Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:15:14 -0800

Oh! really Lance, then you have come up with a new category? .. Nay, rather you are insulting us
both by alluding to the gnosticism taught by women that some of the Epistles address.  Shame
on you Lance - you really should learn to employ 2 Cor 10:5 and read your Bible more and other
men's theology less...
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:53:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Your doctrines, Judy, along with some of DM's ARE the doctrines of (wo)men.
 
Your fears are wrong Lance and you need to replace them with the faith of God.
There is no logic involved here.  None at all.  It is simply trusting in God's Word as is.
Whenever the doctrines of men take the ascendency there are always contradictions as you see here.
You will know you are hearing from God when you can accept all of God's Word as is without having to
explain any of it away or cut any of it out.  Now this is PEACE.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:34:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LOGICALLY, Judy, (ala David Miller) IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. YET, THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. NOW, IT MAY BE THAT THIS IS NOT YOUR/DM'S DOCTRINE OF GOD. IFF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN YOUR/HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD IS SIMPLY NOT CHRISTIAN. Further, should this be the gospel preached by DM and his offspring and, those for whom he is overseer then, the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL IS NOT BEING PREACHED BY ANY OF THEM. (I believe he/they/you probably preach some fear-based moralism) .
 
Lance what is so hard about the plain facts which are that ....
It is impossible to be "Holy, Pure and sinless" and ATST "sinful and fallen in the first Adam".
Think about it - SERIOUSLY .....
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:28:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So then, Judy, should Jesus' human nature actually have been other than your 'reading' of Scripture........?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 17, 2006 16:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

Thanks for your input Dean;
I have no problem with Jesus having a human flesh body... but I have a "huge" insurmountable problem
with the idea that Mary's child, the one called by the angel "the holy pure sinless offspring" born of her
and called the Son of God" (Luke 1:36 Amp) ATST had a "fallen" Adamic nature.  Make no mistake this
is nothing more than speculation by religious men who have no understanding about spiritual realities.
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:54:00 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cd:  Nor do we reject one or the other - we just don't relate to him in the fallen state of man-
and I see us regenerated towards His higher state.  I am wondering why we cannot be understood
on this statement - what force works against Judy and I on this?  Is it an us against them thingy or
is it Satan that stills this seed?  There is no us against them with me there is only truth as best as
I understand it.  Respectfully
 
 
From: Taylor
These are great passages, Dean; they speak to his divinity, his being God. Ours has been a discussion of his humanity, his being human. To reject one or the other is to reject him.
 
cd: Yes I like them also-part of my favorite passages.Question: Did that divinity leave him while on earth-What does he say in the New Covenant that differs from Prov.8?
 
Bill
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to