|
I remember that well…I cornered poor
BT with the futility of his “logic”, and the next thing you knew he
(again) disappeared from TT. Read the whole archives and see for yourself. J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir FYI: Izzy, Judy, Kevin & Dean. THANKS TO THE BISHOP FOR THIS FINE WORK! ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lance Muir
Sent: March 10, 2006
11:52 Subject: Re: JOHN: An
extended discussion on Person/Persons/Personhood including you, BT and, DM Well, just a few weeks ago - Jan or the first of Feb. And a rather good discussion (Bill was in on this one) back in
July of last year. This is Bill sometime around the end of July of 05 Okay, I will address your question and then try
to summarize my position. I chose not to answer your question for the following
reason: implicit in your wording is the assumption that we can separate the
spirit aspect of personhood from the other aspects, the whole of which
integrates to form what we call "persons," and that we can then
address that aspect in abstention of the others. I do not accept that
premise as it relates to our discussion, and therefore could not answer your
question in the form it was structured. In other
words, I stumped you, huh? J When the biblical authors speak to living subjects of
their present or prior state of death, they are speaking metaphorically of
their entire person; e.g., when Paul writes that his readers had been dead in
trespasses and sin, he is speaking of their entire state of being and not just
about their spiritual condition. The spirit aspect of their personhood was no
more dead and no more alive than the rest of their being. So you think a
person cannot be spiritually dead until they are physically dead? If a person
is physically alive, he is also spiritually alive??? He is
speaking metaphorically about the hopelessness and helplessness of their entire
former existence in the depravity of their fallen state. I mplicit in his
use of the term "dead" is the conveyance that they could do nothing
of themselves to remedy the fact that they were doomed in that former state. Agreed, of course. I hope this will satisfy your request and trust that
we have pretty much exhausted the need to continue this discussion. No, not
really, but I think you must be tuckered out, Bill. I think if I keep
pointing out the holes in your theory, so to speak, you might get either really
angry or have to give up and agree with me once in a while. J Thank you for your patience and the charity with which
you conducted yourself. It is a pleasure to converse with you when we
are not nipping at each others heels. God bless you, Absolutely
likewise, Bill, and thanks, as it was enjoyable. izzy Bill |
- [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Person/Perso... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... Kevin Deegan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... ShieldsFamily
- RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussio... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussio... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... Dean Moore
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Per... Dean Moore

