Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[knpraise]

If this argument was from another,  I would know you were kidding. 

Your are now offering "Bible notes" as proof of your position????   Your are so incredibly inconsistent as to startling.   Hey guys  !!!   Dakes has now been offered as Judy's theological positioning !!!!!!

 

Let me know when you come up with a biblical answer. 

 

Jd 

 

 

 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:53:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

My ideas??  Tell me you are joking JD.  Don't you have any Bibles with notes?  I have many of them along with

Dakes and most all of them make this connection.  If Adam's fall acaused all creation to come under the curse whether

or not they sinned (ie the earth, animals, etc.) Then wouldn't you expect something cataclysmic such as this to take place?

Unless you just want to be difficult and different.  jt

 

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:04:11 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:

Conjecture -- Judy.   If one says that He became sin on our behalf and another argues whatever you believe,  the darkness you speak of does not demand that we believe one or the other.   And so, we have to depend upon your expertise.  I will stick with biblical statement.  Your theories do not rise that level. JD 

 

From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>

 

If you don't see it there is something badly wrong with your eyesight JD.

The light of the world was extinguished and it was pitch black for three hours

followed by an earthquake and the veil at the temple rent from top to bottom.

Even Mel Gibson got that right.  jt

 

 

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:52:03 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:

Nothing in that passage,  Judy.   The fact that he bore our sins, or that He became sin is not the same as taking on our Adamic and fallen nature, as you put it.  Give us some scripture or, at least admit, that your thinking is an opinion  and not a biblical teaching, per se.  Jd 

 

From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>

 

Matthew 27:45-54

 

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 16:05:11 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:

Judy wrote  >  It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked.

 

Hi Judy. You've made this claim on numerous occasions: Can you tell me where exactly in Scripture it is stated? Bill

 

From: Judy Taylor

 

 

How nice that you are thinking about my well being JD .. I appreciate the thought

Only you had better get your belief system together and study to learn what sin is

all about because when the light comes on you will be horrified that you ever

believed and taught others that Jesus the pure and holy son of God was ever an

evil carnal fleshly human born with a fallen Adamic nature just like you.  

 

This was not a requirement for Him to overcome in the 3 areas where A&E failed.

It can be truly said that he took our fallen natures upon Himself at Calvary from

noon to 3 p.m. when everything went black and the earth quaked. This is the only

time ever that there was a breach between Him and God the Father. This should

be evidence enough of how God views sin.  It is not individual acts alone, it is us.

Our old unregenerate darkened heart.   judyt

 

 

 

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:10:37 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:
A good reread for Judy.   JD


From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Judy.  I would like to continue our dialogue about the humanity of Jesus.

 

We discussed Romans 8:3 before.

 

Romans 8:2-4
(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from
the law of sin and death.
(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh:
(4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

In past discussion, you say that the word "likeness" here means like but not
the same as.  I pointed out how this same word is used in Phil. 2:7 where it
says he was made in the likeness of men.  In this Philippians passage, I
would not argue that Jesus is similar to a man in appearance but is not
really a man.  I believe that you had agreed with me that Jesus was indeed
truly a man.

 

So although the word "likeness" might mean what you say, not the same as but
only a superficial resemblance, it also could mean the in the form of.  If
he came in the likeness of men, he was a man, and if he came in the likeness
of sinful flesh, then he had sinful, corruptible flesh.  My question to you
is this.  Is it possible for the passage to mean this when taken alone?  I'm
not asking if you agree that it means this right now.  I am only asking you
if this is a possible interpretation of this passage if nothing else were
considered?  I am wondering if I would show you from other passages in the
Bible that this is how this passage should be read, if it might be possible
for you to change your mind about how you presently interpret this word
"likeness."

 

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

 

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

 

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