Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry
G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to bea qualitatively greater revelation thanyour 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT)confidently commentscreatively onnecessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect)disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you(two cult-apostles like DavidM)would have to say about it is that he (too)rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
[TruthTalk] Idoloty
In EACH AND EVERY ASSEMBLAGE there are some who practice idolatry.(Divine worship given to ANYONE OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN GOD). Many who are raised up by the Lord become the objects of idolatry. One ought also give some attention to ICONOGRAPHY. See 'The Dwelling of the Light' Praying with icons of Christ by Rowan Williams. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 21:52 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's fruit?Therefore I will use God measuring rod to decide truth.Thes Catholics also removed the 2nd commandment of Idolatry and divided the10th commandment (coveting)into two commandments-making ten commandments-back to our same old questionof why wouldthey remove they words in the first place? I don't believe there is idolatry in the Catholic church -- certainly not of the kind God in scripture references. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
See 'He Came Down From Heaven' The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith' by Douglas McCready, IVP 2005 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 03:38 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please
DH:I'm assuming that you, like myself, have never gotten to know DM personally. Therefore, we've only got TT when it comes to 'reading' him(pun intended) I've found him amorphous in nature, even chameleon like.I tend to respond to 'the DM' I read during his infrequent visits to TT. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 23:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care.DAVEH: Which is why I'm chatting with you about this, Lance.Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one anotherDAVEH: I would like to think that fact does not justify its continuation.These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family membersDAVEH: I've certainly mentioned my observation of a double standard in TT before. Though I let it justify my subsequent posts, in retrospect I regret having made that justification, as it lowered myself, rather than lifted anotheras I think the Lord would preferred.DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf.DAVEH: I suspect DM appreciates and loves each and every TTer for a variety of reasons, each for perhaps a different reason. Being the black sheep of TT, I doubt that I really fit into anybody's family here..but I don't think DM would want to exclude me for being different, so to speak. Though one does not necessarily have to appreciate another, IMHO.one should respect another. As you know, that is one of my weaknesses, which I intend to work on during my tenure in TT. Perhaps we can travel that journey together, Lance.Lance Muir wrote: Conclusion...eh? People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care. Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one another. These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family members. Therefore, DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 01:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please DAVEH: FWIW...While it may be mild, it strikes me as being in the realm of an ad-hom. And, whether or not it is true..I do no see it as pertinent to whether or not it is an ad-hom. However Lance..I've made similar errors of judgment in the past, so I probably should not be the one to point out yours.Lance Muir wrote: I draw the line, Dave, where that which is said does not describe the one being spoken to. 'Pompous ass' is pretty mild stuff. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please You were simply described.DAVEH: Lance, may I ask you where you draw the line on an ad-hom? Is it possible describing somebody as a pompous ass to ever be an ad-hom in your opinion? Lance Muir wrote: YOU WERE NOT INSULTED, DAVIDM! You were simply described. An _expression_ was employed that is no worse than 'brain fart'. Cool it, oh defensive one! -- ~~~ 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: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Again, see 'He came down from Heaven' The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith' Douglas McCready, IVP, 2005 - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 23:32 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Sure he knows what he is talking about JD. Catholics bow their hearts to false doctrine and images all the time. They are all over their churches and the ppl they revere as saints prayed to them. The fellow with the stigmata who is called a saint today received that sign while praying to Mary - where have you been? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. What do you expect from him JD? To him you probably appear to be someone with a spirit of suspicion. The gift doesn't work like that. Would you go up to a demonized person and ask if they had the spirit of the devil in them? -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's fruit?Therefore I will use God measuring rod to decide truth.Thes Catholics also removed the 2nd commandment of Idolatry and divided the10th commandment (coveting)into two commandments-making ten commandments-back to our same old questionof why wouldthey remove they words in the first place? I don't believe there is idolatry in the Catholic church -- certainly not of the kind God in scripture references. Then you are as blind as they are JD and can be of no use in getting them set free from the error of their bonds..
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Sure he knows what he is talking about JD. Catholics bow their hearts to false doctrine and images all the time. They are all over their churches and the ppl they revere as saints prayed to them. The fellow with the stigmata who is called a saint today received that sign while praying to Mary - where have you been? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. What do you expect from him JD? To him you probably appear to be someone with a spirit of suspicion. The gift doesn't work like that. Would you go up to a demonized person and ask if they had the spirit of the devil in them? -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's fruit?Therefore I will use God measuring rod to decide truth.Thes Catholics also removed the 2nd commandment of Idolatry and divided the10th commandment (coveting)into two commandments-making ten commandments-back to our same old questionof why wouldthey remove they words in the first place? I don't believe there is idolatry in the Catholic church -- certainly not of the kind God in scripture references. Then you are as blind as they are JD and can be of no use in getting them set free from the error of their bonds..
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what YOU SAY, do you not? 'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will should you live for another 1,000 years. You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Sure he knows what he is talking about JD. Catholics bow their hearts to false doctrine and images all the time. They are all over their churches and the ppl they revere as saints prayed to them. The fellow with the stigmata who is called a saint today received that sign while praying to Mary - where have you been? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. What do you expect from him JD? To him you probably appear to be someone with a spirit of suspicion. The gift doesn't work like that. Would you go up to a demonized person and ask if they had the spirit of the devil in them? -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's fruit?Therefore I will use God measuring rod to decide truth.Thes Catholics also removed the 2nd commandment of Idolatry and divided the10th commandment (coveting)into two commandments-making ten commandments-back to our same old questionof why wouldthey remove they
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem to have to hang on to. If you can show me evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then I will give serious consideration to your counter points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and those of others. Yes .. scripture is to be understood in the light of All other scripture so that there are no contradictions and you don't have to explain away or cut out anything - jt On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what YOU SAY, do you not? 'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will should you live for another 1,000 years. You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
You do not read one's MEANING well at all, Judy. I don't see you as being on a path to destruction. I see you as a well meaning, on occasion, (mis)interpreter of Scripture.YOU KNOW I'm not alone on this (on TT) Do I believe you to be teachable on this? I do not! Why? I've no idea!As far as an 'obligation' well, that's been fulfilled many times over by Bill, John and, even DM. Did you budge? You did not! Why (again)? I've no idea. Does any of this threaten your relationship with the Lord? IMO, NO! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Sure he knows what he is talking about JD. Catholics bow their hearts to false doctrine and images all the time. They are all over their churches and the ppl they revere as saints prayed to them. The fellow with the stigmata who is called a saint today received that sign while praying to Mary - where have you been? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
I don't believe I've ever seen you respond, since my appearance on TT, to ANYONE'S BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that ran counter to your own. Why? I've no idea! IMO, SOME, of that which ran counter to your understanding was SOUND while your understanding was UNSOUND. I've seen David exhibit remarkable patience while walking you through something a step at a time. How did it end up? Pretty much where it was to begin with. Why? I've no idea! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:38 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem to have to hang on to. If you can show me evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then I will give serious consideration to your counter points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and those of others. Yes .. scripture is to be understood in the light of All other scripture so that there are no contradictions and you don't have to explain away or cut out anything - jt On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what YOU SAY, do you not? 'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will should you live for another 1,000 years. You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point.
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
I'll tell you then Lance since you don't appear to be so adept at catching on to "meaning" either. I have to hear the voice of Jesus before I will receive anything doctrinal from others. IOW, it must line up with "scripture" and as I've been saying and saying, and saying, especially this morning. You don't produce anything other than opinion and most of the time it is opinion that conflicts with scripture. Bill and John are feeding from the same source as you. As for DM, I think you and those in agreement with you are completely and utterlyreckless with regard to him. How would you know whether or not I have learned and what I have learned from him? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:50:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do not read one's MEANING well at all, Judy. I don't see you as being on a path to destruction. I see you as a well meaning, on occasion, (mis)interpreter of Scripture.YOU KNOW I'm not alone on this (on TT) Do I believe you to be teachable on this? I do not! Why? I've no idea!As far as an 'obligation' well, that's been fulfilled many times over by Bill, John and, even DM. Did you budge? You did not! Why (again)? I've no idea. Does any of this threaten your relationship with the Lord? IMO, NO! From: Judy Taylor Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. Sure he knows what he is talking about JD. Catholics bow their hearts to false doctrine and images all the time. They are all over their churches and the ppl they revere as saints prayed to them. The fellow with the stigmata who is called a saint today received that sign while praying to Mary - where have you been? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
You are not producing anything here Lance - just alluding to things I can't recall. You need to produce the "so called" evidence along with my "unsound" understanding. The only issue I remember DavidM "patiently" trying to walk me through is something that is more in his field of biology ie his belief that Jesus had a fallen Adamic nature just like ours. I say He did not and that he is unique in being the ONLY begotten of the Father. David agrees with the ONLY begotten part.. so what we disagree on is minimal and he died on the cross without sin. Can you think of anything else? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:53:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't believe I've ever seen you respond, since my appearance on TT, to ANYONE'S BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that ran counter to your own. Why? I've no idea! IMO, SOME, of that which ran counter to your understanding was SOUND while your understanding was UNSOUND. I've seen David exhibit remarkable patience while walking you through something a step at a time. How did it end up? Pretty much where it was to begin with. Why? I've no idea! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:38 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem to have to hang on to. If you can show me evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then I will give serious consideration to your counter points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and those of others. Yes .. scripture is to be understood in the light of All other scripture so that there are no contradictions and you don't have to explain away or cut out anything - jt On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what YOU SAY, do you not? 'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will should you live for another 1,000 years. You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 -
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
You keep listening we'll keep listening who knows?...In your own fashion you are adroit in speaking/writing HOWEVER in the 'listening' department it'd appear that 'adroit' is not the word. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty I'll tell you then Lance since you don't appear to be so adept at catching on to "meaning" either. I have to hear the voice of Jesus before I will receive anything doctrinal from others. IOW, it must line up with "scripture" and as I've been saying and saying, and saying, especially this morning. You don't produce anything other than opinion and most of the time it is opinion that conflicts with scripture. Bill and John are feeding from the same source as you. As for DM, I think you and those in agreement with you are completely and utterlyreckless with regard to him. How would you know whether or not I have learned and what I have learned from him? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:50:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do not read one's MEANING well at all, Judy. I don't see you as being on a path to destruction. I see you as a well meaning, on occasion, (mis)interpreter of Scripture.YOU KNOW I'm not alone on this (on TT) Do I believe you to be teachable on this? I do not! Why? I've no idea!As far as an 'obligation' well, that's been fulfilled many times over by Bill, John and, even DM. Did you budge? You did not! Why (again)? I've no idea. Does any of this threaten your relationship with the Lord? IMO, NO! From: Judy Taylor Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. If you give your heart to a false doctrine JD, one that is cobbled together by men - and bow to that. Would you consider this to be an idol? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:52:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. cd: I perceive that your request to D.Millers is viewed as wanting a "sign" from David-The Jews also wanted a "sign" from Christ tosupportHis Claims-they were given none as we do not walk by signs but by faith. He did mention to some that the only sign given would be the sign of Jonah who died for three day and came to life. If these Jews failed to see the miracles Christ performed what other proof could Jesus give them? Try asking David to tell of his prophecies so that his light will shine and God can be given glory. I too would like to hear them to give God glory-What do you say David? Satan also asked Jesus For a sign to prove he was the son of God and he also was not given that sign. -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's fruit?Therefore I will use God measuring rod to decide truth.Thes Catholics also removed the 2nd commandment of Idolatry and divided the10th commandment (coveting)into two commandments-making ten commandments-back to our same old questionof why wouldthey remove they words in the first place? I don't believe there is idolatry in the Catholic church -- certainly not of the kind God in scripture references. jd cd: Try telling that to the next Jew you meet and see what answer he gives you?
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
We could begin perhaps by reverting to "plain speech" Lance. This would help a whole lot because IMO some here employ the Limerick syndrome (I'veheard the same complaints) which Malachy McCourt described as follows: "There was always THE STORY in any gathering in Limerick. Be it boys, girls, the men, the women. BALD FACTS WERE CONSIDERED COLD AND INHUMAN; therefore all storied events had to be wrapped in words. Warm words, serried words, glittering, poetic, harsh, and even blasphemous words" News Flash! God deals in "bald facts" and considers adding other meanings to His plain meaning anathema. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:33:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You keep listening we'll keep listening who knows?...In your own fashion you are adroit in speaking/writing HOWEVER in the 'listening' department it'd appear that 'adroit' is not the word. From: Judy Taylor I'll tell you then Lance since you don't appear to be so adept at catching on to "meaning" either. I have to hear the voice of Jesus before I will receive anything doctrinal from others. IOW, it must line up with "scripture" and as I've been saying and saying, and saying, especially this morning. You don't produce anything other than opinion and most of the time it is opinion that conflicts with scripture. Bill and John are feeding from the same source as you. As for DM, I think you and those in agreement with you are completely and utterlyreckless with regard to him. How would you know whether or not I have learned and what I have learned from him? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:50:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do not read one's MEANING well at all, Judy. I don't see you as being on a path to destruction. I see you as a well meaning, on occasion, (mis)interpreter of Scripture.YOU KNOW I'm not alone on this (on TT) Do I believe you to be teachable on this? I do not! Why? I've no idea!As far as an 'obligation' well, that's been fulfilled many times over by Bill, John and, even DM. Did you budge? You did not! Why (again)? I've no idea. Does any of this threaten your relationship with the Lord? IMO, NO! From: Judy Taylor Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems,
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is,
Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty
We ought ALL to take care regarding the mishandling of God's words, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idoloty We could begin perhaps by reverting to "plain speech" Lance. This would help a whole lot because IMO some here employ the Limerick syndrome (I'veheard the same complaints) which Malachy McCourt described as follows: "There was always THE STORY in any gathering in Limerick. Be it boys, girls, the men, the women. BALD FACTS WERE CONSIDERED COLD AND INHUMAN; therefore all storied events had to be wrapped in words. Warm words, serried words, glittering, poetic, harsh, and even blasphemous words" News Flash! God deals in "bald facts" and considers adding other meanings to His plain meaning anathema. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:33:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You keep listening we'll keep listening who knows?...In your own fashion you are adroit in speaking/writing HOWEVER in the 'listening' department it'd appear that 'adroit' is not the word. From: Judy Taylor I'll tell you then Lance since you don't appear to be so adept at catching on to "meaning" either. I have to hear the voice of Jesus before I will receive anything doctrinal from others. IOW, it must line up with "scripture" and as I've been saying and saying, and saying, especially this morning. You don't produce anything other than opinion and most of the time it is opinion that conflicts with scripture. Bill and John are feeding from the same source as you. As for DM, I think you and those in agreement with you are completely and utterlyreckless with regard to him. How would you know whether or not I have learned and what I have learned from him? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:50:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do not read one's MEANING well at all, Judy. I don't see you as being on a path to destruction. I see you as a well meaning, on occasion, (mis)interpreter of Scripture.YOU KNOW I'm not alone on this (on TT) Do I believe you to be teachable on this? I do not! Why? I've no idea!As far as an 'obligation' well, that's been fulfilled many times over by Bill, John and, even DM. Did you budge? You did not! Why (again)? I've no idea. Does any of this threaten your relationship with the Lord? IMO, NO! From: Judy Taylor Lance, I think you must be an expert on misapprehension in others because this is what you speak about more than anything else. If you believe that I an wresting the scriptures to my own destruction then you have a God given obligation to straighten me out - BY THE SCRIPTURES. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ''Deceived people don't know they are deceived' Is it in any way possible that YOU ARE DECEIVED, Judy? Deception carries with it a particular meaning. Misapprehension carries with it a different meaning. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one.jd Catholics or members of the rcc are taught that the ONLY way to heaven is through the Roman system so they are deceived right up front; they may not "think" of their statues and dead saints as idols but this does not mean that they are not. Deceived ppl don't know they are deceived. Even the Pope John Paul II revered Mary and prayed to the Black Madonna. cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Pray TO? Pray THROUGH? IMO, there is a distinction. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:48 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:52:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. cd: I perceive that your request to D.Millers is viewed as wanting a "sign" from David-The Jews also wanted a "sign" from Christ tosupportHis Claims-they were given none as we do not walk by signs but by faith. He did mention to some that
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: I believe the difficulties arise from you misconception that I am disagree with John's statements-I am not. I am/was attempting to add to what John had written-Giving him my point of view so to speak-for what that is worth :-) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 11:23:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Pray through whom? There is only ONE mediator between God and man. Yet the rcc sanctions the rosary where ppl chant over and over and over "Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" So what is THAT all about? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:59:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pray TO? Pray THROUGH? IMO, there is a distinction. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. cd: I perceive that your request to D.Millers is viewed as wanting a "sign" from David-The Jews also wanted a "sign" from Christ tosupportHis Claims-they were given none as we do not walk by signs but by faith. He did mention to some that the only sign given would be the sign of Jonah who died for three day and came to life. If these Jews failed to see the miracles Christ performed what
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
This is but SPECULATION on my part but, 'the great cloud of witnesses' MAY be doing something other than watching. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:09 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Pray through whom? There is only ONE mediator between God and man. Yet the rcc sanctions the rosary where ppl chant over and over and over "Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" So what is THAT all about? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:59:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pray TO? Pray THROUGH? IMO, there is a distinction. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
FWIW, I do believe that this describes YOU. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 8:59:34 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Pray TO? Pray THROUGH? IMO, there is a distinction. cd: No, they are the same as the only way to the father is through Jesus Christ-He is the mediator no other-If you Lance see a distinction-pleaseenlighten us ofthat distinction? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:48 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:52:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. cd: I perceive that your request to D.Millers is viewed as wanting a "sign" from David-The Jews also wanted a "sign" from Christ tosupportHis Claims-they were given none as we do not walk by signs but by faith. He did mention to some that the only sign given would be the sign of Jonah who died for three day and came to life. If these Jews failed to see the miracles Christ performed what other proof could Jesus give them? Try asking David to tell of his prophecies so that his light will shine and God can be given glory. I too would like to hear them to give God glory-What do you say David? Satan also asked Jesus For a sign to prove he was the son of God and he also was not given that sign. -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:44:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd cd: What type of bat and what do you plan to do with this bat-shouldI be concernedof answering my door? I Should have kept the wolf/ dog. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to bea qualitatively greater revelation thanyour 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT)confidently commentscreatively onnecessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect)disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you(two cult-apostles like DavidM)would have to say about it is that he (too)rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Ever learning and never...etc. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
I did in another post. No point in repeating. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:24 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 8:59:34 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Pray TO? Pray THROUGH? IMO, there is a distinction. cd: No, they are the same as the only way to the father is through Jesus Christ-He is the mediator no other-If you Lance see a distinction-pleaseenlighten us ofthat distinction? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:48 Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:52:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please
DAVEH: Most of my interactions with him have been via TT since it's birth, though I've recently had the opportunity to chat with DavidM on the phone for about an hour recently, which certainly has added immeasurably to my understanding of him, in a personal sense. I don't see him in the same amorphous light you do though, Lance. If anything, I have the opposite view. Perhaps you are thinking that because he is so tolerant of others' views, that it appears he changes his beliefs when he doesn't respond vehemently against those things that he does not accept. Ormaybe when he rarely does respond harsher (or, in a different way) to some, than to othersit gives you the impression that he is two-faced. I guess I'm not quite sure what you find to not like about DMsometimes I'm rather naive and prefer to think the best of people. That isn't to say I'm perfect in that respect.I've got my foibles, and am trying to climb above them. Care to walk that path with me, Lance? Lance Muir wrote: DH:I'm assuming that you, like myself, have never gotten to know DM personally. Therefore, we've only got TT when it comes to 'reading' him(pun intended) I've found him amorphous in nature, even chameleon like.I tend to respond to 'the DM' I read during his infrequent visits to TT. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 23:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care. DAVEH: Which is why I'm chatting with you about this, Lance. Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one another DAVEH: I would like to think that fact does not justify its continuation. These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family members DAVEH: I've certainly mentioned my observation of a double standard in TT before. Though I let it justify my subsequent posts, in retrospect I regret having made that justification, as it lowered myself, rather than lifted anotheras I think the Lord would preferred. DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf. DAVEH: I suspect DM appreciates and loves each and every TTer for a variety of reasons, each for perhaps a different reason. Being the black sheep of TT, I doubt that I really fit into anybody's family here..but I don't think DM would want to exclude me for being different, so to speak. Though one does not necessarily have to appreciate another, IMHO.one should respect another. As you know, that is one of my weaknesses, which I intend to work on during my tenure in TT. Perhaps we can travel that journey together, Lance. Lance Muir wrote: Conclusion...eh? People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care. Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one another. These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family members. Therefore, DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 01:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please DAVEH: FWIW...While it may be mild, it strikes me as being in the realm of an ad-hom. And, whether or not it is true..I do no see it as pertinent to whether or not it is an ad-hom. However Lance..I've made similar errors of judgment in the past, so I probably should not be the one to point out yours. Lance Muir wrote: I draw the line, Dave, where that which is said does not describe the one being spoken to. 'Pompous ass' is pretty mild stuff. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please You were simply described. DAVEH: Lance, may I ask you where you draw the line on an ad-hom? Is it possible describing somebody as a pompous ass to ever be an ad-hom in your opinion? Lance Muir wrote: YOU WERE NOT INSULTED, DAVIDM! You were simply described. An _expression_ was employed that is no worse than 'brain fart'. Cool it, oh defensive one! -
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 10:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with
Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please
I recommend idealism from ages 13-25. Thereafter, should the idealism remain, you're out of touch with reality, DH, so NO I do not care to walk that path with you. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 10:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please DAVEH: Most of my interactions with him have been via TT since it's birth, though I've recently had the opportunity to chat with DavidM on the phone for about an hour recently, which certainly has added immeasurably to my understanding of him, in a personal sense. I don't see him in the same amorphous light you do though, Lance. If anything, I have the opposite view. Perhaps you are thinking that because he is so tolerant of others' views, that it appears he changes his beliefs when he doesn't respond vehemently against those things that he does not accept. Ormaybe when he rarely does respond harsher (or, in a different way) to some, than to othersit gives you the impression that he is two-faced. I guess I'm not quite sure what you find to not like about DMsometimes I'm rather naive and prefer to think the best of people. That isn't to say I'm perfect in that respect.I've got my foibles, and am trying to climb above them. Care to walk that path with me, Lance?Lance Muir wrote: DH:I'm assuming that you, like myself, have never gotten to know DM personally. Therefore, we've only got TT when it comes to 'reading' him(pun intended) I've found him amorphous in nature, even chameleon like.I tend to respond to 'the DM' I read during his infrequent visits to TT. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 23:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care.DAVEH: Which is why I'm chatting with you about this, Lance.Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one anotherDAVEH: I would like to think that fact does not justify its continuation.These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family membersDAVEH: I've certainly mentioned my observation of a double standard in TT before. Though I let it justify my subsequent posts, in retrospect I regret having made that justification, as it lowered myself, rather than lifted anotheras I think the Lord would preferred.DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf.DAVEH: I suspect DM appreciates and loves each and every TTer for a variety of reasons, each for perhaps a different reason. Being the black sheep of TT, I doubt that I really fit into anybody's family here..but I don't think DM would want to exclude me for being different, so to speak. Though one does not necessarily have to appreciate another, IMHO.one should respect another. As you know, that is one of my weaknesses, which I intend to work on during my tenure in TT. Perhaps we can travel that journey together, Lance.Lance Muir wrote: Conclusion...eh? People, understandably, intervene on behalf of those for whom they care. Family members may speak harshly, on occasion, to one another. These same family members may not permit the same liberty to non-family members. Therefore, DM should appreciate you, one whome he apparently sees as a family member, speaking on his behalf. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 05, 2006 01:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please DAVEH: FWIW...While it may be mild, it strikes me as being in the realm of an ad-hom. And, whether or not it is true..I do no see it as pertinent to whether or not it is an ad-hom. However Lance..I've made similar errors of judgment in the past, so I probably should not be the one to point out yours.Lance Muir wrote: I draw the line, Dave, where that which is said does not describe the one being spoken to. 'Pompous ass' is pretty mild stuff. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:38:57 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. cd: John what I meant by stating:" You on the other hand are a different matter entirely"in the last couple of sentences is that you view /search thing differently then I . I just accept things at some point in my search ESP when I realize there aresome things will never be understood while in this flesh.-you go deeper with the why/how -I think but realize I also searched this long and hard many times thur the years.I think I am saying I have rest with Christ being God you want more-make sense?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 13:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 14:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
[TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:18:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. cd: Speaking of myself-for what that is worth-I have found that prayer helps as God has to impart wisdombut I have concluded thatHe doesn't force this wisdom on those who don't want it in the first place. Trying different approaches may also help-this seems to keep Satan on his toes-we wouldn't want him to become bored now would we:-)The hardest thing for any Christian to do is place self in the background as I find myself to have a false sense of importance and often become blind to someone more important-the other person-Jesus clearly kept that in proper perspective-may God help me do the same.. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 14:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
RE: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:41:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect. cd: Nor do I take offence lance- When I first met Judy wedebated ( a lot more passionately than you and her ever have) over many of the same Issues I debate with most of you guys-God showed her truth while I was gone -now we agree.Paul said in Jude 22,23: And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.Both Judy and I have that compassion as we come back for more. The secret I am trying to learn-is to look past angerand find the fear for the soul of those deceived -in order to do that self must die-and I believe that then one will see results.Adding fear to prayer worked for Christ should do the same for us..
Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
Thanks, Dean, for your response(s). Lance - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 17:33 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:41:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect. cd: Nor do I take offence lance- When I first met Judy wedebated ( a lot more passionately than you and her ever have) over many of the same Issues I debate with most of you guys-God showed her truth while I was gone -now we agree.Paul said in Jude 22,23: And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.Both Judy and I have that compassion as we come back for more. The secret I am trying to learn-is to look past angerand find the fear for the soul of those deceived -in order to do that self must die-and I believe that then one will see results.Adding fear to prayer worked for Christ should do the same for us..
[TruthTalk] ** moderator comment **
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... cult-apostles like DavidM... Gary, your calling DM a cult-apostle is a direct attack on him. He does not claim to be an apostle, and adding cult to that erroneous label makes it an ad-hominem reference. I encourage you to retract that ad-hominem reference and ask you to refrain from using such references in the future. Perry -- 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] Christ as the incarnate God
Oh, so other people's opinions don't bother you either and you don't mind the fact that this list which is titled Truth Talk has turned into an "opinion list"? Oh well!! Have it your way. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:42:51 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. From: Judy Taylor There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Lord forbid! The blind leading the blind. Opinion then, is your forte because everyone has one even cultists and non-believers and a person's opinion would never be a Rock of offense. One would never be persecuted over that now would they? You have not seen me budge because I have as yet, no reason to let go of the certain for the obscure. Blowing smoke huh?? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:18:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. From: Dean Moore Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
Could be for the same reasons Lance, Has it ever occured to youand your little coterie may not haveALL Truth cornered just yet? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:41:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect.
Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
It has and we don't. I've never thought so. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 16:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... Could be for the same reasons Lance, Has it ever occured to youand your little coterie may not haveALL Truth cornered just yet? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:41:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection.......
cd: You are welcome Lance. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 6:00:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... Thanks, Dean, for your response(s). Lance - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 17:33 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:41:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Upon further reflection... I mean no offence to either JT or DM in my 'non-engagement' post. IMHO,neither has been seen to have altered their understanding on any issue of substance since I've been on TT. Debbie, Caroline, Bill and, John have made concerted efforts to no effect. cd: Nor do I take offence lance- When I first met Judy wedebated ( a lot more passionately than you and her ever have) over many of the same Issues I debate with most of you guys-God showed her truth while I was gone -now we agree.Paul said in Jude 22,23: And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.Both Judy and I have that compassion as we come back for more. The secret I am trying to learn-is to look past angerand find the fear for the soul of those deceived -in order to do that self must die-and I believe that then one will see results.Adding fear to prayer worked for Christ should do the same for us..
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Hi, Dean. You seem to beadding a correction of sorts to what I said. I certainly believe Christ to be the Son of God and , thus, God. I hope you do not misunderstand my point. In the end, I believe that this verse is saying that Christ reconciled all things unto Himself -- proving that He is, indeed, God. Interesting quote from A Clark, however. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Cool. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God cd: I believe the difficulties arise from you misconception that I am disagree with John's statements-I am not. I am/was attempting to add to what John had written-Giving him my point of view so to speak-for what that is worth :-) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 11:23:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From:
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean. Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body !! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade level. and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot, or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were not made to justreceive. They were not made to thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is "what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His presense, why not His Word ??? My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said "yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38 years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience as I study this book and a truth jumps out and hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years apart but making perfect sense as you read them together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the centuries." And so I study and share and my son nods his head And, hopefully Dad has scored one for th e Kipper !! No more noble an effort on my part than what you do with the Word in your world. Some of your methods are disagreeable to me. But you get this same thrill (I assume) not so much as you studybut as you reach out in ministry -- Street PreacherStyle. Our functions are different but the passion is of the same source. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:38:57 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. cd: John what I meant by stating:" You on the other hand are a different matter entirely"in the last couple of sentences is that you view /search thing differently then I . I just accept things at some point in my search ESP when I realize there aresome things will never be understood while in this flesh.-you go deeper with the why/how -I think but realize I also searched this long and hard many times thur the years.I think I am saying I have rest with Christ being God you want more-make sense?
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Awesome !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. Hoping to help. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:28:58 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Emmanuel means "God with us" 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:28:58 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. Fine -- but I do take him seriously. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry
kidding, of course. Actually, I am going to use the bat at the local batting cages. The closest thing to physical excercise that I really want to get, in my old age. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:44:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd cd: What type of bat and what do you plan to do with this bat-shouldI be concernedof answering my door? I Should have kept the wolf/ dog. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to bea qualitatively greater revelation thanyour 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT)confidently commentscreatively onnecessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect)disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you(two cult-apostles like DavidM)would have to say about it is that he (too)rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Catholics and Idols (to Dean)
How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? An idol is both an object and a concept. It is of man's own creation, on both counts. And it takes one away from the true and Living God. All three circumstances must be in demonstration, as far as I am concerned. Nothing in the Catholic church is designed to take one away from the Christian God. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:52:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk Sent: 1/5/2006 10:13:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Do Catholics think of these statues as "idols.?" Are they not expressions of their faith in God and His Christ? None of the idols of the Message were attached to the Living God. The compaison, Dean, that you make is not a biblical one. jd cd: John this message was in my drafts folder-so I sent it today not intending to rehash old augments by preaching the old gospel in modern times but to enlighten as the old gospel has never changed. I disagree as if is very biblical. It doesn't matter what the catholics"think of these statues" Not true. I have a picture of "Jesus " in our family Bible. Is that an "idol?" Of course not. And why -- because I say so !!! I decide if an idol is a god or not. That is precisely what is wrong with an idal. I am the one who decides itto be"a god." Catholics use statues as "objects lessons" as they function and communicate with God. The RCC is a Christian Church -- with a lot of problems, admittedly. They are wonderfull people and full of faith. cd: John an Idol is something one prays to or worships that is forbidden. To pray to the Jesus in your familybible is not forbidden.Paul,in Romans 1:18-25, teaches that idolatry is not the first stage of religion,from which man by an evolutionary process emerges to monotheism, but is the result of deliberate religious apostasy (ie. The Compact Bible Dictionary). I do realize that there are Christian with much faith within the RCC but these people will be known by their resistance to sin that is taught in the RCC such as Idolatry. How do you define Idolatry John? If you are the one whom decides whatIdol is or is not-what do you do with God's definition of what an idol is? what matters is what God said.- the act of bowing down and praying to someone other that God/ Christ- is idolatry. Exod.20: 4 Good quote.When was the last time you saw a Catholic bow down to a false God? You really do not know what you are talking about, here. cd: John I do know of which I am speaking-I have heard CC members pray to Mary-and have spoken to students on College campus who "pray to the saints". My response to them is how do you know that these saints even went to heaven? Could you be praying to someone who dwells in Hell? I then showthose studentsthe 2nd commandment with the instruction to worship God only-thru Christ. I then compare Mary to John the Baptist-whom was greatest among men and nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray to John the Baptist. Respectfully, you have much to learn of the RCC and the Bible. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or that is in the earth beneath,... thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord am a jealous God. St John didn't know he was doing wrong by bowing to a angel but was also corrected- Rev 19:10 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor Idolatersshall inherit the kingdom of God. As concerning the faith of the catholics-Arn't we told to test faith by works Therearefew on this sitewhobelieves in testing the sprits. Everythime I ask DM for some kind of evidence, some kind of verification for his claim to be an apostle and a prophet - I get silence. cd: I perceive that your request to D.Millers is viewed as wanting a "sign" from David-The Jews also wanted a "sign" from Christ tosupportHis Claims-they were given none as we do not walk by signs but by faith. He did mention to some that the only sign given would be the sign of Jonah who died for three day and came to life. If these Jews failed to see the miracles Christ performed what other proof could Jesus give them? Try asking David to tell of his prophecies so that his light will shine and God can be given glory. I too would like to hear them to give God glory-What do you say David? Satan also asked Jesus For a sign to prove he was the son of God and he also was not given that sign. -and every man was judged by their works Rev:20;13? Or a tree by it's
Re: [TruthTalk] ** moderator comment **
no one here claims to be a swine--does he feel like onea them, too? doubtful, but, ifso, you can tell himwe're feelg his pain chalk it up to limbaugh love, Bro! On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:12:09 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:|| Hedoesnot claim to be an apostle..an ad-hominem reference. ||
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy)
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Certainly that is true. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? ah, you miss my point. If Christ pre-existed "Sonship," then He was adopted as a son. If my son, James, lived as James Taylor and then, became my son, adoption is the only way that happens. You argue the point because you know that adoption is never applied to Christ, yet you believe that He existed as Not The Son (remember "not the momma?") prior to becoming the Son -- ala adoption via virgin birth, apparently. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD I probably have had the Spirit longer than you, my dear -- I think I am older than you. I was certainly more prolific than you. jd From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy)
. . .my dear -- I think I am older than you. I have no way of knowing, for sure, but my hunch is that you are not. I am pretty sure that John is sixty. Is that right, John? How old are you, Judy? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Certainly that is true. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? ah, you miss my point. If Christ pre-existed "Sonship," then He was adopted as a son. If my son, James, lived as James Taylor and then, became my son, adoption is the only way that happens. You argue the point because you know that adoption is never applied to Christ, yet you believe that He existed as Not The Son (remember "not the momma?") prior to becoming the Son -- ala adoption via virgin birth, apparently. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD I probably have had the Spirit longer than you, my dear -- I think I am older than you. I was certainly more prolific than you. jd From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. No, Dean, all is well. I had misunderstood your intentions in that first post. Yours is good stuff --and helpful, too. Thanks. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Awesome !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy)
60 -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . .my dear -- I think I am older than you. I have no way of knowing, for sure, but my hunch is that you are not. I am pretty sure that John is sixty. Is that right, John? How old are you, Judy? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Certainly that is true. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? ah, you miss my point. If Christ pre-existed "Sonship," then He was adopted as a son. If my son, James, lived as James Taylor and then, became my son, adoption is the only way that happens. You argue the point because you know that adoption is never applied to Christ, yet you believe that He existed as Not The Son (remember "not the momma?") prior to becoming the Son -- ala adoption via virgin birth, apparently. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD I probably have had the Spirit longer than you, my dear -- I think I am older than you. I was certainly more prolific than you. jd From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry
Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT)confidently commentscreatively onnecessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect)disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you(two cult-apostles like DavidM)would have to say about it is that he (too)rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
couple of thoughts, Dean. I do not think we disagree at all on point #4. The union that is the being we know as Jesus (Son of God, Son of Man) is not possible without the function of humility (Philip 2) and that is what you are talking bout at #4. You make a timely addition to what I said. I fully agree with you on this. Your comment at #5 -- could you explain this. I think I see your point, but not sure. At #6, there are those who believe that He was a son of God as we are. This confession of Peter's lays taht to rest because the confession and the truth of the confession are the product of revelation (flesh and blood has not revealed ..) If Jesus is only a son , revelation is not necessary. I beleive that "Son of God" meant that He was God. -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. No, Dean, all is well. I had misunderstood your intentions in that first post. Yours is good stuff --and helpful, too. Thanks. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Awesome !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the
Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please
interestg On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 07:31:27 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [i] had the opportunity to chat with DavidM on the phone for about an hour recently, which certainly has added immeasurably to my understanding of him, in a personal sense. I don't see him in the same amorphous light you do though, Lance. If anything, I have the opposite view.
