Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Person/Persons/Personhood including you, BT and, DM

[Dean Moore]

----- Original Message ----- From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 3/11/2006 7:06:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Person/Persons/Personhood including you, BT and, DM Judy: Bill's 'concept of humanity' is biblical. IFF it in any way concurs with someone else's biblical understanding than their biblical conclusions are similar/identical. Bill has never 'fled' TT as a result of being 'bested'! It pains him to witness, day after day, the mangling of the scriptures and the puerile thinking reflected therein. The most substantive conversations on TT have included Bill Taylor, John Smithson and, David Miller. (honourable mention to the dearly departed: Debbie, Caroline and Jonathan) Lastly, the demeanour of Dave Hansen is a model that IFO appreciate. cd: Lance- Bill got his clock cleaned on a regular basics on this site: Izzy or I ,either one, could have him for breakfast at whim. Calvinism has bound his mind and prevented truth from entering in-But if he ever got over that he would indeed be a Philosopher to reckon with-but as is he is only a babe in Christ. ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 11, 2006 06:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Person/Persons/Personhood including you, BT and, DM She is not claiming any such thing, the victory always belongs to Christ and those who say what He says. You obviously have not read the "whole archives" JD.  She did just what she said and the amazing thing (to me) was that Bill stuck around at least until this point. But this did not exhaust the subject of personhood. All it proved was Bill's Calvinistic concept of humanity.   On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:04:46 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And while some stand atop the mountain, claiming victory for one's self, the words of a master survive on their own merits to those who have eyes with which to see.    :-) Bill's comments are worth reading again.    jd   From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!     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.    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. 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.     I hope this will satisfy your request and trust that we have pretty much exhausted the need to continue this discussion.   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,    Bill