Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"

[Judy Taylor]

Where was he when you wrote about my response that confused Dean with Lance:   Perhaps that is why it was so civil.   and when I wrote that your comment was "nasty and uncalled for" you replied:   Yeah, but is it true?       On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:52:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Where IS that interim moderator now? ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 16, 2006 11:33 Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"   Possibly "your truth" Bill which is totally alien to what I would call it - makes me wonder what kind of christianity you adhere to.   On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:30:38 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Yeah, but is it true? From: Judy Taylor   This is a nasty comment and totally uncalled for Bill   On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:01:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:   No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members of the trinity all have a body a soul and a spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his books (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that had been sold already.   cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to say "No Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not mine.   Perhaps that is why it was so civil. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:21 AM Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"       ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/16/2006 8:37:32 AM Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members of the trinity all have a body a soul and a spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his books (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that had been sold already. cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to say "No Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not mine.   On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please check your sources on this, Judy. I believe he claimed to be speaking under 'inspiration'.  From: Judy Taylor   Benny Hinn was quoting another source and from what I understand he repented of this error. so you'll need to find a more up to date one than this. A good illustration of the value of repentance for both lost and for those being saved......   Benny Hinn, another 'inspired' teacher/evangelist, once said that each of the Father, Son and Spirit was a trinity and thus, nine Gods. He also finds himself clever in the questions he puts forward to his hearers.   ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: January 15, 2006 23:10 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"     > The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume Three.  What do you > do > with texts that speak about the Seven Spirits of God? > > David Miller. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" > > > I do not agree.  "Trinity" is as much a translation of the concept of > "divine essence" as is "godhead"  but for theological and contextual > reasons.  Call it philosophy if you will.  The inclusion of "trinity" is a > sound choice if it , in fact,  arises from a point of truth.   Equivalency > is a word that figures into my discussion.  I am sure you unders tand the > implication. > > jd > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a transliteration. It >> is >> a word of philosophers, a word constructed by theologians, and it is a >> philosophically loaded word. The various words of the Greek language that >> have been translated "Godhead" have at their root the word "theos," and >> therefore, "Godhead" is an appropriate translation whereas "Trinity" is >> not. >> The root for "three" is not found in the Greek language for this word. >> >> David Miller >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:08 PM >> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" >> >> >> Your response has nothing to do with my comments, near as I can see. >> My point is this: every English word in our bible is "added " to the >> original text. so you like godhead" and I like "trinity." They are both >> translations of the orgiinal word and/or thought. >> >> jd >> >> -------------- Original message -------------- >> From: Judy Taylor >> >> Here we go again - And who is the one who denied staking everything on >> translational and Gk >> arguments - very, very, recently?. judyt >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:47 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language" >> >& gt; gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy >> >> All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical." >> "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor >> "trinity " in the place of "Godhead." >> >> Our translations are copies of the original tex t (as best as we can >> reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in biblical >> history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the >> English >> translations. >> >> To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about >> nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has >> to read "godhead" or "divine nature." >> >> jd >> >> >> >> >> -------------- Original message -------------- >> From: "Lance Muir" >> >> On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO J esus is: >> Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under >> discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. >> >> May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline >> their >> own position on this. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Judy Taylor >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 >> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS >> NOT >> DIVINE >> >> >> I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling >> "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? >> Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms >> someone has come up with. Could this > ;> be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" >> writes: >> Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place >> between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this >> post >> by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of >> the >> Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. >> (i.e. >> godliness) >> >> >> ----- Original Messag e ----- >> From: Taylor >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity >> >> >> BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much >> as >> it is a unity: the unifying >> love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and H oly Spirit. >> >> >> DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..........The >> oneness of God is therefore........Father, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. >> >> Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way >> that >> Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity >> of >> Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the >> humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship >> and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because >> of >> the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with h is >> divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, >> the >> oneness of God. >> >> Good question, though, >> >> Bill >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Dave Hansen >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity >> >> >> >> .........Does that work in your theological paradigm? >> >> Taylor wrote: >> Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many >> people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest >> human >> _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that >> would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has >> been >> from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which >> exists >> between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy >> Spirit. The oneness of God is th erefore not a number nearly so much as >> it >> is >> a unity: the unifying > ;> love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. >> >> Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. >> >> Bill >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 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. >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> ---------- >> "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 wi ll be unsubscribed. If you have a >> friend >> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and >> he will be subscribed. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. >     ---------- "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.     -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.   -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.