In a message dated 2/14/2005 3:20:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other than this, because there is no part of our nature
Bill writes:I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ
evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing
other than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken
up and redeemed in Christ.Bill
jt: I think it is
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:11:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Do you believe the
first Adam was "something other than human" also?
Hi Judy,
I take it you are speaking of
the first Adam inhis pre-fallen state. And so, the answer is, No, I do
not believe he
In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:35:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivities that produce evil within humanity
Thanks for the explanation. Excellent. Question: with the above in mind, what of those "evils" that tend to
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:27:45 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote If "sanctify" is more
than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances?
Bill: Hi John, The
distinction I am drawing is not at all adverse to the idea that sanctify means
to set
Bill Taylor wrote:
Why do you think Jesus did not say,
And for their sakes I give them the
example of myself, that they also may
be sanctified by truth?
That would be a long way of saying it. Much better to say, ... I sanctify
myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth
-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:14
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:35:32 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
then he meant that he was actually
I address this more fully in a post to John. You can consider it if you
like.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill Taylor wrote:
Why do you
John wrote:
... what of those evils that tend to define us
(apart from the influence of Christ but remain
even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness,
selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness
and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8.
Bill Taylor wrote:
I think it is
In a message dated 2/14/2005 6:00:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
... what of those "evils" that tend to define us
(apart from the influence of Christ but remain
even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness,
selfishness, impatience, anger, lust,
UTTERly Ridiculous
Written like a true perfectionist[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! There goes the nieghborhood [sic]Written like a true
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:06
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:05:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Yes - I agre
In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005
10:16 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED
lujah!
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:15
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, moderation today meansjumping in to stir the
pot and to notify all as towhose side you are on, along with identifying
and card filing those in the discussion?. Gary your hatred is thinkly
veiled.
Theobservationssound familiar though:
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John
')
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 12, 2005 06:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
So, moderation today meansjumping in to stir
the pot and to notify all as towhose
Peter and John had a learning
curve which effects ppl--the phrase'were unlearned' is past tense
baby
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
of Peter and John and perceived
that they were unlearned and ingnorant
men
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.
Of course it is thinkly veiled. Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.
JD
"The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! "
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent. jt
Actually, Judy, if you would
One of Alan Arkin's greatest roles.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 12, 2005 11:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BT: I was just trying to understand why you would
say such things as "Jesus did
not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as
God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor&qu
Big mistake corrected below in BOLD
UPPERCASE!, smaller ones corrected, too.
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:00
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
---
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT
is Rafferty's rules most
Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 12, 2005 13:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
Judy,
I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't
read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter and John had a learning curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were
unlearned' is past tense baby
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant
men
Bill Taylor wrote:
Hey, David, would you tell me how you
interpret Jesus' words in the following
verses (feel free to draw from a larger
context if you like)?
John17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth.
Your word is truth.
John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify
Myself, that they also may be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !!
=
Woe is us !!
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his
sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of
the obscurity of hisdefinition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing about the
o guide us.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor&qu
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote
Instead humanity was purified in relationship
with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the
humanity "becoming perfected" in the process
: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote
Instead humanity was purified in relationship
with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all alo
J Can we
hear an Amen? Iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
9:11 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
This reminds me, I found
, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson'sat HOME! It might get misplaced along the way.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Biil never tire
ildren take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood
was the result of supernatural conception
I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know.
Bill
- Original Message -----
From:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !!
There goes the nieghborhood [sic]
Written like a true anti-intellectual.
JD
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
10:52 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy
wrote Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was
not on this earth as God...
And again later
she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside
his former glory and took upon
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:43:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John in bold print - we will have
to clean this up nexttime around, I think. n a message
dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any
propensity.No he
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor&qu
Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 11, 2005 08:17
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy wrote
Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as
God...
And again later she says
Jesus
did not come here as God.He layed aside his former glory and took upon
himself a body of
*'we'*, meaning clearly that
abilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson,
below
..perhaps that unity is essential
to your ongoing conversation?
..in certain wars the DMZ for the
North was also the DMZ for the South
..for now i think
the'bilateral' notion applies, dependingon
Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is
Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
are living in the world of Lance. Attached is a
review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
be interested. The reviewer points out the
obvious contradictions but likes
Judy wrote:
So you claim Jesus was born with an innate
inclination or tendency toward sin? If this is
so then the wise men who came to worship
Him were fooled, and the angels along with
Simeon and Anna were false prophets because
they all called Him Holy.
An innate inclination toward sin
some feedback:
no 'RoE', below,implies an
eerie isolationism, perhaps like a mental handicap (to learning
'Truth')
further, maybe yourapproach
to hermeneuticsisbecoming clearer which is good; issummed up
in the notion thattrue Christians know 'Truth'before it is
learned
while true
Judy wrote:
The Brethren qualify because they are called
out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those
who are in Christ are; and they now have power
to overcome any and all innate inclinations
and/or tendencies.
Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because
BUY TRUTH - DON'T RENT !
Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*'we'*, meaning clearly that abilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below
..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation?
In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism.
So what?
jt: So - that gospel is false and it is heresy. There is not a whole lot of difference between yours and theirs you are
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:53:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion.
Coming from our friend, Judy Taylor (no
youhavesome for
sale?
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:36:52 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
BUY TRUTH
||
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote:
The Brethren qualify because they are called
out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those
who
Bill had asked (for the second time):Was
Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as
God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
jt answered: Have you ever
heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can
forcescripture to
this is crucial--all
postscarry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of
intepretation', theologically,is not yours; also, she maintains that it's onlyher
'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word
of Truth'
in the background,like
'stealth'is
As it relates to the
current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judywrote
Jesus partook of
human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14
says "forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood
he also himself likewise
Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool.
JD
ginal Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
As it relates to
the current discussion on the human nature of o
Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your
Robertson'sat HOME! It might get misplaced along the way.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message
dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:The first Adam chose to do it
without any propensity.No he didn't.
One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a
message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL P
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:51:01 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy wrote
Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this
earth as God...
And again later
she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside
his former glory and took upon himself a body of
Judy wrote
Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this
earth as God...
And again later
she says Jesus did not come here as God.He layed aside
his former glory and took upon himself a body of fleshmade in the likeness
of men.
Judy, my friend, what does the
name Emmanuel
I
John in bold print - we will have to clean this up next
time around, I think.
n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs.
Eve was
In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*note subject change
Subject was " Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"
Bill Taylor wrote:
... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned
to them as sin until that time that they have both
John wrote:
When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our
relation to that, let's not forget 5:12. We are
complicit with Adam because we, ALSO,
have sinned.
True enough. I think we all agree with this. However, the issue raised by
Bill was that their transgressions are not reckoned to them
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:33:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Allow me one comment. When Paul
speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget
5:12.
jt: Don't let us forget Romans
5:14 either"Nevertheless death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not
See comments below:
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
*note subject change Subject was
" Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin" Bill
These passages challenge my way of
thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two
have
just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if
you
can. I am very interested.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
David, I see orginal sin as
the
Bill Taylor wrote:
Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation
of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and
therefore that justification of life.
One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the
observation of death. I don't see any change after Christ's
It may not bother y'all to read all my spelling
mistakes (thank you for being sogracious),but it bothers me very
much when I make them-- so, as a form of penitence, I have corrected some
mistakes below:
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -From: "David
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:28
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he
weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's
been dead for so long?
BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be
influenced by his
In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:21:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms
you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of
"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's"
thinking when he's been dead for so long?
go back to sleep Judy. Bill and David do not need any help.
John
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. Remember -- without propensity, there
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a
message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it
without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and
then sin occurs.
Eve was deceived,
DavidM wrote:
Rather than belabor our discussion, please just
look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it
once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as
the rest of humanity?
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh
and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part
DavidM wrote:
If the blood of a lowly lamb can atone for sin,
how much more can the blood of a righteous man
born of the seed of Adam atone for sin.
Judy wrote:
The blood of lowly lambs was a temporary measure
which never did atone for sin - it only covered
the sin of Israel as a nation
.
Judy wrote:
... Jesus is NOT a flesh body.
Have you not read the testimony of Scripture?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when he
had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his
Judy wrote:
Jesus became flesh and yes he was called the
son of man but he was not of the same genealogy
as Adam ie: But He whose descent is not counted
from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed
him that had the promises and without all
contradiction the less is blessed of the
Judy wrote:
Only if he was a man with Adam's blood coursing
through his veins which would impart Adam's iniquity
and disqualify him as a sacrifice for our sin.
I'm not buying what you're selling, Judy. :-) If the blood of a lowly
lamb can atone for sin, how much more can the blood of a
84 matches
Mail list logo
