
 e unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


The Passover is a sin offering ?? !!  Where do you get that idea?
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

There is and the Passover lamb was for the whole household, including children.  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:12:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So why is there no sin offering for children under the Old Law?   
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:19:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

David makes some good points, here, Dean.  
 
At some point in life, Hitler had a choice.   at some point in time, Hitler was not the devil we know him to be.   At some point in time,  he was as innocent and impressionable as your children. 
 
cd: That would only matter if one believes we are innocent-I don't believe such.The only impression Christ had was given by God Himself the rest is conjecture. Thanks-but Christ never became a heathen. 
 
If there ever was a contrast in response to our Adamic nature,  it is seen in the lives of Jesus and Hitler.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > the same as the first? > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > Dean wrote: > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > different than Hitler > > Not true. > > Dean wrote: > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > "exactly the same"-in the above you show > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, > or both? We say his spirit was un
 ique. His birth was unique. On the other > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with > Acts 2:30, Dean? > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Your own words contradict your theology.  You admit that the language "born of a woman" are words that proclaim the human predicament.   Any man born of woman shares in the predicament.   
 
That the "generational curse" does not include the woman who gives birth,  well, that is just silly, or worse, in light of this passage.  
 
Whatever verse you are quoting  (what passage ARE you quoting, Judy for this generaltional curse?)  does not exclude the mother.   I am quite sure it does not say tht it is passed down to the exclusion of the mothers involvement.   And does this "generatlional curse" extend for more than two or three generations?  And is it a curse for all of mankind or only in the Jewish tradition. ?    No need to give your opinion on these questions.   Just present thescritures you use and the Spirit will teach me the truth.  
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Another way of saying the whole creation is under a curse JD; do you know of any person who is not born
of a woman to date JD?  However Jesus is the only one ever who is begotten by God; that makes him an exception
since the iniquities of the fathers comes down by way of the male.  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:42:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Job is not alluding to what you are trying to say JD.   jt
 
And what is Job alluding to, Judy.   How can a man be pure when born of woman?   There is some kind of mystery in those words?  Something there that is hard to understand?   Talk is cheap, Judy.  Too bad it is also eternal.   If it (Job 25:4) doesn't mean what it says, what does it mean?  You have no explanation for that question that does not completely change the meaning of the written word.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Is Job a Jew JD?
Did the Jews recognize and acknowledge Christ in their generation
Go through scripture and look for some "iniquities of the mothers"
Why is it that men are so proud to take leadership roles except when it comes to responsibility?  Amazing!!
No wonder you want to put band aids on that old nasty fallen Adamic nature rather than die to it daily
 
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:48:53 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Aaaa, another scripture that does not go to the discussion.   The fact of the matter is this,  in using that scripture I am illustrating the consideration that was the preveailing thought in Jewish thinking concerning what you call "the generational curse."   That Christ was born of a woman made Him no different in nature than anyone else and, for the Jew, this meant that He was not pure.
 
If "generational curses" are true and apply to all of mankind,  then Christ was not pure.   
 
The fact that you eliminate the woman from this "genertional curse"  is only JudyLogic.    If the "generational curse" doctrine is true,  then you have a biblical problem in this Job refeence.   But scripture is not your guide.  You are.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Job is not alluding to what you are trying to say JD.  You need to study what God has to say rather than trying to put words in His mouth like you do with the rest of us constantly. Sin comes down generationally by way of the father.  I understand Mary had a father also but that's just the way it is.  You see Israel in Nehemiah's day as a nation repenting for the iniquities of their fathers.  Maybe you should take a seminar with Bill and he can teach you word meanings.  judyt.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'



What makes you think that Jesus was in control of the timing of his own death JD?  Scripture teaches that the times and seasons are in
the hands of the Father.Your scripture reference is ??  And are you saying that the knowledge of the Father is not shared with the Son?  And are you saying that Jesus did not know of the time of His own death or that He had avoided death on an eariler occasion(s) but chose not to avoid death on this final occasion?    Are you now saying that Jesus is the Father?  I am most definitely affirming that the Father and Son are one.  Manipulation is using devious means to get another to do your will without their consent and this is sin -  
Look the word manipulation up, Judy rather than expecting us to by into your personal and biased definition.   JudySpeak is all you have on this one.  Prove me wrong.  
judyt
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

What makes you think that Jesus was in control of the timing of his own death JD?  Scripture teaches that the times and seasons are in
the hands of the Father.  Are you now saying that Jesus is the Father?  Manipulation is using devious means to get another to do your
will without their consent and this is sin -  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:17:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
If you mean to imply that "deception" is always sinfully wrong,  then manipulation is not deception.   You use manipulation often.  "We're waiting, Bill !!  Where is your anser Bill?  Or , is this just another example of you taking your ball (gosh, I hope this is not another reference to King Dav  ..  oh, never mind) and run home."   That is manipulation, Judy.  Jesus was in control of the timing of His death  -   a form of manipulation.   Like I said  -  you have no scripture on this  -  and sure enough,  you don't.  
 
jd
 
From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Manipulation is sin JD.  It is deception, working another person for your own ends.
What's more it is not God's way.  He gives his creation choices - always.  It is the adversary who is the
anger and control freak.  You choose each day who you will serve.  judyt
 
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:59:55 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

And are you aware that this is not the only reason for Bill's passion. ?  It is not sin to oppose a false doctrine.   In fact, just the opposite is true.   
 
Nothing innately sinful about manipulation, Judy.   You have no scripture on this and will never have.    The fact is this  -  Jesus used manipulation as he opposed the Pharisees of the day.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill are you aware that manipulation is sin?  Backing a person into a corner with a "repent or fight" attitude has never been God's modus operandi although I do see it in the Crusades and Islam.  You are wrong!  My prayer for you is that you will eventually receive understanding from God, lay down your religious idols and find freedom in Christ.  judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


I am speaking of the nature of Christ.  In Him, man and God work together as they should.  Oneness, my dear.   But, it you think it important to insist on otherwise,  be my guest.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself  --  what do we now  suppose??   Further,  Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ.   Jesus speaks of You in me,  I in you and they in us.   Kiss off dualism.
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

..same with male & female--'made He them' says Moses
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (acc to Moses, God & Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites)
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:22:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bizarre theories?   Your pastor and the leadership at BSF teach what is essentially being taught here by David, Bill, Lance,  and others.
 
jt: I don't think so JD, although they have accepted some of the quotes of the church fathers without thinking them through, I have never heard this incarnational gospel from any of them.   There is not enough preaching/teaching in our churches on this matter.   But we don't have to argue about this.  All we have to do is ASK THEM.  
 
You want Dean to believe that we are the minority, the bizarre, the weido's.  when it is you (and maybe Dean) who stands alone on this point.   Your position is the very definition of bizarre.   ROL Judy.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I find it quite amazing Dean that these people can just ignore scriptures like those you post
below and go on and on about bizarre theories that contradict the clear word of truth, I thank
God for you... because even DM appears taken in by this one.
Two things , here.   If there ever was a free thinker,  it is David Miller !!!
Secondly,   you make my point.  It is just you and maybe Dean.   You're it.  So don't treat the rest of us as if we are the ones out of step. The rest of the world is wrong, on this  -  only Judy is right.   Give me a break.  
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:22:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bizarre theories?   Your pastor and the leadership at BSF teach what is essentially being taught here by David, Bill, Lance,  and others.
 
jt: I don't think so JD, although they have accepted some of the quotes of the church fathers without thinking them through, I have never heard this incarnational gospel from any of them.   
 
You want Dean to believe that we are the minority, the bizarre, the weido's.  when it is you (and maybe Dean) who stands alone on this point.   Your position is the very definition of bizarre.   ROL Judy.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

I find it quite amazing Dean that these people can just ignore scriptures like those you post
below and go on and on about bizarre theories that contradict the clear word of truth, I thank
God for you... because even DM appears taken in by this one.
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:47:15 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:48:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I John 5:20  "--  Jesus is the true God."  
 
Making a distinction between "Lord" and "God" is to misunderstand exactly what Peter was saying when he pronounced Jesus as Lord and Messiah  (Acts 2:36). 
 
Peter is saying that Christ is both God and Messiah  !!!
-
 
cd:John I am giving two passages that shows a difference between God and Christ and before the group jumps the gun and call me a heretic I am not saying that Jesus isn't part of the Godhead because He is. To answer more mailers I have to move on but there is a difference to those whom would see.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
 
 
 
 
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:23:52 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..cd
 
 
jd responds: 
 
You write it  - I think you believe it, Dean.   Tell me in the following exactly where I am speaking for you.  
 
Look at the following:  I say "I hope you are not coming to a decision that Jesus ... was not God in the flesh" and you say "  "That seems to be the direction .."
 
I will not slow down when referencing what you write. 
 
cd: I am stating that Christ is the Lord not God John-and as such is part of the GodHead-Judy is right on the Trinity issue-it leads one to mistake who Christ is. But you took that a step farther and seem to think I am anti-Christ as you think Judy is. Wrong on both counts.
 
jd
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Dean,  I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh.   This is a very serious matter.   
 
jd
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding Joh

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


I asked these questions of Dean.   Until he answers,  your comments are out of order.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

He sees faith in what JD?  Faith in His Words or faith in whatever comes along?
Also you are in error - God does not HAVE to do anything. Old Covenant ppl could be righteous, they were
under a different system.  The law did not fail, it did what it was meant to do and still does.  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:53:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd:There is not doubt that the Law failed and we needed the help of the Holy Spirit to keep the Law-  
 
But you keep saying that God wouldn't ask us to do something we cannot do!!!  
Care to change your mind on that one.  :Looks like you already have.   
 
but it fail as a whole for many lived under that law and went to heaven. How about Elihja ,
Isaiah, and Daniel-did they fail with the law? 
 
Of course.
 
How about Zacharias and Elizabeth were they not righteous  
 
compare to others -  they were righteous but the fact remains that our righeousness is a filthy rags before 
the Lord and Jesus, Himself, perhaps thinking of relatives says" and if you [all] being evil know how to give 
give good gits, how much more   .  
 
before Christ came-if they could be righteous before the giving of grace why not us with grace and 
the Holy Ghost indwelling:  
 
And why this point.  What does this have to do with anything?   I believe that "righteousness" is a gifted 
consideration in the mind of God (Ro 4:4) He sees faith and uses it as a substitute for [our] personal righteousness.   
Why?   BECAUSE HE HAS TO !!   Those you mentioned, above, are not exception to the rule of Romans 4:4. 
Agreed?!  jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 10:43:38 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 
Could you make a line-item response, similar to what  David does.  For me to respond to you, specifically,  and have you write something that is not responsive allows for endless debate.   
 
"Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature."   I have a human nature that is given to sin.  I can refuse to so act -  but given enough time,  I will commit sin.   I and you - respond to our human nature in the same way as Adam.  Christ chose not to sin.
His life makes us all liars when we say that we cannot act righteously.   
You say that God does not ask us to do what we cannot do.   Well, he asked the Jews to live the law long before He gave a personal indwelling  ...  proving that we can live the law without the Spirit's indwelling    according to your reasoning.  Perhaps the Spirit's Indwelling accomplishes other purposes if we, in fact, can live a righteous life without it?   Wow !!
-
cd:There is not doubt that the Law failed and we needed the help of the Holy Spirit to keep the Law-but it fail as a whole for many lived under that law and went to heaven. How about Elihja ,Isaiah, and Daniel-did they fail with the law? How about Zacharias and Elizabeth were they not righteous before Christ came-if they could be righteous before the giving of grace why not us with grace and the Holy Ghost indwelling:


Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 
cd: Brother it is getting old repeating myself over and over again-you need to listen as I have other things to do in my life.Your Calvinism doctorine is wrong John and you are not learning because you have closed yourself off to any other idea. This in itself (the above)should show you something is missing.
For me, "cannot" and "will not" have the same conclusion in my life.   The only difference, as I see it, is that the first consideration makes God guilty  (creating me with no chance at doing what He commanded),  the second reveals my own complicity.   And, as if there were any question,  Jesus assumes my nature and does what I might argue "cannot be done,"  making me a liar and deserving of sin.  
 
I have long believed that Christ's life and oral ministry left me deserving of death and without excuse.   His death on the cross  took that condemnation away. 
 
cd; Again we are talking after the cross not salvation but beyond.
 
 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 9:57:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 
In the KJ ,

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Guess again, Judy.   The point is YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE for your claim that men lived without sin from Adam to Moses  ...   just JudySpeak !!  
You have , once again, been cuaght adding to the Word with your opinions.
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

The point here is JD that they were born sinners and liable whether or not they sinned
Jesus was not born a sinner.  He is the ONLY begotten of the Father; yes he had a flesh
and blood body but he was not born in the first Adam.  His father is God.  judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:32:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What does this mean  --  Death ruled from Adam to Moseseven over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesushaving such a nature. 
 
Your scripture for this.   Those between Adam and Moses did not sin.
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why must you insist on making distinctions that are nowhere in the text > of > scripture. Ephesians 2 describes perfectly what a fallen nature looks > like - and it > automatically makes one a child of wrath. Death ruled from Adam to Moses > even > over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesus > having such > a nature. judyt > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:08:54 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > > JD wrote: > > > "Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature." > > > > Excellent point, John. A sinful nature provides a source of > > temptation, but > > it is not synonymous with the idea of a sinning nature, a nature > > that must > > sin 
despite whatever we think, say, or do. > > > > 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 wa
 nts to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Heathens also buy houses and drive cars.   If you do not have a sinful nature,  Dean,  then you do not need any outside help  ...  as in the Spirit.  And if you reject the Spirit's influence (whether intentionally or not)  what happens?  You sin again.    So that old man is still there -  per Eph 4:20-24.
 
Also, if Romans 3:23 tells us that we are always short of the glory of God  --  this side of the "next Life."  In that phrase is the old nature.   God has no choice when it comes to sin.  We  [always] do  -- in this life.  
 
 
jd
 
 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 2:42:19 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You talkin to me?  Bill wrote the piece.   But, since you asked  --  you are the one using the term "heathen sinful nature,"  not me.   It is a shame that you and Judy are using this phrase  - it is an obvious attempt to bias the readership  -  since it is not a biblical term.  
 
cd: But there were/are Heathens with sinful natures and Christ wasn't one of those. No attempt at bias-rather a attempt to make one think John.God bless you.
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 8:40:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christ defeated sin in his own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from beyond the tomb, where sin, death, and the devil cannot reach us -- if, that is, we daily put to death that old man who still wants to rear his head. 
 
Dean, I say this with the utmost sincerity: You really do need to let go of your alloy view of Jesus; it can only confuse you.
 
Bill
cd: This is also getting old John-Christ never came in the heathen state we were brought to His state as Christians. Think about it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 11:19:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 
cd writes: So I ask you How is one able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit for men?

 
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 
-- 1 Corinthians 15.45-47
The first Adam was made from dust and received from God the breath of life. His mandate was one: "Be fruitful and multiply." But rather than doing what he was told, Adam chose instead to do the inexplicable. Adam's sin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included. What did the first Adam produce? He produced death. 
The second Adam was born into the fall of the first. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the first Adam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. Then Christ paid the ultimate price: he died on their behalf. Ah, but because he had defeated in his own flesh that which had condemned the flesh of Adam, death had no power to hold him. Now in ascension the Second Adam sends his spirit to give life to those who could only die without him. Who is the Second Adam? He is the life-giving Spirit.
---
cd:Right-Then how can can the Second Adam be the same as the first? You guys are stating that Christ was no different than Hitler but Hitler was the same as the first Adam "exactly the same"-in the above you show the second Adam to be different. This is our point.If Christ was the same as the first we are still in our sins Bill.
- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)




Suggestion:    expand this post for easy reading
 
 
 
So many things wrong (IMO) with this essay.  
 
1.  Re: Isa 64:6 states a circumstance I believe we all share.  But I believe this because of other considerations.  
 
2.  The Abrahamic promise applies to all who believe  --  Romans 4:11  "...that he might be the father of all who believe  ..."  
  Your thinking that that the promise was only given to Abraham is very much off the mark.   also read Romans 3:28
   and tell me, once again, that the Abrahamic promise does not apply to all of mankind. all of mankind, Dean  -- 
   including those "who have gone on before."   Jesus sacrifice is once FOR ALL TIME.   Adam, Seth, Isaac are 
   saved because of Jesus Christ.  That is why "faith" in such passages as Romans 3:28 is not just talking about 
   my faith but , also, the faith of Jesus Christ.   My faith is without value if I am not INTO (eis)  Christ.  And if I 
   within Jesus,  I share in His faith   just as surely as I share in His rightousness. Only  His faith can be considered 
   timeless.   
 
3.  The parents of John the B  -   I can't show you their specific sins.   But I am confident that they attended sin offerings
   as prescribed under the law  (not proof, I know, but I do have this conviction.)  In Phil 3:9, Paul contrasts the 
   righteousness under the law and that which is of the Spirit. Righteousness that is of the law fails!!   That salvation 
   is by faith APART from the Law, that  faith is in exchange for personal [and, by implication failed}rightousness 
   is a clear indictment of the righteousness of us all and presents us as complicite in the failings mentioned in Isa 64: 6.   
   Also, let's not forget that "all have sinned"  (Romans 5:12)  And so I speak of comparative righteousness when it 
  comes to the parents of J the B.   If they, indeed, where sinless - then there was no need , for them, of the death of 
  Christ !!    Go refigure !!
 
4.  Re:   Matt 12:34  Jesus can speak in general tones "you being evil" because "none is righteous, no not one."
 
5.  Re:  "why substitute faith for personal righteousness  -  because He has to."   You miss the point, choosing rather  to
  discuss whether God has to do anything !!   Given the situation of man as revealed in scripture,  given the fact that
  man will never be righteous enough to effect personal and eternal salvation  --  God HAS to substitute faith for 
  that failing rightousness.   There is no other way of saving man given the revealed parameters.
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 2:53:08 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


cd:There is not doubt that the Law failed and we needed the help of the Holy Spirit to keep the Law-  But you keep saying that God wouldn't ask us to do something we cannot do!!!  Care to change your mind on that one.  :Looks like you already have.
---
cd: You are looking at it wrong John. I am stating in what sense the law failed and what sense it didn't fail. It failed because the people dropped the ball due to their flesh being weak and their choice to live by the flesh. It didn't fail as some people sought the way of Godliness and by doing so were able to keep the law. 

 but it fail as a whole for many lived under that law and went to heaven. How about Elijah ,Isaiah, and Daniel-did they fail with the law? Of course.

cd: The show me where they fell into sin John? You will not find it and they didn't do so.
---
   How about Zacharias and Elizabeth were they not righteous  compare to others -  they were righteous
--
cd: John,the Bible didn't say they were righteous when compared to others it states that they were righteous before God-keeping all the Commandments and ordinances-They were able to keep the law John prior to the indwelling-so can we after the indwelling.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 
cd: John Wesley wrote:
Luk 1:6 - Walking in all the moral commandments, and ceremonial ordinances, blameless - How admirable a character! May our behaviour be thus unblamable, and our obedience thus sincere and universal!
---
 
 but the fact remains that our righeousness is a filthy rags before the Lord and Jesus, Himself, perhaps thinking of relatives says" and if you [all] being evil know how to give give good gits, how much more   .
_

cd: John can you show me the verse that says our righteousness is as filthy rags-The only place I can find it is in Isa 64:6 and it was speaking to th

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


David  !!!   Ingenious.  I don't know.  Seems a rather ambitious characterization concerning the creation of a two sided sign.  God bless in your ministry.   
 
jd
 
> > > > This sign is one of the most ingenious signs I think I have ever made for > > campus ministry. It provokes dialogue and debate like few others that I > > have made. It has opened the mind of believers to realize the true > > homosexual agenda as they hear the homosexuals present objecting only to > the > > word "Beware" on the sign. It has allowed for a dialogue against > feminism, > > explaining that we ought to be tolerant of those who have a message of > > warning. The other side of the sign also has been effective in making it > > clear that homosexuality is something we should prevent, not something we > > should encourage and promote. > -- > > cd: David what is on the other side of you banner and could you speak more > about the Feminism movement? Thanks. &
gt; - > > > > David Miller > > > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


I am not sure as to your point.  The quote from Lightfoot seems to make my point.  
 
Judy's claim that the Passover is a sacrifice for the sins of Jewish children is so far off base as to be obviously errant.  All the children of the heathens were reputed unclean by the Jews; and all their own children holy. - See Dr. Lightfoot
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 1:12:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

So why is there no sin offering for children under the Old Law?  
-- 
 

Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
cd:John notice that the punishment for sin worked both ways . Please take the time to read the below- only 3 paragraphs- it will save us both a lot of time and there is much wisdom here.-How do you agree/disagree?
 

1Co 7:14 - The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife - Or rather, is to be reputed as sanctified on account of his wife; she being a Christian woman, and he, though a heathen, being by marriage one flesh with her: her sanctity, as far as it refers to outward things, may be considered as imputed to him so as to render their connection not unlawful. The case is the same when the wife is a heathen and the husband a Christian. The word sanctification here is to be applied much more to the Christian state than to any moral change in the persons; for a?, saints, is a common term for Christians - those who were baptized into the faith of Christ; and as its corresponding term ?? kedoshim signified all the Jews who were in the covenant of God by circumcision, t
 he heathens in question were considered to be in this holy state by means of their connection with those who were by their Christian profession saints.Else were your children unclean - If this kind of relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of these persons could not be received into the Christian Church, nor enjoy any rights, or privileges as Christians; but the Church of God never scrupled to admit such children as members, just as well as she did those who had sprung from parents both of whom were Christians.
The Jews considered a child as born out of holiness whose parents were not proselytes at the time of the birth, though afterwards they became proselytes. On the other hand, they considered the children of heathens born in holiness, provided the parents became proselytes before the birth. All the children of the heathens were reputed unclean by the Jews; and all their own children holy. - See Dr. Lightfoot. This shows clearly what the apostles meaning is.
If we consider the apostle as speaking of the children of heathens, we shall get a remarkable comment on this passage from Tertullian, who, in his treatise De Carne Christi, chaps. 37, 39, gives us a melancholy account of the height to which superstition and idolatry had arrived in his time among the Romans. "A child," says he, "from its very conception, was dedicated to the idols and demons they worshipped. While pregnant, the mother had her body swathed round with bandages, prepared with idolatrous rites. The embryo they conceived to be under the inspection of the goddess Alemona, who nourished it in the womb. Nona and Decima took care that it should be born in the ninth or tenth month. Partula adjusted every thing relative to the labor; and Lucina ushered it into the light. During the week preceding the birth a table was spread for Juno; and on the last day certain persons were called together to mark the moment on which the Parcae, or Fates, had fixed its destiny. The first step the child set on the earth was consecr
 ated to the goddess Statina; and, finally, some of the hair was cut off, or the whole head shaven, and the hair offered to some god or goddess through some public or private motive of devotion." He adds that "no child among the heathens was born in a state of purity; and it is not to be wondered at," says he, "that demons possess them from their youth, seeing they were thus early dedicated to their service." In reference to this, he thinks, St. Paul speaks in the verse before us: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife - else were your children unclean; but now are they holy; i.e. "As the parents were converted to the Christian faith, the child comes into the world without these impure and unhallowed rites; and is from its infancy consecrated to the true God."

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


I do not believe in child evangelism.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Judith H Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 5:56:46 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

There is and the Passover lamb was for the whole household, including children.  judyt
cd: If a young person can be saved at a young age then common sense believes that one can be lost at a young age Judy.
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:12:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So why is there no sin offering for children under the Old Law?   
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:19:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

David makes some good points, here, Dean.  
 
At some point in life, Hitler had a choice.   at some point in time, Hitler was not the devil we know him to be.   At some point in time,  he was as innocent and impressionable as your children. 
 
cd: That would only matter if one believes we are innocent-I don't believe such.The only impression Christ had was given by God Himself the rest is conjecture. Thanks-but Christ never became a heathen. 
 
If there ever was a contrast in response to our Adamic nature,  it is seen in the lives of Jesus and Hitler.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > the same as the first? > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > Dean wrote: > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > different than Hitler > > Not true. > > Dean wrote: > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > "exactly the same"-in the above you show > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, > or both? We say his spirit was un
 ique. His birth was unique. On the other > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with > Acts 2:30, Dean? > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
Where in NT scripture do you find the conversion of a single child?  
 
A child is not lost, for starters  --   so there is no need.   
 
What child evangelism does is this  --  it gives the adult church the false sense that it is taking the gospel to the world.   I wouldn't mind "child conversions" if there was some kind of confirmation as they reached an adult age.   80% of all reported conversions in the US are children.  Not the case with the underground Church such as in China.    
 
jd
 
 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 2:00:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I do not believe in child evangelism.  
 
jd
cd: This makes me sad John.
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Judith H Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 5:56:46 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

There is and the Passover lamb was for the whole household, including children.  judyt
cd: If a young person can be saved at a young age then common sense believes that one can be lost at a young age Judy.
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:12:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So why is there no sin offering for children under the Old Law?   
 
jd
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 1:19:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

David makes some good points, here, Dean.  
 
At some point in life, Hitler had a choice.   at some point in time, Hitler was not the devil we know him to be.   At some point in time,  he was as innocent and impressionable as your children. 
 
cd: That would only matter if one believes we are innocent-I don't believe such.The only impression Christ had was given by God Himself the rest is conjecture. Thanks-but Christ never became a heathen. 
 
If there ever was a contrast in response to our Adamic nature,  it is seen in the lives of Jesus and Hitler.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dean wrote: > > Then how can can the Second Adam be > > the same as the first? > > He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. > > Dean wrote: > > You guys are stating that Christ was no > > different than Hitler > > Not true. > > Dean wrote: > > but Hitler was the same as the first Adam > > "exactly the same"-in the above you show > > the second Adam to be different. This is > > our point.If Christ was the same as the first > > we are still in our sins Bill. > > Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the > details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, > or both? We say his spirit was un
 ique. His birth was unique. On the other > hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with > Acts 2:30, Dean? > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

See comments below

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 12:31:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Heathens also buy houses and drive cars.   If you do not have a sinful nature,  Dean,  then you do not need any outside help  ...  as in the Spirit.  And if you reject the Spirit's influence (whether intentionally or not)  what happens?  You sin again.
--

cd: The help we need isn't "outside help" it is inside help from the Holy Ghost John. 
Ourside our personal efforts, bro.    Of course it is inside help.  

If I reject the influence (convictions) of the Spirit ,God's word ,and my knowledge of right and wrong-I will most definitely sin again. Sin is intentional-if the act is unintentional there is no sin involved-similar to a young Christian who hasn't been fully instructed-God looks at the intent. The old saying that "The road to hell is paved by good intentions" is wrong.    I think I read some of this somewhere !??  Aaaa  -- od yeah  !   In my comments above !!1

By the way,  sin under the Old Law was not just intentional sin.   Check out all of the sacrifices.   At least one is for unknowing sin.  jd

---

    So that old man is still there -  per Eph 4:20-24.

cd: Yes he is desiring to come back into our hearts.He must be watched and guarded against daily but in a true christian-He is broken. The more one grows in holiness the weaker he becomes-the Bible refers to him as the flesh.    He is in our lives -- he is desiring to destroy us. but he is decreasing.   BUT , he is still there.   So we agree.
-

Also, if Romans 3:23 tells us that we are always short of the glory of God  --  this side of the "next Life."  In that phrase is the old nature.   God has no choice when it comes to sin.  We  [always] do  -- in this life. 
---
cd: Romans 3:23 is speaking of the old man-the past sins-the new man can choose not to sin. Look at Romans 3: 25   Actually, 3:23 talks about sin in the past tense and "falling short of the glory" in the present and current (ongoing) tense.  Falling short of the glory is what is going on right now.   God does not count this against us because He sees us and existing within Christ.    V 25 does not alter this situation.  Nothing does.   That is why we have a perpetual need for Jesus.

Wesley says this  --  All the sins antecedent to their believing. I do not believe this.  It limits the notion that Christ dies once and for all time and flies in the face of the confidence we Christians have concerning God's willingness to finish the work He has begun in us. 

jd

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 
J.Wesley wrote:
Rom 3:25 - Whom God hath set forth - Before angels and men. A propitiation - To appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation. And, if so, Christ died in vain. To declare his righteousness - To demonstrate not only his clemency, but his justice; even that vindictive justice whose essential character and principal office is, to punish sin. By the remission of past sins - All the sins antecedent to their believing.

jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Do you speak of the "rebuking ministry?"  
 
To imagine that a chld actually knows what he/she is doing when told to "raise your hands if you want to come into your life."   Every kid in the house does it.  
 
Sorry  --   that is not evangelism.   This exactly why we loose most of these kids by the time they finish college.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > >> I do not believe in child evangelism. > > CD wrote: > > This makes me sad John. > > What makes this even more sad is the fact that children are the ones who > benefit the most by the kind of evangelism that John approves of. > > 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. <
/html>

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


You are a riot, Judy  !   No one you know  -  not a single person you know, believes this statement:
 
Judy wrote:> The scriptures are not a biological treatise;> they are about Jesus Christ from Genesis> to Revelation and he only has a physical flesh> and blood body for a very short time 3 1/2> years to be exact
 
David is kind in treating you as if you have some desire to be a student.  I do not share his positive attitude.   The more you talk and write  -  the more convoluted you become.   You are a hoot !!!  
 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > > The scriptures are not a biological treatise; > > they are about Jesus Christ from Genesis > > to Revelation and he only has a physical flesh > > and blood body for a very short time 3 1/2 > > years to be exact > > Now where do you get this idea, that Jesus only had a physical body for 3 > 1/2 years? In my entire life, I have never heard anybody make such a claim. > > Judy wrote: > > - He is the ONLY begotten of the father so > > how can you be so sure that you know about > > his genetics, genomes etc. > > I have my reasons for thinking I know about these things, but are you now > admitting to us that you are not sure about his genetics? > > David Miller > > 
-- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Yes , and James Dobson was converted at age TWO  
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > I wouldn't mind "child conversions" if there was > > some kind of confirmation as they reached an > > adult age. > > I was converted at age 5. I consider my life confirmation, but maybe you > don't? > > It is strange theology that espouses grace the way you do, but somehow you > don't believe children can be converted? Jesus said, "Allow the little > children to come unto me. Forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of > heaven." -- David Miller translation :-). > > 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 rec
eive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Yes and James Dobson was "saved" at age TWO.  No point in saving that which is not lost.   Again  --  there is not a single case of child evangelism in the NT scriptures.   I think that to be significant as relates to this discussion.  
 
jd
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > I wouldn't mind "child conversions" if there was > > some kind of confirmation as they reached an > > adult age. > > I was converted at age 5. I consider my life confirmation, but maybe you > don't? > > It is strange theology that espouses grace the way you do, but somehow you > don't believe children can be converted? Jesus said, "Allow the little > children to come unto me. Forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of > heaven." -- David Miller translation :-). > > 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 rec
eive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Well, it is not like she droped  a  vowl or inverted an endign  
 
Judy  --  my time with you has shown me just how important it is to share faith with other saints for the purpose of growth and understanding.  David M wrote a wonderful paragraph  just a day or two ago that included this thought (but without you as the example.)   
. 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Take it easy, John.  It probably was a typo.  We'll see.
 
David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are a riot, Judy  !   No one you know  -  not a single person you know, believes this statement:
 
Judy wrote:> The scriptures are not a biological treatise;> they are about Jesus Christ from Genesis> to Revelation and he only has a physical flesh> and blood body for a very short time 3 1/2> years to be exact
 
David is kind in treating you as if you have some desire to be a student.  I do not share his positive attitude.   The more you talk and write  -  the more convoluted you become.   You are a hoot !!!  
 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > > The scriptures are not a biological treatise; > > they are about Jesus Christ from Genesis > > to Revelation and he only has a physical flesh > > and blood body for a very short time 3 1/2 > > years to be exact > > Now where do you get this idea, that Jesus only had a physical body for 3 > 1/2 years? In my entire life, I have never heard anybody make such a claim. > > Judy wrote: > > - He is the ONLY begotten of the father so > > how can you be so sure that you know about > > his genetics, genomes etc. > > I have my reasons for thinking I know about these things, but are you now > admitting to us that you are not sure about his genetics? > > David Miller > > 
-- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Thanks for this post.  You do understand my concern?   Socially speaking.,  the gay fellows can be most disgusting  -- beyond what I care to describe.  And,  most in their community defend their  outragious public behavior -- which was rather surprising to me when I realized this.   

There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a number of these individuals in His personal ministry  -  certanly the evangleists and Apostles did in their sojourn.  

It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures.    

For example  --  it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents."  The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course.  The point I see from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than disobedience to your parents  -  rather that disobedience to your parents is just as bad as homosexuality !!   Sin is sin and it is terrible.   

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


This is as good a brief on this matter as I have read.  I thought this point was especially good    But because this relationship is not semetrical either, we do not have to give into that old man   
 
We read,  I read, others and that reading I add those comments to what I already hold to be true.  In time, it becomes a part of who I am  -  I possess the agreeable thoughts of others.   In the possessing, these comments will reflect the intellectual nest into which they have landed  (my little brain) and when expressed  -  they may or may not be representative  (exactly) of the original author.  
 
Having said all that,  here is what Bill's comments said to me.   "Symmetrical"  speaks of balance  -  equal proportion.   The two natures are not equally weighted against each other.   The Spirit has the advantage.   As a result, daily we can say no.
 
And what is the difference between this and David's notion of perfectionism  (as I call it, understanding, of course, that David means to include the Spirit.)  A serious question  -- not a criticism.
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
 
Dean writes:  . . . we were brought to His state as Christians.
 
And from this morning: Bill I hesitate to answer this as I am not sure where you stand on the issue of: Did Christ appear in the Heathen state or in the state we are now as Christians. As a Christian I have all the human genes that you mentioned yet I am different from Hitler. I have flesh and Blood but am a new creature in Christ conformed to His image. If I state that I agree with you then what am I agreeing to?Enlighten me?
 
First of all, Dean, the fact that Christ is the "genos of David" should have no bearing on whether you agree with me or not. It is Jesus who declares it -- not me. He came in the flesh of David and Abraham and Adam. You figure it out. That aside, I'll share a couple thoughts: 

1) The ressurected Christ does not have the same nature in his humanity that he did prior to his crucifixion. He took on sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. This he did in his life, death, and resurrection -- sin totally condemned, totally defeated! Thus his resurrected humanity is "perfected," now completely victorious. Sin, death, and the devil have absolutely no bearing upon his resurrected humanity; for in his resurrection the tyrants are totally defeated, death being the last enemy to fall -- as we too will discover in the resurrection: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 
 
2) You keep speaking of Jesus, prior to the crucifixion, as having had the same nature we have now as Christians on the other side of the cross. But that is not so. Paul writes, "Therefore, from now on, we regard no man according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer" (2Cor 5.16). There is no new birth or new man or new creation apart from the resurrection. It is the glorified Christ who sends us his Spirit, not Christ before having finished the work which he came to do. Why do you suppose he did not send the Counselor until after his ressurection? Because the tyants had not yet been fully defeated. Ah but in his resurrection there is new birth, a new man, a new creation. We are born into his absolute victory over sin, death, and the devil. Hence, we are now engaged in a daily struggle between two natures, our old flesh nature that wants to return to its former ways, and the new resurr
ected nature of Christ. But because this relationship is not semetrical either, we do not have to give into that old man; we can put him to death every day. In other words, "Christ in us, the hope of glory" is Christ resurrected and ascended. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal 2.19). 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 8:40:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christ defeated sin in his own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from beyond the tomb, where sin, death, and the devil cannot reach us -- if, that is, we daily put to death that old man who still wants to rear his head. 
 
Dean, I say this with the utmost sincerity: You really do need to let go of your alloy view of Jesus; it can only confuse yo

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy - we are still waiting !!


Once again, your scripture?   I think I know which one,   but my translation speak of those who "had not sinned after the order of Adam's."   
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
What does this mean  --  Death ruled from Adam to Moseseven over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesushaving such a nature. 
 
Your scripture for this.   Those between Adam and Moses did not sin.
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why must you insist on making distinctions that are nowhere in the text > of > scripture. Ephesians 2 describes perfectly what a fallen nature looks > like - and it > automatically makes one a child of wrath. Death ruled from Adam to Moses > even > over those who had not sinned and you are willing to fight over Jesus > having such > a nature. judyt > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:08:54 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > > JD wrote: > > > "Sinful nature" is not "sinning nature." > > > > Excellent point, John. A sinful nature provides a source of > > temptation, but > > it is not synonymous with the idea of a sinning nature, a nature > > that must > > sin 
despite whatever we think, say, or do. > > > > 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 wa
 nts to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] An Idiot


Pat Robertson is on Fox, right now.   he's an idiot !!  
 
By the time he gets his foot out of mouth,   I will be in the next life !!
 
jd

[TruthTalk] Re: mand/God reconciled in Jesus




 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:09:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Guess again, Judy.  Just because you can count to two is no evidence that  "dualism" has occurred.  Dualism, when applied to human nature,  is not a characteristic count.  That Christ is wholly God and wholly Man is not a dualism.  
 
jt: Of course it is; two opposite natures in the one person is just that. It makes him doubleminded and a doubleminded man is unstable in all of his ways.  schizophrenic even. Christ reconciled all things in the body of His flesh at His death.   You think there was an internal war going on between the Son of Man and the Son of God?  Come on, Judy.   During the 3 1/2 years that Christ was admittedly of our flesh,  do you think he was schizoid because He was the Son of Man and the Son of God?  
 
It is a statement of who Christ Incarnate is  (He is still the Incarnate Christ, you know  --  but with a glorified body.)  
 
jt:  It is not a statement Christ ever made of himself, it was cobbled together by men who were not dealing with a full deck and who were in sin because they were anxious and fearful about hereticks. Tell it to your teachers at BSF !!
 
He has reconcilied all things in the body of His flesh  -   wholly Man and wholly God are wholly reconciled in the body of His flesh  --   If they were opposing forces, Son of God versus Son of Man, you might have a point.   And they were opposing forces until Christ.  But they have been reconciled.   
 
jt: Things were reconciled at the time of the resurrection - not before.  You have someone you are claiming is wholly God and wholly fallen man walking around during his time on earth and this is dualism.   You actually need to read your bible rather than "quoting" from it.   Col 1:19-23 tells us taht the reconciliation of all things, both in heaven and in earth, was effect in the body of His flesh at His death.   This does not speak to the union of God and Man in Jesus.    That was lived out perfectedly, during His lifetime, proving there was no opposing conflict between the two considerations.   There is no other consideration but that in Christ, Son of Man and Son of God were wholly reconciled.
 
A few days ago,  I liken this to a glass of juice stirred together with a glass of water.   In the stirring, in that confusion, the two substances become indistinguishable!!   A very poor illustration.   God and Man are reconciled in Christ  -  they do not loose their distinctiveness.   They now work together as man and God were intended.   See G's earlier but brief post on this.   Profoundly simple  -  profoundly so.  [myth (acc to Moses, God & Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites]
 
Until men (individuals) making up mankind as a whole repents from the heart and agrees to do things God's way - they are in fact polar opposites.  Note: God was ready to kill Moses himself when he neglected to circumcize his son.
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."   

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David..

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)


Hi Dean,
 
 
l.   I do not believe the "rules" change after we are saved.   I am not speaking of "initial" salvation.   What gets me saved, keeps me saved.   Works of law (obedience) is a RESPONSE to the Spirit's influence or obedience is no big deal, soteriologcally speaking  --  if yoou know what I mean. 
 
2.  We are not "made righteous by the moral law," Dean as you insist below.  
Rightousness does not come by the law.
 
"..If those who are of the law are heirs, faith is mad void and the promise made is of no effect."   Romans 4:14
 
"Therefore.you also have become dead to the law throguh the body of Christ taht you may be married to another -  to Him who was raised form the dead, that we should bear fruit from God:   (Romans 7: 4)
 
"But now we have been delivered from the Law, having died to what we were held by, so that we shoud serve in the newness of the Spirit and NOT IN THE OLDNESS OF THE LETTER  (read: law),  "   (Romans 7: 6)
 
"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to those who believe"  (Romans 10:4)
 
3.  We do not commit to "moral law" out of a sense of duty.  What you call "moral law" is to have an indicative presense in our lives,   not an imperative presense  --   and by that I mean that God's Spirit (indwelling) brings us to a moral habit, not law.    We cannot engender that habit (of morality) apart from the Spirit's inner working.  Why in the world would you want to contest this?   If I obey merely because I have to , it is meaningless.  My mother used to make me apologize to her after an argument.   But "apology " was not the end of the matter.  No.  I had to make her believe I meant my apology.  Such action is meaningless, even in finite relationships.  
 
4.  I do not believe that man is born into sin.   I do not believe in any form of original sin.   You reference David's remorseful comments in Ps 51 after having been expoosed by Nathan. It is a statement of grief and contrition  -  not a statement of theological correctness.  
 
There are three sources of information in scripture.  God, who is always right.  Satan who is always wrong and man  (such as David, or Job's friends, or Soloman in Ecclesiastes) who is sometimes right on and , at other times, poorly informed for whatever reason.  
 
jd 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 1:37:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)


 
Suggestion:    expand this post for easy reading
 
 
 
So many things wrong (IMO) with this essay.  
 
1.  Re: Isa 64:6 states a circumstance I believe we all share.  But I believe this because of other considerations. 
--- 
 
cd: That would mean Christ died in vain and we are not forgiven and His grace did not make us righteous by the moral law.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
--
 
2.  The Abrahamic promise applies to all who believe  --  Romans 4:11  "...that he might be the father of all who believe  ..."  
  Your thinking that that the promise was only given to Abraham is very much off the mark.   also read Romans 3:28
   and tell me, once again, that the Abrahamic promise does not apply to all of mankind. all of mankind, Dean  -- 
   including those "who have gone on before."   Jesus sacrifice is once FOR ALL TIME.   Adam, Seth, Isaac are 
   saved because of Jesus Christ.  That is why "faith" in such passages as Romans 3:28 is not just talking about 
   my faith but , also, the faith of Jesus Christ.   My faith is without value if I am not INTO (eis)  Christ.  And if I 
   within Jesus,  I share in His faith   just as surely as I share in His rightousness. Only  His faith can be considered 
   timeless. 
- 
cd: John you are still speaking of initial salvation and I am speaking of our walk post salvation-Yes of course we come by faith but that doesn't remove us from keeping God s commandments and our duty to do his work-read on down to verse 31 of Romans 3-The moral law is still with us: We do not make it void but we do establish it by the keeping of that law as we are able to do in Christ. To be righteous means to be right by the law. The unrighteous are law breakers.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. 
Webster Dictionary

usRIGHTEOUS, a. ri'chus.
1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man. Applied to things, it denotes consonant to the divine will or to justice; as a righteous act. It is used chiefly in theology, and applied to God, to his testimonies and to his saints. The righteous, in Scripture, den

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Oh, I have read the passage many times, David.  
 
Chapter 1:32 individualizes each of the sins mentioned and applies them to any who practice such "things."  He is no longer speaking of homesexual behavior by the time he gets to verse 32.  And, if one includes 2:1ff, there is little doubt that Paul has moved from the homosexual issue  with these words  "...for you who judge,  ractice the same things (referring to any or all of the above list.)"  
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have pointed this out before, and will repeat it again now. Romans 1 is > describing the homosexual when it mentions disobedience to parents. Read > the chapter again. These are all characteristics of the homosexual, > describing his character, and why God disapproves of the practice of > homosexuality. > > David Miller. > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:48 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation > > > Thanks for this post. You do understand my concern? Socially speaking., > the gay fellows can be most disgusting -- beyond what I care to describe. > And, most in their com
munity defend their outragious public behavior -- > which was rather surprising to me when I realized this. > > There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a number of these > individuals in His personal ministry - certanly the evangleists and > Apostles did in their sojourn. > > It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures. > > For example -- it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents." > The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course. The point I see > from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than > disobedience to your parents - rather that disobedience to your parents is > just as bad as homosexuality !! Sin is sin and it is terrible. > > jd > > -- Original message -- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > JD wrote: > > Sodomite is a name we call people just > >
 as "nigger" is a word that offends. > > I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points > to a particular sexual practice. Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the > Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and > engaging this kind of sexual behavior. The homosexual agenda has hijacked > the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves. If they can > incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to > remind people exactly what we are talking about. > > Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word > "sodomite." In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never > used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that. I usually talk > about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official > Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for > the Promotion
 of Sodomy and Fornication. > > Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have > perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, > and that homosexuals are born the way the are. Do you think homosexuals > need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups > would? Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and > adultery? > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


Yeah, Those cotton picken women.  They are just too easily offended.  
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cd wrote: > > David what is on the other side of you banner > > and could you speak more about the Feminism > > movement? Thanks. > > The other side of the banner says, "Help Prevent Homosexuality." > > Feminism expresses itself in many forms. In this case, I'm talking about > the inability of men to discuss issues man to man. When a man tells me how > he is offended to read, "Help Prevent Homosexuality," and he does not think > he should have to be subjugated to having his eyes glance at my sign as he > walks by, I say, "what a wimp. Suck it up... be a man." How effeminate for > a man to think he should be so sheltered that signs like this should not be > allowed outside in public places. If we follow the standards of the > femin
ists, there will be little room for confronting issues. Feminism works > toward a tolerance by suppressing speech which seems harsh or demanding. > The better approach, more masculine approach if you will, is to teach > tolerance by showing respect to opposing viewpoints. Don't suppress the > views of others. Encourage them, and teach others to tolerate and respect > them. If you disagree with the viewpoints, you can walk on or engage the > person in discussion. Your choice. To be offended and cry foul, and whine > like Dave Hansen whines about the Street Preacher in Utah, is a > manifestation of feminism. They want everything to be nice and quiet and > gentle and no room for anything out of place. > > The Bible does not just warn about homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom of > God. It warns us that the effeminate and cowards also will not inherit the > kingdom of God. Timidity is not a Godly virtue. > > If you really want to 
hear what is wrong with feminism, you will have to > talk to Christine. She sees it and understands it much better than I do, > and she hates feminism with a passion. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)



cd: Yes I do Bill and I addressed this in another post to John today.
 
I evidently missed that one, Dean. Sorry about that. I was wondering if you also consider Zacharius and Elizabeth to have been been righteous and blameless before God.   bt
 
Dean  -- I also missed the post.  Could you repost? 
 
jd
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 


From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 8:18:05 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)


cd: Remember that man was conceived in sin. Hence the need of a savior. I am not so sure that this is true after the ascension by J. the B. parents were post ascension. That is another debate with would best wait till these are concluded.
 
I will gladly respect your desire to hold off debating this, Dean -- but while we're waiting, you may do well to look up this word "ascension." This is twice today you've used it in a way I wouldn't. 
-
cd: Bill how have I used it incorrectly?
 
I may have misread you, Dean, but you seem to say above that John the Baptist's "parents were post ascension." The "ascension" took place after the resurrection of Jesus, when he left this earth to sit at his Father's right hand. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both quite old when JB was born and had probably even died prior to the ascension. I am a little confused as to what you mean when you write that they were post-ascension. Elsewhere you state that "Christ has a flesh body and ate fish even after the accention." I assume you meant to say "ascension" here and if so, I was not aware of any Scripture which speaks of Jesus eating fish since having left to be with his Father. Could you please try to help me better understand what you're saying.
-
By the way, do you (and Judy) believe that JB's parents were born of "sinful flesh"?
-
 
cd: Yes I do Bill and I addressed this in another post to John today.
 
I evidently missed that one, Dean. Sorry about that. I was wondering if you also consider Zacharius and Elizabeth to have been been righteous and blameless before God. 

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



 
And what is the difference between this and David's notion of perfectionism  (as I call it, understanding, of course, that David means to include the Spirit.)  A serious question  -- not a criticism.
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
This is as good a brief on this matter as I have read.  I thought this point was especially good    But because this relationship is not semetrical either, we do not have to give into that old man   
 
We read,  I read, others and that reading I add those comments to what I already hold to be true.  In time, it becomes a part of who I am  -  I possess the agreeable thoughts of others.   In the possessing, these comments will reflect the intellectual nest into which they have landed  (my little brain) and when expressed  -  they may or may not be representative  (exactly) of the original author.  
 
Having said all that,  here is what Bill's comments said to me.   "Symmetrical"  speaks of balance  -  equal proportion.   The two natures are not equally weighted against each other.   The Spirit has the advantage.   As a result, daily we can say no.
 
And what is the difference between this and David's notion of perfectionism  (as I call it, understanding, of course, that David means to include the Spirit.)  A serious question  -- not a criticism.
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
 
Dean writes:  . . . we were brought to His state as Christians.
 
And from this morning: Bill I hesitate to answer this as I am not sure where you stand on the issue of: Did Christ appear in the Heathen state or in the state we are now as Christians. As a Christian I have all the human genes that you mentioned yet I am different from Hitler. I have flesh and Blood but am a new creature in Christ conformed to His image. If I state that I agree with you then what am I agreeing to?Enlighten me?
 
First of all, Dean, the fact that Christ is the "genos of David" should have no bearing on whether you agree with me or not. It is Jesus who declares it -- not me. He came in the flesh of David and Abraham and Adam. You figure it out. That aside, I'll share a couple thoughts: 

1) The ressurected Christ does not have the same nature in his humanity that he did prior to his crucifixion. He took on sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. This he did in his life, death, and resurrection -- sin totally condemned, totally defeated! Thus his resurrected humanity is "perfected," now completely victorious. Sin, death, and the devil have absolutely no bearing upon his resurrected humanity; for in his resurrection the tyrants are totally defeated, death being the last enemy to fall -- as we too will discover in the resurrection: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 
 
2) You keep speaking of Jesus, prior to the crucifixion, as having had the same nature we have now as Christians on the other side of the cross. But that is not so. Paul writes, "Therefore, from now on, we regard no man according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer" (2Cor 5.16). There is no new birth or new man or new creation apart from the resurrection. It is the glorified Christ who sends us his Spirit, not Christ before having finished the work which he came to do. Why do you suppose he did not send the Counselor until after his ressurection? Because the tyants had not yet been fully defeated. Ah but in his resurrection there is new birth, a new man, a new creation. We are born into his absolute victory over sin, death, and the devil. Hence, we are now engaged in a daily struggle between two natures, our old flesh nature that wants to return to its former ways, and the new resurr
 ected nature of Christ. But because this relationship is not semetrical either, we do not have to give into that old man; we can put him to death every day. In other words, "Christ in us, the hope of glory" is Christ resurrected and ascended. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal 2.19). 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/1/2006 8:40:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christ defeated sin in his own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


And it remains a mystery.   I had asked DM waht he meant by the comment.  No response.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the kind of evangelism that John approves ofDAVEH:   Is that a typo?   Did you instead mean to say.disapproves?David Miller wrote: 
JD wrote:
  

I do not believe in child evangelism.
  
CD wrote:
  
This makes me sad John.

What makes this even more sad is the fact that children are the ones who 
benefit the most by the kind of evangelism that John approves of.

David Miller

  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

But don't you see that if we regard gluttony and homosexuality the same,  we cannot order anyone out of our churches?   Where would we be if sinners were actually allowed and even encouraged to attend? We have been to told to preach to the world.   Leave them, then, in the world  -  not in the church. 

Pastor Smithson
Bishop of Love
Minister of Understanding
And Judge of the Bastards

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Morality/Immorality are = in the eyes of God! Importuning the "immoral" AND focusing on particular sins indicates a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the nature of the Triune God and His Triune Gospel!  DM along with at least one of his offspring seem to be so actively engaged. NOW is the occasion for sadness.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 19:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Thanks for this post.  You do understand my concern?   Socially speaking.,  the gay fellows can be most disgusting  -- beyond what I care to describe.  And,  most in their community defend their  outragious public behavior -- which was rather surprising to me when I realized this.   

There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a number of these individuals in His personal ministry  -  certanly the evangleists and Apostles did in their sojourn.  

It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures.    

For example  --  it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents."  The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course.  The point I see from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than disobedience to your parents  -  rather that disobedience to your parents is just as bad as homosexuality !!   Sin is sin and it is terrible.   

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent.
 
In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements or spirits. 
 
The term dualism can refer to a variety of doctrines, mainly in theology and philosophy, each involving the purported existence of two substances ( often opposites) of some kind. These opposites can be, among other things, opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories.
 
Bill has been the one who has said the  most concerning dualism , to my memory.  And I have come to accept much of what has been written.   In counseling,  the habit of sin  (activity) is chemically enhanced in the brain.   Your long term preformance becomes blueprinted, if you will , into your psyche.  That is why an action or activity can become addictive  --  actually  it is why patteren activity WILL become "addictive."    
 
I was quite the dualist before TT and Bill Taylor.  I am not one now.   the "old man" of the bible is, to me,  those thing I do or think that are harmful to me (the bible being an excellent guide in this regard, if not the final word.)  But my life is not defined by these falings.  The same principles of the pysche work in regard to repeated "good" activity.   What we call "addiction" (IMO) is the attachment of whatever repeated activity to my personhood via this chemical process.  It is the oneness of my person that speaks (for me) against the idea of dualism.   
 
The old man is alway there  -  he is that character we do not wish to be  -  for whatever reason.   Paul tells us in Romans 6:11   to CONSIDER yourselves to be dead to sin but alive in Christ.   If the old man were actually dead --  as in dead and gone  --  I would not have to consider anything.  I would be alive in Christ with no choices to make.   Although I look forward to the freedom of not having to make choices anymore,  such is not the case now.   Eph 4 :20-24 reminds us of the continuing presence of the old man along with the new.   I am what I have done coupled with what God sees me to be in Christ.  The result is my person.  And not every influence in my life is either "good" or "bad" in a moral sense.  In addition to these, there is my level of intelligence,  the intensity of my passions,  my ability to overcome fear  --  and so I say "what dualism?!!"&n
bsp;  I am not just good and bad.  When it comes to matters of personhood, I am not a dualist. I am not the combination of only two natures. The probelm of sin is huge and complicated.    And so it is that God contributes much more than His Spirit.   Heroin addicts have a terrible history of recovery  (less than 3%)  Is the addict going to hell because his pysche is locked into that which cannot be overcome (at least for the time being)?    Well, when we cannot access the Spirit's influence, grace abounds and the blessing of the cross reveals itself  -- saving man when he does not deserve to be saved.  In Hebrews we are told that judgment day will include a consideration of the "intentions of the heart."   And what is the greater struggle?  To be clean and sober, free from addiction and a child of God or to be addicted beyond control, facing the Devil's work as he tries to persuade you to give up  --  using your failur
es to convince you that you are lost and without hope?  Which is the greater battle?  And who deserve the "credit" for trying?  He who is victor or he who will not let go of the hope within in spite of his failings  --  believing that God is bigger than all that tries to bring him down.  Both are noteworthy, of course, but the man of problems is not to be denied.  Chrsit came not for the righteous but to seek and save the lost.  
 
It is before his master that he stands or falls and he will  be  made to    stand  !!!  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

It may be "dualism," but it is not symetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will of God constantly converting the will of man.
 
By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic.
 
Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: Judith H Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Wholly good and ATST wholly ev

Re: [TruthTalk] An Idiot


In this case, an idiot is one who habitually says things in a nationally arena for which he must apologize and when asked if the apology was sincere, he says "yes but I still want the man dead."    Kind of a living definition but after watching said performance, the only word bouncing around in your mind is "idiot."  :-)  The man does a wonderful work.  But, let's face it  -  he is simply not as smart as I when it comes to politics -  and we all know that I am just plain stupid !!.  How low can you go !!
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Please define "idiot". It may be that believers may be "believers/idiots".

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 21:28
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Idiot

Pat Robertson is on Fox, right now.   he's an idiot !!  
 
By the time he gets his foot out of mouth,   I will be in the next life !!
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

And something else.   I do not think you get the picture I have in mind when I speak of some being "gender confused."  

jd

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

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David.

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Well,  I am definitely not talking about the feminists.  

You are wrong about the birth thingy.  There are many who appear and act like the opposite sex and are not gay, by the way.  Gender confusion does happen.   Haven't you ever been fully convinced in your mind that someone was gay, only to find out that this was not true?  Life, in part, is about how we respond to the hand dealt us.  

jd

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:06:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

And something else.   I do not think you get the picture I have in mind when I speak of some being "gender confused."  

cd: I can agree that people can become gender confused esp. considering the feministic society we live in today-but to be born that way is incorrect.If I am missing what you are conveying please enlighten me sir.

jd

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

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David...

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)


 
Those in Christ are saved.   .    judgment day not withstanding.    those outside Christ are judged by the law  --  but even their judgment is sealed in this life  ("..those who do not believe are condemned already." )  
 
I have never studied the subject of rewards in heaven  .   and don't have any current plans to do so  --  but, perhaps, some of what wilkl go on on Judgment Day involves that sort of thing.   
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 8:17:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)

IFF even one (1) was "able to keep God's commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to help us in this area (Acts)" then, might we rightly assume that EVERYONE WAS ABLE?
 
cd: Yes-that is why God will hold these sins to their accountably.To think otherwise would make the God we know a mean Spirit who punishes his creation for doing something that they could not help but to do-and He would then not be God.At least not a God I would want to serve.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 03, 2006 08:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)

 



I may have misread you, Dean, but you seem to say above that John the Baptist's "parents were post ascension." The "ascension" took place after the resurrection of Jesus, when he left this earth to sit at his Father's right hand. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both quite old when JB was born and had probably even died prior to the ascension. I am a little confused as to what you mean when you write that they were post-ascension. Elsewhere you state that "Christ has a flesh body and ate fish even after the accention." I assume you meant to say "ascension" here and if so, I was not aware of any Scripture which speaks of Jesus eating fish since having left to be with his Father. Could you please try to help me better understand what you're saying.
-
cd: Respectfully Bill -I am speaking of post-ascension as a way of pointing out that Zac. and Elizabeth were able to keep God's commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to help us in this area (Acts 2)-so we have no excuse for not doing so.This is my attempt to strengthen the brethren.
-
By the way, do you (and Judy) believe that JB's parents were born of "sinful flesh"?
-
 
cd: Yes I do Bill and I addressed this in another post to John today.
 
I evidently missed that one, Dean. Sorry about that. I was wondering if you also consider Zacharius and Elizabeth to have been been righteous and blameless before God. 
---
cd: Yes I do Bill- but their born into sin from the flesh saw need for their salvation.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

S, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to be sinless?  
Please tell me you are kidding!!  

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir.

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:01:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David..

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk]


At all times in this discussion,  I have it in the back of my mind that what was begun in the creation of man will not be completed until our personal resurrection and as a result of the work of Christ.   It is exciting to me to think that there will be a time when I have no choices.  
 
Who spoke of freedom as antithetical to freedom of choice.  Was it Victor?  
 
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



  
It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. 
cd; Yeah what he said:-)
 
I'll defer to John's comments for now, Dean, as his are insightful and I do not wish to devote the time to the topic which would be needed to draw out the distinctions. Suffice it to say that (1) I see two distinct natures at work in the person of Christ prior to his death and resurrection: a human nature, replete with all the limitations commensurate with fallen humanity; and a Divine nature, which is fully God. (2) I also see two distinct natures at work in his person after the resurrection: the same Divine nature as before, along with a new, glorified human nature. (3) As it pertains to us as Christians, I see two distinct natures at work in our members: an old fallen nature which refuses to stay down (if you will allow some latitude with this language); and a new nature which is that of the resurrected Christ, as ministered to us by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, (4) I believe that the old nature will be erased in our resurrection, never again to rear its ugly h
ead; that will leave us with but one nature, the same nature which we received from Christ in the new birth.
 
Dean, I hope this makes sense and helps you to understand how I can find agreement with David on the topic of dualism, without desiring to delve into a detailed discussion on its distinctions in a separate thread.
 
Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 7:38:16 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. 
cd; Yeah what he said:-)

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

It may be "dualism," but it is not symmetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymmetrical, the will of God constantly converting the will of man.
 
By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic.
 
Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: Judith H Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself  --  what do we now  suppose??   Further,  Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ.   Jesus speaks of You in me,  I in you and they in us.   Kiss off dualism.
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

..same with male & female--'made He them' says Moses
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (acc to Moses, God & Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites)
 
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m]
 
 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.

[TruthTalk] re: the contraints of love



 
I have been a little surprised at the resistance of some to the idea that God is obligated to a particular course of action.   Paul speaks of being constrained by love  and even goes so far as to give definition to the action of love  (I Cor 13: 4-7), suggesting that if love is to prevail,  his defining must be in evidence.   Love functions under the same constraints regardless of who is the functionary.  We have not reason to believe otherwise.    "God is love" must mean, then, that Pauls definition is drawn from his view of this fact  [God is love.]   What other
 authority would exist in the mind of Paul?   Further, if, indeed, God is love, community is required and God HAD to be a creator God.  I say this because the defining of love is meaningless without community.  
 
Further  [as a side-bar],   God cannot create Himself.   Consequently, all creaturely beings that God created are less than Himself in terms of both immanence and economy and   .all   ..  are falling short of His glory   is a given, is it not?   God as a redeemer is forever a statement of immanence!!   There is little difference between angels and mankind.   Both have
 made decisions that are poorly advised.  Satan came from one of these decisions  -- and the hordes that followed him.   The bible is not about a discussion of the angelic world, except as it relates to ours. But it is apparent that theirs is no more a robotic existence than ours.   If angels no longer fall away,  what happened in terms of the redeeming activity of God? Their story is, yet , untold.  
 
Back to the subject at hand  ---   redemption is an assignment borne out of necessity on the part of God.   In Hebrews 2:17   ( therefore He had to become like His brothers and sisters in every respect),  obligation is a function of the Greek wording in that text.   We only know of the requirements of Divine Intervention through revelation  (as expressed in Hebrews 2:17 and Acts 2:28 for example).  But that God as a being of love is required to function in a given manner is not an idea to be ignored.&
nbsp;  If God cannot choose to sin  (James 1:13) , why would be think that He cannot choose to act  as love is revealed in scripture?    If He is free to be what He is , then, He must be that way !!   And we can take confidence in the notion that God does not change.   He does not change because He cannot change.   We make God a creature if we think otherwise.  
 
jd

Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] function v office


 
 My personal view is that the First Church committed it's first organizational sin when it confused assingment of task with assingment of position.  
 
If  "apostleship"  is a position,  " apostolic succession"  is a necessity as is all the evils associated with position, maneuverings, the usurp of authority,  and the power of authority or rankings.    
 
On the other hand, if  such is an assignment of task (I Tim 3:1 where office  does not appear but these words do "    if anyone desires to being an overseer, he desires a good work" [comfort and brown]), the evils mentioned above disappear.   
 
James apparently was looked up to as a leader in the Jerusalem church.  But when it came to crunch time (Acts 15), the decisions made sprang from a collaborative effort and not from any decision stated ex-cathedra.   Peter does not argue for an office of rank as he discusses the work of elders (I Pet 5:1ff).  Rather, he insists that the usurping of authority  (lording it over the flock)  is wrong, that the bishops authority is in example.  Peters comments work most consistent
ly with the notion of servitude as opposed to the notion of authoritative position or rank.     Romans 14:4 makes it clear that Christ is the only authority in the life of the individual, does it not?  The seven deacons appointed in the First Church were clearly  assignment based positions.    There is no reason to believe that the assignment extended beyond the need for their appointment.   Because one is singled out for a task is no reason to believe that that person has been given rank.  
 
jd

Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Overcoming is of Divine Intervention and not of personal effort. That we partner in this effort is a given  ---  but God recieves ALL the credit because it is His work that brings the victory.    Rev 2:26 is an indicative, not an imperative !!
 
The correct response to these words  (Rev 2:26) , then, is "Praise the Lord" and not "oohhh, I better get busy."
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Rev.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him > will I give power over the nations > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Date: 2/3/2006 9:41:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > To: > > > Date: 2/2/2006 4:28:41 PM > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > > > > > > CD wrote: > > > > Sin is intentional-if the act is unintentional > &
gt; > > there is no sin involved-similar to a young > > > > Christian who hasn't been fully instructed- > > > > God looks at the intent. The old saying that > > > > "The road to hell is paved by good intentions" > > > > is wrong. > > > > > > I hope you rethink this one Dean. > > > > > > Leviticus 5:17 > > > (17) And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are > forbidden > > > to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet > is he > > > guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. > > > > > > Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The saying you say is wrong, > actually is > > > right. :-) This is why the prophet said that God's people are > destroyed > > > for a lack of knowledge. Good intentions alone does not cut it > > ---
-- > > > > cd: God does look at the intent of the heart David. > > > > Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than > any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and > spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts > and intents of the heart. > > > > cd: Even under the old covenant God provided cities for those who killed > without a wrong intent-to allow for a "cooling off period" the killer could > return to his home. > > Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for > you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. > > cd: What do you consider willful sin? > Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the > knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, > > > > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Dean,   if righteousness is by law,  we have no need of a Savior !!

And where, in all this, is your concept of matuity and maturing?  

jd    

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 12:02:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

S, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to be sinless?  
Please tell me you are kidding!! 

cd: Christ must have thought so as He clearly states go and sin no more.Again why would God/Lord instruct us to do something that was impossible to do-and tells them what will happen if they do so.Respectfully John this is illogical as you are clearly saying that there is no difference between the lost and the saved.

Joh 5:14 Afterward3326, 5023 Jesus2424 findeth2147 him846 in1722 the3588 temple,2411 and2532 said2036 unto him,846 Behold,2396 thou art made1096 whole:5199 sin264 no more,3
 371 lest3363 a worse5501 thing5100 come1096 unto thee.4671 

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir.

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:01:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?

David Miller.

Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


In print, you are kind of a scary guy  !!   But I like it.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quoting this Scripture does not mean nothing but, it comes pretty close. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "TruthTalk" > Sent: February 04, 2006 06:52 > Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > > > > > > > > Rev.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him > > will I give power over the nations > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Date: 2/3/2006 9:41:14 PM > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > >> > >>
; > >> > >> > >> > [Original Message] > >> > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> > To: > >> > Date: 2/2/2006 4:28:41 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > >> > > >> > CD wrote: > >> > > Sin is intentional-if the act is unintentional > >> > > there is no sin involved-similar to a young > >> > > Christian who hasn't been fully instructed- > >> > > God looks at the intent. The old saying that > >> > > "The road to hell is paved by good intentions" > >> > > is wrong. > >> > > >> > I hope you rethink this one Dean. > >> > > >> > Leviticus 5:17 > >> > (17) And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are > > forbidden > &g
t;> > to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet > > is he > >> > guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. > >> > > >> > Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The saying you say is wrong, > > actually is > >> > right. :-) This is why the prophet said that God's people are > > destroyed > >> > for a lack of knowledge. Good intentions alone does not cut it. > >> - > >> > >> cd: God does look at the intent of the heart David. > >> > >> Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than > > any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and > > spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts > > and intents of the heart. > >> > >> cd: Even under the
 old covenant God provided cities for those who killed > > without a wrong intent-to allow for a "cooling off period" the killer > > could > > return to his home. > >> Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for > > you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at > > unawares. > > > > cd: What do you consider willful sin? > > Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the > > knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Another thing  .  this argument "God will not ask of us what we cannot do" is something you need to rethink.   

Have you never said "Come on , walk to Daddy" ?? Have you never received instruction (Dean, do this and then do that)  that you could not [at first] do?  

to imagine that we can be perfect AS GOD IS    --  well, that is to miss the point of goals and the  process of maturity.    Further, if God told us nothing that we cannot  (or will not) do,  there is no need for sin offering other than what exists in the Old Law.   

jd

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 12:02:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

S, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to be sinless?  
Please tell me you are kidding!! 

cd: Christ must have thought so as He clearly states go and sin no more.Again why would God/Lord instruct us to do something that was impossible to do-and tells them what will happen if they do so.Respectfully John this is illogical as you are clearly saying that there is no difference between the lost and the saved.

Joh 5:14 Afterward3326, 5023 Jesus2424 findeth2147 him846 in1722 the3588 temple,2411 and2532 said2036 unto him,846 Behold,2396 thou art made1096 whole:5199 sin264 no more,3
 371 lest3363 a worse5501 thing5100 come1096 unto thee.4671 

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir.

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:01:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your naivety is noted.     

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are.  Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery?    DM

Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is "yes."   

Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the scale we call promiscuity.   At the same time,  I do believe (in fact, I know )  some are born gender "confused."

cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then they can have conflict over my word and they can fight it out while I sit back on my throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

David:

It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David

From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just 
> as "nigger" is a word that offends.

I don't see it that way, John.  Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.  Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior.  The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves.  If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I rarely use the word "sodomite."  In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.  I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.

Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexua

Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Dualism discussed


  Here are some thoughts that figure into our dicussion of dualism.  Seems worth sharing.  
 
 
In 1985 I read an excellent article called "Worship: Foundation for> Reality"  by Steve Robbins, PhD, who was at that time pastor of a> Vineyard in Oxnard, California.  One of the things he explained was> that the phrase "in spirit and truth" was likely a transliteration> from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek, and when people heard it they would> understand the idea "is the same on the outside as on the inside".  In> other words, God is not looking for worship that has> "spiritual/emotional" and "mental/intellectual" components, but rather> that God wants those who worship him to be people whose lives are> absolutely congruent- what you see is what you get in the deepest> possible way.>> As for "trying to convert the spirit realm into the fleshly realm",> that sounds like an _expression_ of dualism that Wright says time and> again is not to be found in Jewish thought- quite the opposite.  There> is no division be
tween "spirit" and "material"- it's all One Creation.> It's just that we humans can't always see or apprehend what's going> on in the non-material realm.  Indeed, the whole first part of> "Resurrection of the Son of God" is about how, in contrast to all> other known ideas about life after death in the first century, the> Jewish idea of "resurrection" MUST be bodily.  So not knowing Jesus> "after the flesh" must carry a different meaning than that the> disciples didn't recognize Jesus because he must have had a> non-material body.>> Finally, nowhere in the bible is the bare concept of "materiality"> seen to be bad, wrong or evil.  God's creation, all of it, is Very> Good.  And then he completely sanctified it by becoming a Human Being.> Jesus still has the wounds, remember?>> Dana Ames> Ukiah California> apprentice of Jesus in the PCUSA

Re: [TruthTalk]


 
Bill I can agree with yours-and Johns- presentation and of dualism in the brethren for a time. But I also feel one must allow for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to stronger levels of Holiness that will press the old man into total subjection for this is pleasing to God. Love would be the domination word for this as it is the domination emotion for us Christians   cd
 
Dean  -   allow me to intrude  (sorry , Bill).   Just a couple of brief comments.
 
First  -   if the Spirit is present and we have partnered with Him  ("fellowship of the Spirit" is the same as "joint participation with the Spirit" as you may know),  the "stronger levels of holiness"  is the irresistible benefit of the Spirit's influence.  We do not "prove" the Spirit's presence by doing good works  -- rather we surrender to this Spirit and the works will , no doubt, follow.  
 
Secondly,  I think you are right on in your "Love would be the domination word" statement.   Let me be a little honest, here, as to your writing.   ...   and bear with me , here , for a second.   If I had written your comment,  I would have said "Love is the dominate word."   And,  as I read your post,  I automatically made that correction.    But,  now that I think about it,   "domination"   just might be a better way of expressing the thought.   That it is "the domination emotion for us Christians" perhaps expresses the drowning out of all other [negative] emtional considerations while,  "dominate emotion" might only suggest "one of many" considerations.   
 
Anyway  -  I think we need to be careful that our theologies do not present a religion of "will" worship  -  man's will to do good at the centre of the experience rather than the dynamics of the Spirit.   The former could be considered "athiestic."  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 10:55:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 

  
It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. 
cd; Yeah what he said:-)
 
I'll defer to John's comments for now, Dean, as his are insightful and I do not wish to devote the time to the topic which would be needed to draw out the distinctions. Suffice it to say that (1) I see two distinct natures at work in the person of Christ prior to his death and resurrection: a human nature, replete with all the limitations commensurate with fallen humanity; and a Divine nature, which is fully God. (2) I also see two distinct natures at work in his person after the resurrection: the same Divine nature as before, along with a new, glorified human nature. (3) As it pertains to us as Christians, I see two distinct natures at work in our members: an old fallen nature which refuses to stay down (if you will allow some latitude with this language); and a new nature which is that of the resurrected Christ, as ministered to us by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, (4) I believe that the old nature will be erased in our resurrection, never again to rear its ugly h
 ead; that will leave us with but one nature, the same nature which we received from Christ in the new birth.
 
Dean, I hope this makes sense and helps you to understand how I can find agreement with David on the topic of dualism, without desiring to delve into a detailed discussion on its distinctions in a separate thread.
---
cd: Bill I can agree with yours-and Johns- presentation and of dualism in the brethren for a time. But I also feel one must allow for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to stronger levels of Holiness that will press the old man into total subjection for this is pleasing to God. Love would be the domination word for this as it is the domination emotion for us Christians. With love I will not get angry for being struck -with love I will not lust for the scantly dressed women my heart will pull back from that sin-love is the only way to fulfill the law of loving my neighbor as myself.Love will root out all sin in the flesh.As we grow in sanctification we are growing in love to where even dualism is no longer a factor for me as my union is with the father, Son ,and the Holy Ghost.Bill do you see any fault in the below?
 
 
J. Wesley wrote:
2Pe 3:18 - But grow in grace - That is, in every Christian temper. There may be, for a time, grace without growth; as there may be natural life without growth. But such sickly life, of soul or body, will end in death, and every day draw nigher to it. Health is the means of both natural and spiritual growth. If the remaining evil of our fallen nature be not daily mortified, it will, like an evil humour in the body, destroy the whole man. But "if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body," (only so far as we do this,) "ye shall live" the life of faith, holiness, happiness. The end and design of grace being purchased and bestowed on us, is to destroy the image of the earthy, and restore us to that of the heavenly. And so far as it does this, it truly profit

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


All you have proven is the difference between judgment under Law and judgment under the rule of the Spirit  -  judgment for the disciples of Christ after the establishment of the New Law  (Jere 31"31-34).  Your gospel as presented in the comments below is a gospel absent grace.  It is a false gospel.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

What about "My people perish for lack of knowledge?" JD
Their sin was one of ignorance but they perished nonetheless; this is why young
Christians need to be instructed.  Sin brings a curse and death regardless. You need to
revise your modus operandi.   judyt
 
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:31:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


See comments below
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/2/2006 12:31:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Heathens also buy houses and drive cars.   If you do not have a sinful nature,  Dean,  then you do not need any outside help  ...  as in the Spirit.  And if you reject the Spirit's influence (whether intentionally or not)  what happens?  You sin again.
--
 
cd: The help we need isn't "outside help" it is inside help from the Holy Ghost John. 
Ourside our personal efforts, bro.    Of course it is inside help.  
 
 
If I reject the influence (convictions) of the Spirit ,God's word ,and my knowledge of right and wrong-I will most definitely sin again. Sin is intentional-if the act is unintentional there is no sin involved-similar to a young Christian who hasn't been fully instructed-God looks at the intent. The old saying that "The road to hell is paved by good intentions" is wrong.    I think I read some of this somewhere !??  Aaaa  -- od yeah  !   In my comments above !!1
 
By the way,  sin under the Old Law was not just intentional sin.   Check out all of the sacrifices.   At least one is for unknowing sin.  jd
 
---
 
 
    So that old man is still there -  per Eph 4:20-24.

 
cd: Yes he is desiring to come back into our hearts.He must be watched and guarded against daily but in a true christian-He is broken. The more one grows in holiness the weaker he becomes-the Bible refers to him as the flesh.    He is in our lives -- he is desiring to destroy us. but he is decreasing.   BUT , he is still there.   So we agree.
-
 
Also, if Romans 3:23 tells us that we are always short of the glory of God  --  this side of the "next Life."  In that phrase is the old nature.   God has no choice when it comes to sin.  We  [always] do  -- in this life. 
---
cd: Romans 3:23 is speaking of the old man-the past sins-the new man can choose not to sin. Look at Romans 3: 25   Actually, 3:23 talks about sin in the past tense and "falling short of the glory" in the present and current (ongoing) tense.  Falling short of the glory is what is going on right now.   God does not count this against us because He sees us and existing within Christ.    V 25 does not alter this situation.  Nothing does.   That is why we have a perpetual need for Jesus.
 
 
Wesley says this  --  All the sins antecedent to their believing. I do not believe this.  It limits the notion that Christ dies once and for all time and flies in the face of the confidence we Christians have concerning God's willingness to finish the work He has begun in us. 
 
 
jd
 


Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 
J.Wesley wrote:
Rom 3:25 - Whom God hath set forth - Before angels and men. A propitiation - To appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation. And, if so, Christ died in vain. To declare his righteousness - To demonstrate not only his clemency, but his justice; even that vindictive justice whose essential character and principal office is, to punish sin. By the remission of past sins - All the sins antecedent to their believing.
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation



 
cd: The need for the sin offerings wasn't because the people could not do as instructed-  Dean !!   the offerings of bulls and goats was, indeed, for sin AS DEFINED BY THE LAW.   Before the law, there was not sin  (no definition for sin.)   it is a way of removing the quarrel we had with God by the sin- which is mingled with innocent blood that God loves to make the offering more pleasing. Forgiveness is always a consideration in the mind of God.   Sin offering in the Old Law was always a typical preview of the offering of Christ.   If man cannot save man, certainly a goat cannot get the job done, as well.   Those sacrifices worked only because of their predictive attachment to the sacrifice of Christ.   His offering was "once and for all time,"  reaching the past, the present and future [which, of course, is "all time."]  
 We can keep from sin Again, Dean, it is not what we can do but what we will do.   We can be perfect  --  and Christ proved this  -   but we simply are not going to do it, none of us.  And so "none is righteous, no not one."    John as we are not renewed in weakness by in power.If we couldn't do so there wouldn't be any punishment for that sin.  And, indeed, we who are in Christ have escaped judgment !!  Are you not aware of the scriptures that teach such?    The would be not need to put off the old man which is sin-that is who the old man is John-sin.  The old-man is antithetical to the presense of the Spirit.   A call to put off the old man IS a call to partner with the Spirit.  An
d when we do so,  the outcome (the dying and death of the old man) is inevidable  -  even irresistible  --  but never immediate.      He is a very ugly demon following us around tugging at you arm to draw you away and the only way to leave God is to prefer sin more than God.You are overlook a whole lot of scripture to cling to error-respectfully- so for now keep you error for in it is weakness as you seem to love it so much John-the shame is you- as a Pastor -are teaching this to others and will not receive correction in this area-which produces weak Christians-who will never understand why if is important to keep from sin...
You have separated my personal ministry from my reality.   Your discussion is only theoretical.   Where I am weak, Dean,  He is strong.  Where I fail, he succeeds.   THERE IS NO SUBSITUTE for this scenario,  regardless of what you might describe in your life and minsitry.   
The difference between our two gospel presentations is found in the way we deal with failure  -  as ministers of the Gospel.  You preach fear and rebuking while I preach patient endurance and unmerited grace.   
 Know that we adjust our understanding to the work of now not t he other way around Bro. May God bless you as I feel I have gone as far as the Spirit would have me go in this area for now-my prayers are for you John.  To think that God's grace is not bigger than my failings is to make our God too small, Dean.  In spite of poor theology,  the church catholic is very healthy today and it is so because God's gracious intervention makes the difference.   He HAS adjusted to our failings, in case you haven't noticed.   What in the world do you think "Christ died for us while we were YET sinners" means if it does not include the idea that God has "adjusted to our failures."  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/4/2006 7:52:49 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Another thing  .  this argument "God will not ask of us what we cannot do" is something you need to rethink.   
 
Have you never said "Come on , walk to Daddy" ?? Have you never received instruction (Dean, do this and then do that)  that you could not [at first] do?  
 
to imagine that we can be perfect AS GOD IS    --  well, that is to miss the point of goals and the  process of maturity.    Further, if God told us nothing that we cannot  (or will not) do,  there is no need for sin offering other than what exists in the Old Law. 
 
cd: The need for the sin offerings wasn't because the people could not do as instructed-it is a way of removing the quarrel we had with God by the sin- which is mingled with innocent blood that God loves to make the offering more pleasing. We can keep from sin John as we are not renewed in weakness by in power.If we couldn't do so there wouldn't be any punishment for that sin. The would be not need to put off the old man which is sin-that is who the old man is John-sin. He is a very ugly demon following us around tugging at you arm to draw you away and the only way to leave God is to prefer sin more than God.You are overlook a whole lot of scripture to cling to error-respectfully- so for now keep you error for in it is weakness as you seem to love it so much John-the shame is you- as a Pastor -are teaching this to others and will not receive correction in this area-which

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


I must learn to make my points with less words but somewhat as effective as is this observation.  To the point and thoroughly disarming.   Brilliantly profound .   
 
yf jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

I'm fully aware that a case can made for that which you, DM, Iz and, Judy, in differing fashions, claim to have achieved in your lives, Dean. IFO believe this "case" to be abstracted from the realities of life...even/especially..the life of any believer. Your concluding comment concerning 'patience' makes my point for me. 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 04, 2006 09:30
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/4/2006 9:06:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Respectfully and, may it please the court...maturation this side of ...eschatological consummation...amen!  Sinlessness this side of eschatological consummation..DANGER WILL SMITH (if you 'google' this phrase you'll see 'heretical ideals...appropriately-
 
cd: Lance 1 John 2-12-17 Deals with three levels of Christian maturely and the last two mentioned overcoming the wicked one-which means not listening to the one who would lead us into sin-post salvation.. I would put if up but don't feel anyone would even read it much lees seek to understand it. So I will simply moderate for a while as my impatience seems to be getting the better of me-May God bless you and give me more patience.
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 04, 2006 08:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/4/2006 7:52:49 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Another thing  .  this argument "God will not ask of us what we cannot do" is something you need to rethink.   
 
Have you never said "Come on , walk to Daddy" ?? Have you never received instruction (Dean, do this and then do that)  that you could not [at first] do?  
 
to imagine that we can be perfect AS GOD IS    --  well, that is to miss the point of goals and the  process of maturity.    Further, if God told us nothing that we cannot  (or will not) do,  there is no need for sin offering other than what exists in the Old Law. 
 
cd: The need for the sin offerings wasn't because the people could not do as instructed-it is a way of removing the quarrel we had with God by the sin- which is mingled with innocent blood that God loves to make the offering more pleasing. We can keep from sin John as we are not renewed in weakness by in power.If we couldn't do so there wouldn't be any punishment for that sin. The would be not need to put off the old man which is sin-that is who the old man is John-sin. He is a very ugly demon following us around tugging at you arm to draw you away and the only way to leave God is to prefer sin more than God.You are overlook a whole lot of scripture to cling to error-respectfully- so for now keep you error for in it is weakness as you seem to love it so much John-the shame is you- as a Pastor -are teaching this to others and will not receive correction in this area-which produces weak Christians-who will never understand why if is important to keep from sin... Know that we adjust our understanding to the work of now not t
 he other way around Bro. May God bless you as I feel I have gone as far as the Spirit would have me go in this area for now-my prayers are for you John.
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 12:02:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

S, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to be sinless?  
Please tell me you are kidding!! 
 
cd: Christ must have thought so as He clearly states go and sin no more.Again why would God/Lord instruct us to do something that was impossible to do-and tells them what will happen if they do so.Respectfully John this is illogical as you are clearly saying that there is no difference between the lost and the saved.

Joh 5:14 Afterward3326, 5023 Jesus2424 findeth2147 him846 in1722 the3588 temple,2411 and2532 said2036 unto him,846 Behold,2396 thou art made1096 whole:5199 sin264 no more,3
 371 lest3363 a worse5501 thing5100 come1096 unto thee.4671 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir.
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:01:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTa

[TruthTalk] An open letter to Dean -- jd


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

 
Dean,  let me encourage you to continue.   If you need to take a break,  then that is what you must do.  
 
I want to express my appreciation to you for the change in attitude that has been obvious, now, for the past several months.   I doubt any on this forum is not aware of your change of pace in these discussions.   
 
I have been a member of TT  for two years, now.   The past couple of weeks  (at least) has produced perhaps the best continuing discussion on TT.  It  has been great.
 
David has been more consistent in the graciousness of his writings   -- at times as profound as any on this forum.   Bill has taken more time to contribute as well.   My writings are more of a distraction,  I fear,  but I actually write for my children !!   They have asked for a collection of what I think  --  not that it is  anything special other than I am their ol man  ---   so I write for them.   I had a little scare a couple of weeks ago that has renewed my commitment to leaving them a hard copy legacy , if you will    
 
The value of the current discussion has been as much your doing as any on this forum.   What is more important,  Dean,  an attitude that encourages continued sharing or a well written abstract about some theological high point?   I give credit to the former.   And you , sir, are the head of the class on this one  in my opinion and without debated.  
 
We each hope that the other will come to agree with us.   But surely there is other benefit to our thinking and studying and praying and maneuvering and writing than the friendly persuasion of the opponent !!   Maybe something personal  ?   I hope.  Definitely true for me.  
 
Just a note from your friendly counselor:  impatience is always  --  ALWAYS -  a breach of the principle expressed in I Cor 13:5  which reads  love does not seek its own  .   From an utilitarian point of view,  I do not see a more useful scripture as a pastoral counselor.   When I get impatient with you  - or Judy or whoever  --  it is due to pe
rsonal failure in this regard  .   I have placed my own concerns ahead of all other considerations.  
 
Did you notice that this phrase is open-ended?   Love does not seek its own   --  its own what !!??    Ah, and such is the brilliance of the expressed thought.   Love does not seek its own (fill in the blank.)   Love does not seek its own passion, its own opinion,  its own judgments,  its own good  ..  and I could go on and on, of course.   
 
 
 
 
Are you aware that this passage is addressed to the church?   The love passage is not directed to private relationships (marriage and the like).  Nope !!  Rather, it is Pauls inspired advice as pertains to conflict resolution within the church and among brethren.    It is the code of conduct for such as TT  --  whether I am a good example of same or not !!   
 
Your attitude shift has encourage me , and perhaps other , to go and do likewise.   
 
Thanks, 
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



There is no "new law" JD; the law is the law.  Jesus gave a new commandment which the Promise of the Father (Holy Spirit)
enables us to perform whereas the ppl under the old covenant with no supernatural help had a difficult time performing. Also
the blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse the conscience.  Grace is not a cover for sin.  Grace is the power through
the resurrection that enables us to do the will of the Father which in our situation is obeying the Son.  judyt
 
 

 
You and I are profoundly different in terms of our expressed theologies.   A case I point is the above.   
 
You know full well that I am going to reference Jere 31:31-34.  You also know that this passage describes a new covenant NOT LIKE   the Old Covenant of Moses.   You probably know that this very passage   is used twice in the book of Hebrews.  
 
Hebrews 10 finds the author applying this promised  new covenant and  its subsequent [eternal]  remission of sins to the  living way.  the torn veil of the Holy of Holies that is the body of Christ  (10:18-20.)  
 
But earlier, and more to the point of this discussion, we have the author of Hebrews speaking of the two covenants in this wise:   ..in that He says, a new covenant,  He has made the first obsolete.  Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away   (8:13  
 
I feel no need to expand the debate beyond this.   If the scriptures are true with regard to the new covenant, your remaining conclusions are not.  
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


David Miller wrote:>> Do you think homosexuals need special protection>> from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups>> would?  Are you in agreement with the legalization>> of homosexuality and adultery?John wrote:> Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs;> if we are going to kill them or put them at the back> of the bus, my answer is "yes."I assume you feel the same way about those convicted of murder, and I would agree that we should not treat any criminal this way when he is allowed his freedom in society.  My question, however, concerns 1) whether or not anybody in society treats homosexuals this way,I am sure you know that "they" do    and 2) whether or not homosexuality should be a crime.  The Law of Moses was the national legal code for the Jewish nation and no one else.  In NT times, it is a sin but not a cr
ime.   Culturally, speaking I think the same consideration should apply  -  so, no , it should not be a crime.  
 
 
 The Bible treats it as a capital offense, as it does other crimes we have legalized, such as adultery or breaking the sabbath.  What is your view about the legal standing of homosexuality?John wrote:> Homosexuality  IMO is the far end of the> scale we call promiscuity.True.John wrote:> At the same time,  I do believe (in fact,> I know )  some are born gender "confused."While gender confusion may happen at a very early age, I question whether anybody is born that way.  Why would the Bible call it an unnatural affection (Rom. 1:26, 27) ?   Probably an appeal to cultural bias  (not always a bad thing), and the fact that the larger population does not practice homosexuality  ..   certainly not because love between homosexuals cannot be as heart felt as among heterosexuals.  Herein lies another confusion in terminology.  I have no obejectio
n to a person's inner issues, whether you want to call that gender confusion or something else.  If a person is sexually attracted toward others of the same sex, that is not any of my business.  However, the philosophical agenda of the LGBT community is that the only way to happiness is to engage in sexual hedonism, meaning, that they need to follow the desires of their body to engage in sexual relations with whatever gender or species they find attractive.  This is where I draw the line.  When I speak of homosexuality, I am talking about same gender sexual relations.  Often in discussions, when others talk about homosexuality, they are talking about same gender sexual attraction.  From my perspective, a homosexual ceases to be a homosexual the moment he becomes celibate in his behavior in regards to others of the same gender.That Paul lists event sins in the closing verses of Romans 1 is something I agree with.  So there is a confusion of terms in the discussion because some try and make homosexuality a civil rights fight for the rights of people to be perverted if they find themselves in that state.  I'm not sure of the best way to tackle this problem, but I'm standing up to say, "Houston, we have a problem..."    My complaint is with the militancy of the movement.    It sounds as if you agree.   I believe that , in time, the laws that ban hate speech will come to include any public statement against the homosexual way of life or their political agenda.  I do believe that this is where it is all going.  &nbs
p;Further,  I am afraid that the teaching of tolerance in the school system is a first step to the public teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable social consideration.   But, what do you do?   Tolerance is a good thing, socially.   So it looks like the church will actually have to get off its collective proverbials and do something. 
 
 
David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


 
 
Hi David.   I really cannot say it any more clearly that I have done in my brief paragraph below.   That Paul is speaking of the sins experienced by homosexuals appears to be the case.  But, as I have said, by the time one gets to 1:32 , he will see that Paul is addressing the large community and is leaving the subject of    homosexuality behind.  His point, over and over again, in the Roman letter is that man is a sinner  [all men] and God is the gracious redeemer, saving man when he does not deserve it.   If we loose sight of that purpose,  we do not understand what is happening in chapters 1-2.  
 
jd
 
 
 
I think the line of thinking here is that those given over to sin in the extreme, such as homosexuals, practice a wide range of sinful behavior that God condemns.  A Jew might condemn an adulterer or homosexual in focusing upon one aspect of his sin, but if he rightly looked at WHY God condemns homosexuality, he would find issues which he himself is guilty of. Therefore, he ought to exercise care before condemning them.  This is a reason that I do not condemn homosexuals.  I teach homosexual relations are immoral, and that people should have the freedom of religious _expression_ to articulate this viewpoint.  As it is now, anybody who teaches the Bible's perspective about homosexuality are automatically falsley stereotyped as being a hatemonger and homophobe.  This needs to change, and it will only change if Christians stop running away from persecution and stand up for what they really believe, even if some claim they are being offended by such speech.
David Miller- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:14 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observationOh, I have read the passage many times, David.Chapter 1:32 individualizes each of the sins mentioned and applies them to any who practice such "things."  He is no
 longer speaking of homesexual behavior by the time he gets to verse 32.  And, if one includes 2:1ff, there is little doubt that Paul has moved from the homosexual issue  with these words  "...for you who judge, practice the same things (referring to any or all of the above list.)"jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> I have pointed this out before, and will repeat it again now. Romans 1 is> describing the homosexual when it mentions disobedience to parents. Read> the chapter again. These are all characteristics of the homosexual,> describing his character, and why God disapproves of the practice of> homosexuality.>> David Miller.>
 
 
> - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:14 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation > > Oh, I have read the passage many times, David. > > Chapter 1:32 individualizes each of the sins mentioned and applies them to > any who practice such "things." He is no longer speaking of homesexual > behavior by the time he gets to verse 32. And, if one includes 2:1ff, there > is little doubt that Paul has moved from the homosexual issue with these > words "...for you who judge, ractice the same things (referring to any or > all of the above list.)" > > jd > > > > -- Original message -- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > I have pointed this out before, and will repeat it again now. Romans 1 is > > 
describing the homosexual when it mentions disobedience to parents. Read > > the chapter again. These are all characteristics of the homosexual, > > describing his character, and why God disapproves of the practice of > > homosexuality. > > > > David Miller. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation > > > > > > Thanks for this post. You do understand my concern? Socially speaking., > > the gay fellows can be most disgusting -- beyond what I care to describe. > > And, most in their com munity defend their outragious public behavior -- > > which was rather surprising to me when I realized this. > > > > There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a
 number of these > > individuals in His personal ministry - certanly the evangleists and > > Apostles did in their sojourn. > > > > It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures. > > > > For example -- it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents." > > The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course. The point I see > > from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than > > disobedience to your parents - rather that disobedience to your parents is > > just as bad as homosexuality !! Sin is sin and it is terrible. > > > > jd > > > > --

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation