Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

[Kevin Deegan]

Excelent question Judy.

Will silence be golden again?

Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What I said is that the incarnation happened and is a fact historically. Making this doctrine as huge as it has become for some is a "teaching of man"  There is no indication that Paul or any of the apostles majored on the incarnation;  Paul preached the cross of Christ himself and he spoke about the "Preaching of the cross" (1 Cor 1:18); the "offense of the cross" (Gal 5:11); having to "suffer persecution for the cross" (Gal 6:12); and of some being "enemies of the cross" (Phil 3:18).  Can you show me somewhere in the NT where a Church leader is preaching the "incarnation?"  jt

 

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:20:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I am confused.   I thought you said that the incarnation doctrine was a teaching of man  -  now, it appears that you do have a place for it.  Let me say this  --   the Incarnation story is the story of Jesus and all that He did and all that He is.    He is the one who said "I am the first and last."   If you are the first one in line and the last  --  all at the same time, you are the ONLY ONE in line.   There is nothing else going on other than Jesus.   He indwells my life, convicts me of sin,  and patiently waits on me to be what He lovingly wants me to be.   You call this heresy  --   I call it the truth.  AND,  I believe it is the truth in YOUR LIFE, WHETHER YOU CARE TO ADMIT IT OR NOT.    JD

 

 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Noone is denying that the "incarnation" has a place; but that is all.  It is not the "whole enchilada" as the saying goes. Believing that Jesus fulfilled the law and did it all and is sitting up there in heaven "perfect" is not going to do anything for you so long as you are down here overcome by sin and weakness.  Please explain to me how your doctrine of the "incarnation" leads you into godliness and holiness?  jt

 

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:39:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To deny the Incarnation is to be an atheist  or something close to that understanding.  JD 

 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You are going to reduce God to the "incarnation" - incredulous!!  Just proves you don't know the scriptures or the power of God.  This has got to be how all the rcc traditional nonsense got started.  jt

 

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:26:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Very good point  !!!   It is that which gives compliment to all else.   Very good point !! JD 

 

From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Jt says 'it (heuristic) has nothing to do with Scripture.' The Incarnation, IMO, is heuristic.

From: Judy Taylor

 

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:25:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

jt JD you are disingenious from the start.  While claiming to be a pastor and not a theologian you title this little rant against God's Word 'A heuristic consideration' which is 'theological' - The word isn't even found in a regular dictionary

 

JD: so the word is poorly chosen because it is not in one of your "regular dictionaries?"   I have a Websters and and a Cambridge dictionary and the word appears in both.  We, all of us who study the biblical message,  are putting scripture together in an effort to make the Message work for us with the least amount of problems.  "Heuristic' has to do with that very process. 

 

jt: Actually I found a larger dictionary with the word in it - still it has nothing to do with understanding scripture.  It is from German heuristisch ie: helping to discover or learn, specif. designating a method of education or of computer programming in which the pupil or machine proceeds along empirical lines using rules of thumb to find solutions or answers.  This has nothing to do with Holy Spirit revelation  and would not be understood by ordinary every day sheep (the ones God calls). 

 

JD: Apparently you are upset that I did not include myself as being a theologian.&n bsp;  Thank you but, alas,  I am a lowly pastor and nothing more.   

 

jt: Has God put you in a position to care for and be an example to part of His flock?  How can you shepherd anyone or be an example to others of how to follow Christ when you are not walking in the light yourself?  You have legalized God's Word and made it into something it was never meant to be while ATST embracing an entirely opportunistic message for yourself. 

 

JD: Honestly,  I have no idea what this last sentence means. 

 

jt: In all of your anthropological considerations have you ever wondered why only 8 persons were saved through the flood the first time and why Jesus brings this up in Matt 24:38,39?  God was so pleased with 99.9% of the world population that he destroyed them all.  You and Lance remind me of the Jews who clung to the fact that they were 'Abraham's seed' and that was going to save them.  You can quote your 'incarnation' doctrine all over the place but if you do not have fruit in your life meet for repentance - you will wind up in the same shape as them.  As for the things written aforetime (which includes all of God's laws, statutes, and commandments); they were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.  You can throw them out if you like.  As for me I believe "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" and my soul needs  converting every day until it is completely conformed to the image of Christ.

 

JD: And that is fine.   I cannot ignore the comments in Romans 2-5 nor the entire letter to the Galatians on this subject.  

 

jt: The entire letter to the Galatians has to do with Jewish legalism and Romans 2 is not teaching that the

unregenerate have God's Law written on their hearts JD. We have been over this before.  Everyone in the whole world is not immediately born again because Jesus was born in a flesh body, died, and rose from the dead historically.

 

My comments below constitute a substantive consideration that would best be rebutted with equally substantive comments.    Emotionalism and judgmentalism  are not appropriate responses to argumentation.   Such is the reasoning of a lynch mob  --  not a student in a discussion forum.  I will be glad to consider any biblical or philosophical argument you may wish to share.   JD

 

 

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:38:05 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

A Heuristic Consideration

 

The scriptures I have seen used to support the Law are scriptures written to and for and by the Jews on that subject.   The Law is a late date administration coming hundreds if not thousands of years after the creation event.    When it was presented to "mankind,"  it was given to an extremely small part of "mankind."    The Old Testament is not the story (IMO)  of the people of God verses the condemned.  Rather, it is the story of the people of God AS DEFINED BY THE MOSICAL COVENANT exclusive of any other anthropological consideration.    There is no reason to believe that the rest of mankind is lost and hell bound because they were not Jewish.  In fact, in Romans 2 gives us a little insight int o just how things may have worked for the 90% of humanity who were never given the Law.  Paul makes it clear  (I believe) that th e purpose of the Law was best seen in the fact that it served as a tutor until the coming of Christ................. who, in turn, reconciled the 10% (the Jew) with the 90% (everyone else on earth).   

 

Perhaps I have not stated things as accurately as I might  -  being a pastor and not a theologian.  But the above needs to be considered as we formulate our opinions on The Law.  

 

JD 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football