Which part of the Jesus I believe in
is not according to scripture Bill?
All of him.
What makes Him impotent in your
opinion?
He is neither God nor
man, but something less than the former* and greater than the latter**; hence he
is unrelated to both and therefore irrelevant, just an idol you
worship.
* Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which Judy responded, "How
can the Father be greater than God Himself?" (Monday, January 02,
2006)
** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that Jesus
is fully human ... and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, January
16, 2006)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE
HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Which part of the Jesus I believe in is
not according to scripture Bill?
What makes Him impotent in your opinion?
David,
I am not saying that the Jesus I believe in -- that is,
the Jesus of Scripture -- cannot save her,
or that she is not saved by that same Jesus. I am saying that the Jesus she describes cannot save her,
as he is impotent to save her or
anyone else, and if it were true what she says about the hybrid she
believes in,
we are all doomed.
And so my apologies for not being more specific. I can see
where you misunderstood me.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY
OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
> Judy wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything earthy about him.
> >> Temptation
or no temptation.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > ... then you are
still in your sins and you
> > do not have a Savior.
>
> I would have to disagree with you here, Bill. Such would make
salvation
> dependent upon her intellectual understanding.
>
> It seems to me that Judy knows her Savior. She just does not
understand the
> aspects of humanity about him that we are now
discussing. Nevertheless, she
> has placed faith in him,
despite this, and she knows him well enough through
> the Spirit to
have experienced the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Taylor
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday,
January 16, 2006 4:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
> I don't see anything earthy about him. Temptation or no
temptation.
>
> Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and
you do not have a Savior.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday,
January 16, 2006 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath
of God
> Bill
> and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a
curse along with the rest of
> creation Bill
> Which is spelled
out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to
>
institute a
> "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second
Adam. The first Adam
> is earthy or of the earthy (as we
are). The Second Adam is the Lord from
> heaven.
>
> Your gospel is inverted Bill. It is not Jesus who takes on
our likeness
> although he
> passed in all the areas where the
first Adam failed; and was without sin
> where we
> are for the
most part loaded down with it. Read 1 Cor 15:42-52. Sounds to
> me
> like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. I
don't see anything earthy
> about
> him. Temptation or no
temptation.
>
>
>
> From: Taylor
>
>
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he
have
> been like the
> first Adam before the fall, ...
>
> Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved
Judy. We do.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday,
January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so there is
no way that this would be the same concept Bill.
>
> Why is
that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen
>
1.26).
>
> Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature
and character
> spiritually - which "likeness"
> Adam forfeited
when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the
> wrong
fruit.
>
> Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this
world by procreation in
> the likeness of
> the first Adam
rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
>
> The only possible
way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is
> to
become
> conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole
purpose for His
> coming
> and His willingness to lay down His
human life as a perfect sacrifice in our
> place.
>
>
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been
> born in the image
> of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me
what would be wrong, then, with
> killing someone who
> was no
longer created in God's image, but in Adam's),
>
> At the
beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found
>
grace is starting
> over even though it didn't take too many
generations for the whole of
> humanity (all but 8 ppl)
> to be
destroyed. I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a
> bunch of devils.
>
> Judy, I fail to understand why
that should even prevent Christ from being
> united in his
person,
> his humanness with his divinity.
>
> I
understand. It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is
> something God hates.
>
> The only thing which could
have severed that union was the one thing which
> he did not
do:
> sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had
indeed produced
> schizophrenia
> in the relationship between
humanity and God.
>
> Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US
in every way? Why couldn't he have
> been like the
>
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created? Jesus was not
exactly
> procreated like
> us since he had no human father so
that must mess up your thesis at least a
> little.
>
>
And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced this
> reconciliation; for what
> he would have done in a flesh
unlike our own would have had no bearing upon
> human flesh,
>
and we would therefore still be in sin. Bill
>
> Not so;
all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved
> passing the
> test that A&E failed and he did that in the
wilderness... right after his
> baptism.
> From: Judy
Taylor
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so there is
no way that this would be the same concept Bill.
>
> Why is
that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen
>
1.26).
>
> Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature
and character
> spiritually - which "likeness"
> Adam forfeited
when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the
> wrong
fruit.
>
> Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this
world by procreation in
> the likeness of
> the first Adam
rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
>
> The only possible
way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is
> to
become
> conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole
purpose for His
> coming
> and His willingness to lay down His
human life as a perfect sacrifice in our
> place.
> .
>
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday,
January 16, 2006 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK - I'm
asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
>
> Oh, I thought
you were married. The bible says that you and your husband (if
> you
had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in
> coming together would be united -- and not just physically, I might
add; it
> is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with
God. The bible
> teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same
word when saying this;
> hence there is a oneness or unity within the
nature of God, a coming
> together of a plurality in union.
>
> God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there is no way that this would be the
same
> concept Bill. Sure the Godhead are One and
united
> in Spirit.
>
> And so, since you suggested that
if Christ be fully God and fully human
> there must be a schism, I
was just wondering about the schism you have with
> your man. Why
instead of schism aren't you united?
>
> In marriage between
humans it is "one flesh" Bill
>
> There would only be a schism
between the two natures of Christ if there were
> disunity between
the two.
> The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no
schism. Bill
>
> There would have been disunity "big
time" if he had a human nature - just
> like us and was in fact
wholly God ATST; schizophrenic
> would be the right term. Also
"Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's
> Kingdom" Bill so what would
be the purpose??
>
>
> From: Judy Taylor
>
>
> OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what
schism?
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And while
you're at it, will you explain your schism with your husband, too?
>
> (If this needs clarification, just ask)
>
>
Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean Moore
>
To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday,
January 16, 2006 5:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: Judy Taylor
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: 1/14/2006
1:07:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE
HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
>
Dean,
> I think this is where "theology" gets itself tied in knots.
This is what JD
> has been accusing me of for so long.
> How
ironic that his mentor Bill would write something like this. I think
> Lance just repeated it to qualify something.
> So their Jesus
must have a schism in his personality (or nature). What
> about
his saying to Philip "If you have
> seen me you have seen the
Father" We know he wasn't speaking of his
> physical body here;
so does God
> The Father also have a schismatic personality.
>
> cd: Judy can you define your usage of 'schismatic'.
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
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.
>
> cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
--
> 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.
>
> ----------
> "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.
|
