Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Jesus Himself and I agree with Him rather than with 
"orthodoxy"... ie:
 
"While the Pharisees were gathered 
together Jesus asked them, saying "What think 
ye of Christ?
Whose son is he?"  They 
say unto him.  The son of David.  He saith unto them.  

 
"How then doth David in spirit call him Lord 
saying The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right 
hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool?"  If 
David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
 
Looks like you are stuck in the same rut as the 
Pharisees of that day were Bill  (Matt 22:42-46)
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:08:40 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  What person among us indwelt with 
  the Holy Spirit could deny that Jesus Christ was born with David's blood 
  
  running through his 
  veins?
  
From: Taylor 
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to 
you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring 
of David, 
the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 
22.16

  From: Taylor 
  "Men and 
  brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, 
  that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this 
  day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn 
  with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the 
  flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne," (Acts 
  2.29-30).
  
  Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that 
  he was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption that 
  Jesus became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the flesh": 
  
  "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
  seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
  (Joh 7.42).
  "... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born 
  of the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 1.3).
  "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of David, 
  was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely 
must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to 
the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed 
were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but 
as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not 
by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That 
would be a blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the 
law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 
2.19).
 
You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are 
you going to live by your words?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  From: Taylor 
  

  Luke 
  writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
  2.30): 
   
  Not 
  exactly Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn 
  with an oath to him, 
  that of 
  the fruit of his loins, 
  according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
  throne."
  Right, so 
  in Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's 
  lineage but he is
  hardly 
  the biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is 
  born in his lineage.
   
  hence he was not some kind of new humanity, 
  freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen 
  humankind; 
  No, he is 
  human like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   
  He did 
  not come to this earth through procreation Bill. He did 

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

I can't relate to your observation at 
all.  I don't see it.  In fact his actions belie devotion to 
orthodoxy.
Which of the church fathers do you think would 
give the Mormon boys on TT freedom to operate in the same town let alone on any 
bandwidth they controlled?  They would have been hunted down as "blatant heretics" 
just like you Gary, John, Bill et al are trying to brand me right 
now.  So your speculations 
about what he does with his family and his flock are just so much hot air.  
I am sure he loves them and gives 
them time 
and space to grow.  I see the fruit of his 
labors in his daughter Christine and all of it so 
far good.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DM is most definitely a 'locker inner' of the 
  first order. 
  He does it with Gary, John, Bill et al. He 
  probably did it with his family. He probably does it with his 'flock'. 
  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Well that is your own personal opinion 
Lance.  How is it you expect perfection from DavidM?  

Why not give him some space?  There is just once source of ALL 
truth Lance and I expect 
DavidM is still learning by going to that 
source just like the rest of 
us.  Why do you want to lock
him in when he has never done this to 
the rest of us?  Where the Spirit of the Lord is there 
is
the liberty not to have to be the 
"expert"  You just say what God has shown you and ppl either 

accept it or they reject it  ... the outcome is not up to 
us.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:58:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  DM is, IMO, intentionally elusive. At times 
  he appears almost duplicitous, saying one thing to one person 
  (you) then appearing to contradict that thing through what he says to 
  another (Bill Taylor). 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
I believe them rather than constantly 
wrest them like some on this list do Lance.
You have a whole list of things that 
should be of concern to DM and if he were not so grounded 

in his faith the attitudes of you and JD toward him personally 
would top the list
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! 
  This ought to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows 
  this. 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall 
too far from the tree does it.  You are a true child of the 
Orthodoxy you serve.  This anxiety about some ppl not being able to 
handle scripture is what led to the "dark ages" 

when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear.  
Have faith in God.

  
From: Lance Muir 
 
It may be 'that no (wo)man is an 
island' yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The 
DM's (2) need be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of 
some can be dangerous. 
 
cd: Only if that scripture is 
wrong and takes away from what the words mean-but if it is 
used to explain the existing truth-it is not only not 
dangerous but divine Lance.I am not the first to make the below 
statement.

  Lance wrote:
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  The rationality of "God" -- nonsense
  You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who 
  believes that Adam and Eve were not flesh and 
  blood but "spirit beings" before the 
  fall     the only one.
  


    
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  
  cd: John I contend that A&E were more 
  than just flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of 
  light.The same light that shown from Moses face after he 
  came into Gods presence also.Don't get me wrong the flesh 
  existed but the sin didn't. I farther contend that Adam 
  saw Eve in her fallen state and chose to eat the apple to 
  be with her out of love-if not she would be forever lost 
  to him.He came from being able to name all the animals on 
  earth-a genius- to dying spiritually (light went out) and 
  hiding from God for fear and shame.
   
   
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

I'd say God is able to handle DM quite 
adequately Lance and that you have enough to keep you busy
with the present condition of your own 
heart.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Why Judy? I read (wo)men's theology (JT/DM) 
  regularly with utter fascination! As I've said often the bigger concern is 
  with DM who is himself an overseer and, an SP. What accountability lies 
  therein!
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
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.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
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) 
  .
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
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 - 

From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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.  
Resp

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

How ironic that you know everything that DM 
knows Lance and yet so consistently malign him personally.
Maybe he knows a whole lot more than you think 
he knows... and could it be possible that BT does not know
nearly as much as you give him credit 
for.  If you and BT grasp my meaning Lance then why can't either of you 
respond using plain speech rather 
than some man's "orthodox" theological maze?  Why not just stick with 
the Words of Truth and the faith 
ONCE given to the saints?
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:14:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DM knows that BT does, in reality, almost never 
  fail to grasp your meaning when you post, Judy. Sadly, you often believe him 
  to have 'missed it'. On the matter of 'who is Jesus' some would find you to 
  have gone further afield than the Mormons. DM, it only sometimes appears, 
  knows the heretical bent they've fallen under but, unless his/your positions 
  are quite similar (who knows other than The Shadow?), he rarely speaks with 
  'prophetic' clarity concerning YOUR HERETICAL BENT.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I do not and have not ever denied that 
Jesus came the first time in "pure and holy" flesh Bill 

just as the scriptures day - which 
fact is something that you 
refuse to accept or else fail to grasp 
no matter how many times I type 
it.
 
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:00:38 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy, I along with DavidM have used 
  multiple passages in balance and in context to prove to you the error of 
  your theology. What you do with that truth will demonstrate the spirit you 
  are of. I will be praying for your salvation, that you do not deny Jesus 
      Christ come in the flesh.
   
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:53 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  It is really 
  sad that Bill says I can't be saved unless I accept his kind of 
  orthodoxy.
  
No, Bill is using the Bible to correct 
you, and to exhort you to change your mind, Judy. 
 
You don't have 
understanding of the Bible Bill.  You are using Words to make 
everything biological completely missing the main point. 
Sin is a spiritual issue with a 
biological ripple effect generationally.  God is a spirit.
Satan is a spirit.  
Sin/righteousness are not a biological issues.
 
You want to spiritualize the Seed doctrine, 
when the Scriptures tell you that Jesus is the Seed of David 
according to flesh. 
 
Sperma isn't the only 
kind of seed discussed in scripture Bill and I am not taking 
anything out of context in order to "spiritualize" it.  The 
order is first the natural and then the spiritual.  Adam/David 
are the natural.  Jesus is the Promise which is 
spiritual.  The first Adam was a living soul.  The second 
Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
 
And if it is according to the flesh that 
Christ was born, and this of David's seed, then what flesh do you 
think John is speaking of when he ascribes the spirit of antichrist 
to those who deny it? I am not making a bigger deal of this than I 
ought, Judy. I want you to have every opportunity to know and 
understand the error of your doctrine, because, believe it or not, 
it does make a difference how you answer the question: "Who do you 
say that I am?"
 
I don't now and never 
have denied that Jesus was given and walked about in a flesh body 
Bill.  What I do deny is that is was a SINFUL AND FALLEN flesh body exactly and in 
every way like those He was sent to redeem.
 
Please don't let your disdain for people (and 
this your elder brothers in Christ) cloud your ability to affirm 
truth when it is presented to you.
 
I reject the 
accusation above since I have no disdain for persons - only the 
doctrines that do not conform them to godliness and holiness  You know Bill God juxtaposes 
the two kinds of seed in Genesis 3:15. I wonder whose loins 
the seed of the adversary came 
through.

 
They (feminine plural) came through the 
loins of Adam, just as did every human being who came after him. All 
that Adam was capable of produci

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

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.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
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) .
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
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 - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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
 
 
   
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

Well that is your own personal opinion 
Lance.  How is it you expect perfection from DavidM?  

Why not give him some space?  There is just once source of ALL 
truth Lance and I expect 
DavidM is still learning by going to that 
source just like the rest of 
us.  Why do you want to lock
him in when he has never done this to the 
rest of us?  Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is
the liberty not to have to be the 
"expert"  You just say what God has shown you and ppl either 

accept it or they reject it  ... the outcome is not up to 
us.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:58:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DM is, IMO, intentionally elusive. At times he 
  appears almost duplicitous, saying one thing to one person (you) then 
  appearing to contradict that thing through what he says to another (Bill 
  Taylor). 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I believe them rather than constantly wrest 
them like some on this list do Lance.
You have a whole list of things that should 
be of concern to DM and if he were not so grounded 
in his faith the attitudes of you and JD toward him personally 
would top the list
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! This 
  ought to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows this. 
  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too 
far from the tree does it.  You are a true child of the Orthodoxy 
you serve.  This 
anxiety about some ppl not being able to handle scripture is what led to 
the "dark ages" 
when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear.  Have 
faith in God.

  
From: Lance Muir 
 
It may be 'that no (wo)man is an 
island' yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The 
DM's (2) need be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some 
can be dangerous. 
 
cd: Only if that scripture is wrong 
and takes away from what the words mean-but if it is 
used to explain the existing truth-it is not only not dangerous 
but divine Lance.I am not the first to make the below 
statement.

  Lance wrote:
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 
  rationality of "God" -- nonsense
  You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who 
  believes that Adam and Eve were not flesh and 
  blood but "spirit beings" before the fall  
     the only one.
  


    
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  
  cd: John I contend that A&E were more than 
  just flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The 
  same light that shown from Moses face after he came into Gods 
  presence also.Don't get me wrong the flesh existed but the sin 
  didn't. I farther contend that Adam saw Eve in her fallen 
  state and chose to eat the apple to be with her out of love-if 
  not she would be forever lost to him.He came from being able 
  to name all the animals on earth-a genius- to dying 
  spiritually (light went out) and hiding from God for fear and 
  shame.
   
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

I do not and have not ever denied that 
Jesus came the first time in "pure and holy" flesh Bill 

just as the scriptures day - which 
fact is something that you 
refuse to accept or else fail to grasp 
no matter how many times I type 
it.
 
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:00:38 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy, I along with DavidM have used multiple 
  passages in balance and in context to prove to you the error of your theology. 
  What you do with that truth will demonstrate the spirit you are of. I will be 
  praying for your salvation, that you do not deny Jesus Christ come in the 
  flesh.
   
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:53 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It is really sad 
  that Bill says I can't be saved unless I accept his kind of 
  orthodoxy.
  
No, Bill is using the Bible to correct you, 
and to exhort you to change your mind, Judy. 
 
You don't have 
understanding of the Bible Bill.  You are using Words to make 
everything biological completely missing the main point. 
Sin is a spiritual issue with a 
biological ripple effect generationally.  God is a spirit.
Satan is a spirit.  
Sin/righteousness are not a biological issues.
 
You want to spiritualize the Seed doctrine, when 
the Scriptures tell you that Jesus is the Seed of David according to 
flesh. 
 
Sperma isn't the only kind of 
seed discussed in scripture Bill and I am not taking anything out of 
context in order to "spiritualize" it.  The order is first the 
natural and then the spiritual.  Adam/David are the natural.  
Jesus is the Promise which is spiritual.  The first Adam was a 
living soul.  The second Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
 
And if it is according to the flesh that Christ 
was born, and this of David's seed, then what flesh do you think John is 
speaking of when he ascribes the spirit of antichrist to those who deny 
it? I am not making a bigger deal of this than I ought, Judy. I want you 
to have every opportunity to know and understand the error of your 
doctrine, because, believe it or not, it does make a difference how you 
answer the question: "Who do you say that I am?"
 
I don't now and never have 
denied that Jesus was given and walked about in a flesh body Bill.  
What I do deny is that is was a SINFUL AND FALLEN flesh body exactly and in every way like those 
He was sent to redeem.
 
Please don't let your disdain for people (and this 
your elder brothers in Christ) cloud your ability to affirm truth when 
it is presented to you.
 
I reject the accusation 
above since I have no disdain for persons - only the doctrines that do 
not conform them to godliness and holiness  You know Bill God juxtaposes the two kinds of seed in 
Genesis 3:15. I wonder whose loins the seed of the 
adversary came through.

 
They (feminine plural) came through the 
loins of Adam, just as did every human being who came after him. All 
that Adam was capable of producing after his fall and 
subsequent removal from the Garden was human beings destined to 
die. Yet for some reason the first fallen words out of his mouth -- 
that is, after their encounter with God -- were ones which changed 
his wife's name from "Woman," the one who had been made from his flesh, 
etc., to "Eve," the mother of all who live. 
 
So are you saying the Gen 
3:15 prophecy refers to Eve rather than to Mary or to both of 
them?
 
Judy, if Jesus is not of Eve's 
blood then she is not his mother. Her flesh is not his flesh 
and her "Seed" (masculine singular) does not reach him. The truth is, 
however, that it does! Adam was privy to something that you deny. 
He calls her the mother of all the living.
 
It is possible to 
be biolgically living and still be spiritually dead 
Bill. 
 
Something was going to spring from her womb that 
was going to justify life for all life. Follow the Seed promised to Eve 
throughout the Old Testament and you will discover an amazing story. Let 
that Seed pass through Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, and Jacob, and 
Judah, and David, and let it find fulfillment in the womb of Mary, and 
you will begin to realize the promise. But spiritualize it into 
abstraction and you could end up missing it all. Bill
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

I believe them rather than constantly wrest 
them like some on this list do Lance.
You have a whole list of things that should be 
of concern to DM and if he were not so grounded 
in his faith the attitudes of you and JD toward him personally would 
top the list
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! This 
  ought to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows this. 
  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too far 
from the tree does it.  You are a true child of the Orthodoxy you 
serve.  This anxiety about 
some ppl not being able to handle scripture is what led to the "dark ages" 

when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear.  Have 
faith in God.

  
From: Lance 
Muir 
 
It may be 'that no (wo)man is an island' 
yet, does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The DM's (2) need 
be remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some can be 
dangerous. 
 
cd: Only if that scripture is wrong and 
takes away from what the words mean-but if it is used to 
explain the existing truth-it is not only not dangerous but divine 
Lance.I am not the first to make the below 
statement.

  Lance wrote:
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 
  rationality of "God" -- nonsense
  You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who believes 
  that Adam and Eve were not flesh and 
  blood but "spirit beings" before the fall  
     the only one.
  


    
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  
  cd: John I contend that A&E were more than just 
  flesh before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The same 
  light that shown from Moses face after he came into Gods presence 
  also.Don't get me wrong the flesh existed but the sin didn't. I 
  farther contend that Adam saw Eve in her fallen state and chose to 
  eat the apple to be with her out of love-if not she would be 
  forever lost to him.He came from being able to name all the 
  animals on earth-a genius- to dying spiritually (light went out) 
  and hiding from God for fear and shame.
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

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) 
  .
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
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 - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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
 
 
   
   
   

[TruthTalk] Without belief in the preexistence of Christ, Christianity would no longer be recognizeable

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:57:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The doctrine of Christ's personal preexistence as the second 
  person of the Trinity is taken for granted by most 
  orthodox Christians and has been since New Testament times. The effect 
  of its denial is a god who differers radically from the Biblical 
  God.
   
  Yes and it is taken for granted 
  also by most orthodox Christians that the orthodoxy coming from the 
  patriarchs is on the same level as the Word of God which explains things a 
  little differently.  The preexistence of Christ can be seen in the OT but 
  never as an "eternal son" 
  "The way the pre-existence of Christ is understood 
  determines how one speaks about the theology of God and of human salvation." 
  
  (R. T. France)
   
  Explain please - and who is this R. T. 
  France??
   
  God did not merely send an agent to make things OK or a 
  repairman to perform some fixes-he came himself. The doctrine of preexistence 
  reminds us forcefully that God himself entered our circumstances in order to 
  redeem and restore his human creatures along with the rest of creation. 
  
   
  Are the above France's words or 
  yours Lance?  It was no "resoration job" In a Covenant both parties 
  pledge to the death. He came to institute a New 
  Creation ... The old has been judged already. 2 Cor 5:17.  As for the 
  creation - 
  It will be destroyed by fire before the New Jerusalem descends from heaven.  He makes ALL 
  things new.
   
  This is the truth that gives meaning and power to Jesus' 
  affirmation that God so loved the world that he sent his son to save it. If 
  preexisten is mythical or some other nonfactual nature, then Jesus is not 
  deity and this affirmation of God's love for and intervention on behalf of his 
  creatures becomes an empty promise.
   
  He gave His ONLY begotten son to die and those who 
  come to the Risen Christ agree to become "living sacrifices" 
  themselves.
   

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

 
Oh Lance, the apple doesn't fall too far from 
the tree does it.  You are a true child of the Orthodoxy you serve.  
This anxiety about some ppl not 
being able to handle scripture is what led to the "dark ages" 

when it was chained to the pulpit because of fear.  Have faith in 
God.

  
From: Lance Muir 
 
It may be 'that no (wo)man is an island' yet, 
does every 'island' produce its own theologian. The DM's (2) need be 
remindeded that the Scriptures in the hands of some can be 
dangerous. 
 
cd: Only if that scripture is wrong and takes 
away from what the words mean-but if it is used to explain the 
existing truth-it is not only not dangerous but divine Lance.I am not the 
first to make the below statement.

  Lance wrote:
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 
  rationality of "God" -- nonsense
  You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who believes that 
  Adam and Eve were not flesh and 
  blood but "spirit beings" before the fall  
     the only one.
  


   
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  
  cd: John I contend that A&E were more than just flesh 
  before the fall-I view them as being's of light.The same light that 
  shown from Moses face after he came into Gods presence also.Don't get 
  me wrong the flesh existed but the sin didn't. I farther contend that 
  Adam saw Eve in her fallen state and chose to eat the apple to be with 
  her out of love-if not she would be forever lost to him.He came from 
  being able to name all the animals on earth-a genius- to dying 
  spiritually (light went out) and hiding from God for fear and 
  shame.
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

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 - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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
 
 
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:48:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Actually, Judy,  Bill is just quoting scripture.  
   
  He is quoting those he needs to confirm a 
  biological construct which in his mind and yours somehow
  justifies this old windbag er wineskin.  
  However, if you and he don't move on and apprehend what Jesus
  was really about you will lose it.  Jesus came 
  to die. He was not born to validate or institute another
  earthly biological Kingdom.
   
  Why don't you figure it out instead of ignoring 
  the scripture he has put forth?   If you can't or won't,  

  change your belief to include the redeeming truth that IN CHRIST is the 
  reconcilation of all things.  
   
  Except darkness JD. Light and darkness don't 
  mix.  Never have and never will.  Jesus was pure and
  holy from his birth.  We are not.  Someone 
  must do the adjusting.  Making doctrines to announce that
  He came into this world fallen just like 
  us will not cut it.
   
  In the past, Bill has placed scripture before me  (and not Bill 
  only).  I have not ignored any of them.  
  And some have forced me to change my mind on a few matters.
   
  Like Judas hanged himself???
   
  Go thou and do likewise.  
   
   
  jd
   
  -- 
Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Jesus is the seed of the woman as the prophecy in 
Genesis foretells. He was fathered by the Holy Spirit
Now if you want to say that the Holy Spirit is the 
"sperma" of David; I know that prophetically he is called
the son of David but David Himself also called him 
Lord ie:  "The Lord said to my Lord"  ... So if I were 
you
I would either stop alluding to the "sperma" or 
explain how the Holy Spirit and procreation fathered him all
at the same time.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:52:56 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you 
  of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is 
  with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that 
  God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according 
  to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne," 
  (Acts 2.29-30).
  Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that 
  he was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption that 
  Jesus became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the flesh": 
  
  "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
  seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
  (Joh 7.42).
  "... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born 
  of the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 1.3).
  "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of David, 
  was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely 
must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to 
the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed 
were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but 
as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not 
by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That 
would be a blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the 
law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 
2.19).
 
You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are 
you going to live by your words?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  From: Taylor 
  

  Luke 
  writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
  2.30): 
   
  Not 
  exactly Bill "D

Re: [TruthTalk] view him (David Miller) as a game player-playing with others

[Judy Taylor]

I find it amusing how you fellows pat yourselves on the 
back and call each other Bishop and Professor
Yet you JD trashed the doctrine Lance holds so dear to 
his heart just yesterday.  Obviously there is no unity
of purpose between you and you are from different 
cultures ... To me it appears that the only 
thing you have 
in common is the evil and ungodly desire to deride 
every jot and tittle that comes from David Miller's
computer and to speculate about why he withdraws for a season.
 
Shame on you.
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:54:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  Amen to this, Professor
   
  jd
   
  From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  
Dean, IMO, intends this more favorably than I 
would. There is a 'cat and mouse' style noticeable within SOME of David's 
posts. Even in this most central of discussions on WHO JESUS IS, he comments 
then withdraws. When asked point blank to offer a few paragraphs outlining 
his position, with supporting Scriptures, he deftly feints then withdraws to 
a corner to practice the 'Ali rope a dope'.  
 
I believe that David fears that putting an 
unorthodox statement ON RECORD for all to see would do him irreparable harm. 

   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:53 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It is really sad that 
  Bill says I can't be saved unless I accept his kind of orthodoxy.
  
No, Bill is using the Bible to correct you, and 
to exhort you to change your mind, Judy. 
 
You don't have 
understanding of the Bible Bill.  You are using Words to make 
everything biological completely missing the main point. Sin is a spiritual issue with a biological ripple 
effect generationally.  God is a 
spirit.
Satan is a spirit.  
Sin/righteousness are not a biological issues.
 
You want to spiritualize the Seed doctrine, when the 
Scriptures tell you that Jesus is the Seed of David according to 
flesh. 
 
Sperma isn't the only kind of 
seed discussed in scripture Bill and I am not taking anything out of context 
in order to "spiritualize" it.  The order is first the natural and then 
the spiritual.  Adam/David are the natural.  Jesus is the Promise 
which is spiritual.  The first Adam was a living soul.  The second 
Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
 
And if it is according to the flesh that Christ was 
born, and this of David's seed, then what flesh do you think John is 
speaking of when he ascribes the spirit of antichrist to those who deny it? 
I am not making a bigger deal of this than I ought, Judy. I want you to have 
every opportunity to know and understand the error of your doctrine, 
because, believe it or not, it does make a difference how you answer the 
question: "Who do you say that I am?"
 
I don't now and never have denied 
that Jesus was given and walked about in a flesh body Bill.  What I do 
deny is that is was a SINFUL 
AND FALLEN flesh body exactly and in every way like those He was sent to 
redeem.
 
Please don't let your disdain for people (and this 
your elder brothers in Christ) cloud your ability to affirm truth when it is 
presented to you.
 
I reject the accusation 
above since I have no disdain for persons - only the doctrines that do not 
conform them to godliness and holiness  You 
know Bill God juxtaposes the two kinds of seed in Genesis 3:15. I wonder 
whose loins the seed of the adversary came 
through.

 
They (feminine plural) came through the loins 
of Adam, just as did every human being who came after him. All that Adam was 
capable of producing after his fall and subsequent removal from the 
Garden was human beings destined to die. Yet for some reason the 
first fallen words out of his mouth -- that is, after their encounter 
with God -- were ones which changed his wife's name from "Woman," the 
one who had been made from his flesh, etc., to "Eve," the mother of all who 
live. 
 
So are you saying the Gen 3:15 
prophecy refers to Eve rather than to Mary or to both of them?
 
Judy, if Jesus is not of Eve's blood 
then she is not his mother. Her flesh is not his flesh and her "Seed" 
(masculine singular) does not reach him. The truth is, however, that it 
does! Adam was privy to something that you deny. He calls her the 
mother of all the living.
 
It is possible to be 
biolgically living and still be spiritually dead 
Bill. 
 
Something was going to spring from her womb that was 
going to justify life for all life. Follow the Seed promised to Eve 
throughout the Old Testament and you will discover an amazing story. Let 
that Seed pass through Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, and Jacob, and Judah, 
and David, and let it find fulfillment in the womb of Mary, and you will 
begin to realize the promise. But spiritualize it into abstraction and you 
could end up missing it all. Bill
 
Noone is spiritualizing anything 
into "abstraction" Bill.  Are you willing to let God be God or 
not?  Jesus did not come to make some biological statement - or to carry demonized humanity 
off to heaven.  He was pure and holy at his birth which is a 
claim NOT ONE OTHER 
biological human being has been able to make since Adam fell and this 
includes John the Baptist who was spirit filled from his mother's 
womb.
 
When God sent Jesus believe me He was 
not making a BIOLOGICAL STATEMENT and striving over words
while clinging to erroneous doctrine 
only makes it worse.  Why did Jesus say to Nicodemus:
 
"If I have told you earthly things and 
you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things" (Jn 
3:12).
   

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:51:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Bring down?   Me saying that He is God in carnate?  Surely 
  you jest !!
  admitting the plain truth of scripture, that He was a man in every respect such as I  
  ?   
   
  He looked as you do "YET WAS WITHOUT SIN" and this is 
  "huge"  You have never known
  what it was like to be "without sin" and He never 
  knew what sin was until He hung on the cross
  at Calvary.  He definitely knows what it is 
  now.
   
  It is you who says He is not God in the flesh.  It is you who teaches that He was only a similar 
  man.   
   
  Show me JD, in my words please?
   
  You criticize me and in so doing, you criticize 
  virtually everyone you know.   You can't find anyone 
  in the real world who agrees with your rendition of these 
  maters.    
   
  Sure I can JD - you assume way too much.  What 
  makes you think that everyone I know even
  has an opinion about these issues?
   
  You are the ONLY ONE I have ever met who believes that Adam and Eve were 
  not flesh and 
  blood but "spirit beings" before the fall     
  the only one.  
   
  Well you can count me out - AND THEN THERE WERE NONE 
  - Because the above is not
  what I believe at all.  It is a construct of 
  your own very active imagination JD. 
   
  -- 
    Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

You try to bring the Lord Jesus Christ 
down to your level JD, rather than allow God to conform 
you
to His Image as you work out your own 
salvation with fear and trembling.  It's just easier if He does it 
all
Right?  No 
sweat!!!
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:29:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
    
  I will repeat what you have spoken,  
  Judy Taylor.
  jd
   
  ------ 
    Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:21:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Dean, don't get too excited , here.   Judy does not use 
  the word "human" as the rest of us that word.   
  Nor does she believe that Christ was God in the flesh   
  
   
  I would ask you once more to control yourself 
  JD and refrain from putting your words in my mouth.
  I am quite capable of speaking for myself; 
  the above is incorrect.
   
  Oh really??  !!  Your words 
  , not mine  --  "  
  Jesus 

  could not 
  have been exactly the same as us because we are all born into an Eph 
  2  reality 
  and He was not.   As i said  
  --  Judy does not use the word "human" as the rest of us use that 
  word.   
   
   
  unless you ,too, believe that could be God while being something 
  less than God at the same time. 
   
  Yes, the Son of God. (John 14:28) for whom 
  the Father was "greater" than he. 
   
  If Christ is God in the flesh, then He is fully God because He 
  simply could not be anything less than fully god without being 
  something other than God at the same time.   Neither can He 
  be only part human without being somethin other than human at the same 
  time.  
   
  Of course he can.  He can be whoever God 
  says he is and wants him to be.  He 
  came as the suffering servant,
  remember??
   
  Judy defends the notion that Jesus is 
  only part God, in the above.   She ignores the fact that 
  "servant" is a station in life while "God" is descriptive of the very 
  being of the Divine.   To be part human is to be something 
  other than human.  To be part God is to be something other than 
  God.   Whatever Jesus is, whoever Jesus is -  He is the 
  SAME yesterday, today AND FOREVER  --  which means He never 
  changes.  Once God, always God.   

   
   
  When we reject the incarnation of Christ because of  the 
  fact that we cannot comprehend how He can be fully God and fully man, 
  it  is an insult to the notion that He is unique  (only 
  begotton = unique).   Uniqueness,  true uniquessness as 
  in "one of a kind"  cannot be considered rationally.   
  
   
  He can not be fully God and fully fallen man 
  as you are trying to claim which to me is akin to Calvin 
  making
  God responsible for the fall and all sin 
  thereafter because in Calvin's opinion he decreed all 
  that.
  Your comments about Calvin beg t

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

SO?
His is the line God chose for His Promise to come 
through; everyone was a child of the fall.
Possibly Seth wasn't quite so fallen, I don't know; but 
I understand why it was not Cain.
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:53:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  And Seth is a child of the fall.
   
  From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  
Bill, God called Israel his firstborn son also - 
now whose sperma was that?  Oh I guess you are going to tell 
me
Isaac.  But Ishmael was also a biological son 
of Abraham.  Don't you understand about spiritual seed at 
all?
Same with Adam; he had many sons but Seth is the 
one who carried the spiritual lineage.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:05:04 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things 
  in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of 
  David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man


"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to 
you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his 
tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and 
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of 
his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to 
sit on his throne," (Acts 2.29-30).
Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that 
he was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption 
that Jesus became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the 
flesh": 
"Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
(Joh 7.42).
"... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was 
born of the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 
1.3).
"Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of 
David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  10:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
  David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus 
  absolutely must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David 
  on its way to the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to 
  Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to 
  seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" 
  (Gal 2.16). And it is not by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds 
  fulfillment in Christ. That would be a blasphemous thought: "What 
  purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of 
  transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom 
  the promise was made" (Gal 2.19).
   
  You know, Judy, you always say "Show me 
  in Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or 
  are you going to live by your words?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus 
, neither God nor Man

From: Taylor 

  
Luke 
writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
2.30): 
 
Not 
exactly Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him, 
that of 
the fruit of his loins, 
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
throne."
Right, 
so in Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's 
lineage but he is
hardly 
the biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is 
born in his lineage.
 
hence he 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Oh! 
In that case then you would be coming in and telling 
Dean - Hey! there is a Word outside .
and it sounds like it might come from heaven   
"fully human" Give me a break JD.  ROFL
 
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:02:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Dean  --  if I came into the house and told said,  
  Dean  !!!  There's a thing outside.  
   
  And Dean says.  "A thing" ?  What are you talking about.  
  
   
  Well,  I don't know  -- its its not fully human, I can tell you 
  that much !!
   
   
  Get the point?   If you are not fully human , you are something 
  other than human.  
  And God in Christ (?)  God cannot stop being God 
  anymore than you can stop being 
  who you are.   The text tells us that Jesus is the same --  
  always.   
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 8:37:00 PM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?
   
  It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's 
  human nature was the same as common man -- or statements like "he 
  learned obedience from the things he suffered" would be meaningless, or at 
  least irrelevant to us in our state.
   
  cd: I am in agreement with you on 
  this Bill-Sorry for the mistake in your identity.
   
   
   
   It was his divine nature that was 
  great, Dean,
   
  cd: I am agreement with you on 
  this.
   
   
   and in that he was unlike us, as we do 
  not have a divine nature, 
   
  cd: Here is where we differ- If we have the 
  indwelling spirit guiding us and we allow the bit in our mouths-we will do 
  and think divine thoughts-because of that Spirit.
   
   
   
   
  but at no time did his divinity overwhelm his 
  humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his human 
  nature, producing obedience rather than sin.
   
  cd: This is also where we disagree Bill and 
  I also think this is where you and Judy collide.Christ was also tempted as 
  we are but overcame that temptation-what you call "obedience." I see his 
  divinity as overwhelming the humanity unto subjection to the divine as He 
  did not sin and give lead way to the flesh and that is what make Him more 
  than what we were.He had a likeness in that He was flesh also but not of 
  our corruptible nature of sin-I am of course speaking of past tense prior 
  to salvation and of course allow that we walk in a Godly manner .Because 
  of Him we can be Holy also "be ye Holy" is a command from Christ and I 
  don't believe He mocked by commanding us to do something we are not able 
  to do.Respectfully.
   
  Bill
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:19 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man


 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
  David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of 
  new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to 
  fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our 
  side of the fall.
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
  But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
  divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I 
  AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this 
  before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the 
  LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
  in one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
  God or anything more than man and you are courting a 
  demon, who is powerless to save you.
   
  Bill 
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?-- This 
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
to be clean. 
   

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:28:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I can change while living under the Old Law, Judy  -  
   
  No you can not JD; a leopard can not change it's 
  spots; your old nasty nature will still be the same.
   
  a law, by the way which is complete with sin offerings -- both deliberate 
  and sins of ignorance.  
  I don't Christ for forgivenss and direction.  I have the 
  law. 
   
  You know better JD, in fact you are ready to pitch 
  the law to the curb, you are a rabid antinomian.
  Shame on you for building another straw man on 
  TT  
   
  So tell me  --  what advantage is there in 
  Christianity.   I am starting to think you are correct.   
  
   
  The above is nothing more than a bold faced lie... 
  You couldn't be hit with the water hose JD.
   
  Jesus only appeared as a human, but really wans't.  And He once was 
  God but forfeited that existence 
  and essence and position and power  so that He could become 
   something similar to a man.  
   
  The above construct comes from an over active 
  imagination... someone with ADHD
   
  And why is that?  I mean, we have instruction and forgiveness with 
  the Law.  It came from God  -  who doesn't make mistakes  
  --  so what purpose is there in the almost man , Jesus christ, who wasn't 
  God on earth so that He could almost Man on earth ?   Where am 
  I going wrong , here?   jd
   
  You need to repent for trashing Lance's doctrine and 
  go ask him how to get assumed JD.
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

He died so that you could change and be 
part of a New Creation in Him JD
If you are so proud of your old nasty 
sinner self then it's all yours but it won't go to 
heaven
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:52:14 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy versus the Bible:
   
   
  
   
  Really?  This is "another gospel" 
  entirely - to claim that God just loves old nasty fallen
  and mean humanity so much that He 
  can't do without each and every one in the same 
  heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out of?
   
   
  For God so loved the 
WORLD
  He died for us 
  WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS. 
   
   
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Judy, there is no communicating with you, 
as you don't even realize that we are in agreement on much of what you 
present for rebuttals. Please just stay where you are.
 
I'll leave,
     
    Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  12:52 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
It is humanity which Christ came to 
save, Judy. He did that by assuming human likeness.
 
What scripture do you base the 
above on Bill? The same one from 
Hebrews?
 
He was raised as well a human, Judy, 
and sits at his Father's side: a human being. 
 
So now you claim that a 
transformed body without blood that is able to walk through 

walls is in the likeness of our human 
bodies Bill?
 
We will be resurrected human, as well 
-- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
but with resurrected bodies; bodies 
all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
 
Really?  This is "another 
gospel" entirely - to claim that God just loves old 
nasty fallen
and mean humanity so much that 
He can't do without each and every one in the same 

heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out 
of?
 
Do you cut out all the 
scriptures that teach us the earthy is earthy so we must be 

born into a New Creation and 
have a complete overhaul 
to be fit for heaven:
 
Our minds must be renewed  
(Rom 12:2)
Our souls need to be saved by 
the engrafted word (James 1:21)
Our bodies must be transformed 
at the last trump (1 Cor 15:52)

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Judy Taylor]

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
 
 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Thank you Dean,
It is really sad that Bill says I can't be saved unless 
I accept his kind of orthodoxy.
You know God juxtaposes the two kinds of seed in 
Genesis 3:15. I wonder whose loins the seed
of the adversary came 
through, according to Bill.
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:42:57 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
cd: I wrote a statement of Mary/Christ 
seed before I read yours Bill.I believe Judy has 
salvation -as I believe you Jd , Lance, 
and Debbie also have salvation

  
  From: Taylor 
  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/17/2006 7:54:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

And David is a direct descendant of Eve, is he 
not? Thus the Seed promised to Eve passed through Abraham, through 
David, and to Christ, through the woman, Mary. You are rejecting MUCH when 
you reject this. 
 
If they care about Judy's salvation, it is time 
to start hearing from the Street Preacher's on this one. It is one thing to 
live in ignorance; it is quite another to reject what you know to be 
true.
 
Bill
 
    
   
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:38 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Mary might be David's lineage but she doesn't 
  have loins does she? However, he was to be the seed of 
  the
  woman - the other scriptures are good.  
  Thanks.
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:14:37 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely 
must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to 
the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed 
were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but 
as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not 
by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That 
would be a blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the 
law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 
2.19).
 
You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are 
you going to live by your words?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  From: Taylor 
  

  Luke 
  writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
  2.30): 
   
  Not 
  exactly Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn 
  with an oath to him, 
  that of 
  the fruit of his loins, 
  according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
  throne."
  Right, so 
  in Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's 
  lineage but he is
  hardly 
  the biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is 
  born in his lineage.
   
  hence he was not some kind of new humanity, 
  freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen 
  humankind; 
  No, he is 
  human like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   
  He did 
  not come to this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a 
  human father - He may have been
  born on this side of the fall but he was most definitely 
  not born fallen. One can not be fallen and holy ATST
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' 
  predecessor. But it was not his humanity which pre-dated 
  David; it was his divinity. And notice: he did not say that his 
  Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. 
  No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) 
  is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
  covenants with Abrah

Re: [TruthTalk] view him (David Miller) as a game player-playing with others

[Judy Taylor]

Wait till he comes out of withdrawal - that's when the 
knockout comes Lance
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:11:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Dean, IMO, intends this more favorably than I 
  would. There is a 'cat and mouse' style noticeable within SOME of David's 
  posts. Even in this most central of discussions on WHO JESUS IS, he comments 
  then withdraws. When asked point blank to offer a few paragraphs outlining his 
  position, with supporting Scriptures, he deftly feints then withdraws to a 
  corner to practice the 'Ali rope a dope'.  
   
  I believe that David fears that putting an 
  unorthodox statement ON RECORD for all to see would do him irreparable harm. 
  
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

He died so that you could change and be part of 
a New Creation in Him JD
If you are so proud of your old nasty sinner 
self then it's all yours but it won't go to heaven
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:52:14 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy versus the Bible:
   
   
  
   
  Really?  This is "another gospel" 
  entirely - to claim that God just loves old nasty fallen
  and mean humanity so much that He can't do 
  without each and every one in the same 
  heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out of?
   
   
  For God so loved the WORLD
  He died for us WHILE 
  WE WERE YET SINNERS. 
   
   
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Judy, there is no communicating with you, as 
you don't even realize that we are in agreement on much of what you present 
for rebuttals. Please just stay where you are.
 
I'll leave,
 
Bill

  ----- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:52 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
It is humanity which Christ came to save, 
Judy. He did that by assuming human likeness.
 
What scripture do you base the above 
on Bill? The same one from 
Hebrews?
 
He was raised as well a human, Judy, and 
sits at his Father's side: a human being. 
 
So now you claim that a transformed 
body without blood that is able to walk through 
walls is in the likeness of our human 
bodies Bill?
 
We will be resurrected human, as well 
-- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
but with resurrected bodies; bodies 
all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
 
Really?  This is "another 
gospel" entirely - to claim that God just loves old 
nasty fallen
and mean humanity so much that He 
can't do without each and every one in the same 
heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out 
of?
 
Do you cut out all the 
scriptures that teach us the earthy is earthy so we must be 

born into a New Creation and have a 
complete overhaul to be fit 
for heaven:
 
Our minds must be renewed  (Rom 
12:2)
Our souls need to be saved by the 
engrafted word (James 1:21)
Our bodies must be transformed at 
the last trump (1 Cor 15:52)
 
Chsh,
 
    That's what I say ... 
Judyt
 
Bill

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:41 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT 
inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the 
purpose??
 
"What would be the purpose" of what, 
Judy; I don't understand the question. 
 
Oh, 
weren't we discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the 
unity of the Godhead? 
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
 
I am responding that God is a 
Spirit and so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls 
flat.
So what would be the purpose of 
illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
it?
 
My hunch however is that it will be 
because God so loved the world ...  
 
Now where does the above fit 
into  this picture - says Judy scratching her 
head
 
From: Taylor 

  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). 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Noone is saying that Jesus did not have a flesh body 
from his birth on - Not here anyway; so where do you get this?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:13:43 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  "And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has 
  come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, 
  which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." 1John 
  4.3
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:08 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

What person among us indwelt with the Holy 
Spirit could deny that Jesus Christ was born with David's blood running 
through his veins?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:05 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  
  "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things 
  in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of 
  David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man


"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to 
you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his 
tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and 
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of 
his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to 
sit on his throne," (Acts 2.29-30).
Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that 
he was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption 
that Jesus became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the 
flesh": 
"Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
(Joh 7.42).
"... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was 
born of the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 
1.3).
"Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of 
David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  10:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
  David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus 
  absolutely must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David 
  on its way to the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to 
  Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to 
  seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" 
  (Gal 2.16). And it is not by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds 
  fulfillment in Christ. That would be a blasphemous thought: "What 
  purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of 
  transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom 
  the promise was made" (Gal 2.19).
   
  You know, Judy, you always say "Show me 
  in Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or 
      are you going to live by your words?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus 
, neither God nor Man

From: Taylor 

  
Luke 
writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
2.30): 
 
Not 
exactly Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him, 
that of 
the fruit of his loins, 
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
throne."
Right, 
so in Matt we have a g

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

The devil's seed is a spiritual seed and so is 
the seed of the woman which is born by way of the
Holy Spirit.  Why is there such a big 
brouhaha over this?  Oh I forgot "Orthodoxy"
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:24:40 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 9:08:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

From: Taylor 

  
Luke writes that 
Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 

 
Not exactly 
Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
to him, 
that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to the 
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
Right, so in 
Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage but he 
is
hardly the 
biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in his 
lineage.
 
cd: As was Mary Judy-which is the seed of women whom 
Christ is from Judy-Fulfilling Gen.3:15. Funny I don't read much of 
Clark (Whom was overseer of J.Wesley church after Wesley's death) but 
when I want to offer support He states the same as you and I 
Judy. 

Gen 3:15 And I will put 
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it 
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 

Adam Clark 
wrote:

Gen 3:15 - 
I will put enmity between thee and the woman - This has been 
generally supposed to apply to a certain enmity subsisting between men 
and serpents; but this is rather a fancy than a reality. It is yet to be 
discovered that the serpentine race have any peculiar enmity against 
mankind, nor is there any proof that men hate serpents more than they do 
other noxious animals. Men have much more enmity to the common rat and 
magpie than they have to all the serpents in the land, because the 
former destroy the grain, etc., and serpents in general, far from 
seeking to do men mischief, flee his approach, and generally avoid his 
dwelling. If, however, we take the word nachash to mean 
any of the simia or ape species, we find a more consistent meaning, as 
there is scarcely an animal in the universe so detested by most women as 
these are; and indeed men look on them as continual caricatures of 
themselves. But we are not to look for merely literal meanings here: it 
is evident that Satan, who actuated this creature, is alone intended in 
this part of the prophetic declaration. God in his endless mercy has put 
enmity between men and him; so that, though all mankind love his 
service, yet all invariably hate himself. Were it otherwise, who could 
be saved? A great point gained towards the conversion of a sinner is to 
convince him that it is Satan he has been serving, that it is to him he 
has been giving up his soul, body, goods, etc.; he starts with horror 
when this conviction fastens on his mind, and shudders at the thought of 
being in league with the old murderer. But there is a deeper meaning in 
the text than even this, especially in these words, it shall bruise thy 
head, or rather, ??? hu, He; who? the seed of the woman; the 
person is to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the 
concurrence of man. Therefore the address is not to Adam and Eve, but to 
Eve alone; and it was in consequence of this purpose of God that Jesus 
Christ was born of a virgin; this, and this alone, is what is implied in 
the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent. 
Jesus Christ died to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and to 
destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Thus he 
bruises his head - destroys his power and lordship over mankind, turning 
them from the power of Satan unto God; Act_26:18. And Satan bruises his heel - 
God so ordered it, that the salvation of man could only be brought about 
by the death of Christ; and even the spiritual seed of our blessed Lord 
have the heel often bruised, as they suffer persecution, temptation, 
etc., which may be all that is intended by this part of the 
prophecy.
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Bill, God called Israel his firstborn son also - now 
whose sperma was that?  Oh I guess you are going to tell me
Isaac.  But Ishmael was also a biological son of 
Abraham.  Don't you understand about spiritual seed at all?
Same with Adam; he had many sons but Seth is the one 
who carried the spiritual lineage.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:05:04 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in 
  the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the 
  Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:52 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man


"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of 
the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with 
us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the 
flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne," (Acts 
2.29-30).
Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that he 
was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption that Jesus 
became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the flesh": 
"Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
(Joh 7.42).
"... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of 
the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 1.3).
"Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of David, 
was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:14 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
  David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely 
  must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to 
  the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed 
  were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but 
  as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not by 
  way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That 
  would be a blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the 
  law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
  Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 
  2.19).
   
  You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
  Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are you 
  going to live by your words?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:06 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

From: Taylor 

  
Luke writes 
that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 

 
Not exactly 
Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an 
oath to him, 
that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to 
the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
throne."
Right, so 
in Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage 
but he is
hardly the 
biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in 
his lineage.
 
hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly 
brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 

No, he is 
human like David was human, born on our side of the 
fall.
 
He did not 
come to this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a human 
father - He may have been
born on this side of the fall but he was most definitely not 
born fallen. One can not be fallen and holy ATST
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

You try to bring the Lord Jesus Christ 
down to your level JD, rather than allow God to conform 
you
to His Image as you work out your own salvation 
with fear and trembling.  It's just easier if He does it 
all
Right?  No sweat!!!
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:29:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I will repeat what you have spoken,  
  Judy Taylor.
  jd
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:21:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Dean, don't get too excited , here.   Judy does not use the 
  word "human" as the rest of us that word.   
  Nor does she believe that Christ was God in the flesh   
  
   
  I would ask you once more to control yourself JD 
  and refrain from putting your words in my mouth.
  I am quite capable of speaking for myself; the 
  above is incorrect.
   
  Oh really??  !!  Your words , 
  not mine  --  "  
  Jesus 

  could not 
  have been exactly the same as us because we are all born into an Eph 
  2  reality 
  and He was not.   As i said  
  --  Judy does not use the word "human" as the rest of us use that 
  word.   
   
   
  unless you ,too, believe that could be God while being something less 
  than God at the same time. 
   
  Yes, the Son of God. (John 14:28) for whom the 
  Father was "greater" than he. 
   
  If Christ is God in the flesh, then He is fully God because He simply 
  could not be anything less than fully god without being something other 
  than God at the same time.   Neither can He be only part human 
  without being somethin other than human at the same 
time.  
   
  Of course he can.  He can be whoever God 
  says he is and wants him to be.  He came 
  as the suffering servant,
  remember??
   
  Judy defends the notion that Jesus is 
  only part God, in the above.   She ignores the fact that 
  "servant" is a station in life while "God" is descriptive of the very 
  being of the Divine.   To be part human is to be something other 
  than human.  To be part God is to be something other than 
  God.   Whatever Jesus is, whoever Jesus is -  He is the 
  SAME yesterday, today AND FOREVER  --  which means He never 
  changes.  Once God, always God.   
   
   
  When we reject the incarnation of Christ because of  the fact 
  that we cannot comprehend how He can be fully God and fully man, it 
   is an insult to the notion that He is unique  (only begotton = 
  unique).   Uniqueness,  true uniquessness as in "one of a 
  kind"  cannot be considered rationally.   
   
  He can not be fully God and fully fallen man as 
  you are trying to claim which to me is akin to Calvin making
  God responsible for the fall and all sin 
  thereafter because in Calvin's opinion he decreed all that.
  Your comments about Calvin beg the 
  question at hand.   You just got through saying  
  He can be whoever God says he is and 
  wants him to be.  So, He can 
  be fully God and fully man  !!  You have just admitted the 
  possibility  !!!  
   
  I believe in a triune God because I SEE three personages ,  not 
  because I can explain that reality to anyone !!  It is faith that 
  carries me beyond doubt on this matter and reminds me of 
  my place in the order of this  universe  -  the same 
  universe of which God is the Creator.  
   
  The triune Godhead can be seen in the 
  scriptures.
  Of course.  
   
  It is truly heresy to demand and pretend to fully understand Gd in 
  three persons, or God in Christ, or God at all !!  
   
  You can speak for yourself JD .. and you 
  are the ONLY one you can speak for.
  I speak "revealed truth,"  and since 
  you are a sister of the illumination,  you should know this.  
  
   
  jd
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
Excellent points Dean
And you are not trying to cut Him up into 
different exclusive pieces - Hallelujah to King Jesus!!
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: Can that likeness to human flesh also be a reflection of 
  Christ's mental capacity?
  Did that capacity have the likeness to man or was there 
  more?  John the Baptist was said to be greatest among men-yet 
  Christ was greater-How can both be true David if He was only a 
  man?  Could Christ be greater than t

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

I could. He did not have David's blood and it is not 
David's blood that cleanses anyones conscience from
dead works to serve the living God.  His was the 
blood of the eternal covenant.  It is supernatural from
beginning to end and this is why it will never lose 
it's power.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:08:40 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  What person among us indwelt with the Holy Spirit 
  could deny that Jesus Christ was born with David's blood running through his 
  veins?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:05 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man


"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things 
in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, 
the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:52 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  
  "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you 
  of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is 
  with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that 
  God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according 
  to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne," 
  (Acts 2.29-30).
  Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that 
  he was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption that 
  Jesus became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the flesh": 
  
  "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the 
  seed (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 
  (Joh 7.42).
  "... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born 
  of the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 1.3).
  "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of David, 
  was raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely 
must be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to 
the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed 
were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but 
as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not 
by way of adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That 
would be a blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the 
law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 
2.19).
 
You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are 
you going to live by your words?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  From: Taylor 
  

  Luke 
  writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 
  2.30): 
   
  Not 
  exactly Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn 
  with an oath to him, 
  that of 
  the fruit of his loins, 
  according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
  throne."
  Right, so 
  in Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's 
  lineage but he is
  hardly 
  the biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is 
  born in his lineage.
   
  hence he was not some kind of new humanity, 
  freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen 
  humankind; 
  No, he is 
  human like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

I was not implying anything like that.  Is He God 
or isn't He?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:40:03 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy, you are not the Holy Spirit.
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
What do you think the Holy Spirit is Bill?  
You don't understand Him do you?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  It was his divine nature that was great, 
  Dean, and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
  nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born 
  of the Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the 
  divine 
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 
  1:14, 2 Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  Judy, we are humans beings indwelt with the 
  Holy Spirit, but we are not God, which is what I mean when I speak of 
  Jesus' divine nature: he was/is God -- and that, my dear, is an infinite 
  difference.
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?
   
  It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's 
  human nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 
  
  "he learned obedience from the things he 
  suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
  state.
   
  What things do you know that 
  He suffered that are relevant to our state 
  Bill?  Do you know that he 
  was ever sick or infirm 
  because of generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. 
  Depressed?
   
  It was his divine nature that was great, 
  Dean, and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
  nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born of 
  the Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the 
  divine 
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 
  2 Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  but at no time did his divinity overwhelm 
  his humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 
  
  human nature, producing obedience rather 
  than sin.  Bill
  
From: Dean Moore 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Jesus , neither God nor Man
  
  Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
  David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind 
  of new humanity, freshly brewed with new 
  material, unrelated to fallen humankind; No, he is human like 
  David was human, born on our side of the fall.
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' 
  predecessor. But it was not his humanity which pre-dated 
  David; it was his divinity. And notice: he did not say that his 
  Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. 
  No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) 
  is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
  covenants with Abraham. 
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, 
  two realities in one person, united -- but make 
  him anything less than God or anything more than 
  man and you are courting a demon, who is powerless to save 
  you.
   
  Bill 
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same 
  as common man?-- 
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. 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Mary might be David's lineage but she doesn't have 
loins does she? However, he was to be the seed of the
woman - the other scriptures are good.  
Thanks.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:14:37 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of David's 
  lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely must be of the 
  Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to the fulfillment of 
  the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He 
  does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' 
  who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not by way of adoption that Abraham's 
  Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That would be a blasphemous 
  thought: "What purpose then does the law serve? It was 
  added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come 
  to whom the promise was made" (Gal 2.19).
   
  You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
  Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are you 
  going to live by your words?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:06 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

From: Taylor 

  
Luke writes that 
Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 

 
Not exactly 
Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
to him, 
that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to the 
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
Right, so in 
Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage but he 
is
hardly the 
biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in his 
lineage.
 
hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly 
brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 

No, he is human 
like David was human, born on our side of the 
fall.
 
He did not come 
to this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a human father - 
He may have been
born on this side of the fall but he was most definitely not born 
fallen. One can not be fallen and holy ATST
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, 
I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it 
was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. 
And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that 
he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his 
glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
covenants with Abraham. 
 
So??  Noone here disputes his 
heritage.
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
in one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
God or anything more than man and you are courting a 
demon, who is powerless to save you.
 
Either that or you are courting 
religious spirits who are filling your head with the doctrines they have 
been promoting for thousands of 
years.  He doesn't have to be fully anything. He is who the Word of 
God
says He is - which is the Word made 
flesh.
 
Bill 
 
   -- This message has been scanned for 
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean. 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

Jesus is the seed of the woman as the prophecy in 
Genesis foretells. He was fathered by the Holy Spirit
Now if you want to say that the Holy Spirit is the 
"sperma" of David; I know that prophetically he is called
the son of David but David Himself also called him Lord 
ie:  "The Lord said to my Lord"  ... So if I were you
I would either stop alluding to the "sperma" or explain 
how the Holy Spirit and procreation fathered him all
at the same time.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:52:56 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of 
  the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us 
  to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had 
  sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the 
  flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne," (Acts 
  2.29-30).
  Although it was by way of his adoption by Joseph that he 
  was qualified to sit on the thrown, it was not by way of adoption that Jesus 
  became the Seed of David: that came to him "according to the flesh": 
  "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed 
  (sperma) of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (Joh 
  7.42).
  "... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of 
  the seed (sperma) of David according to the flesh," (Rom 1.3).
  "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed (sperma) of David, was 
  raised from the dead according to my gospel," (2Tim 2.8).
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:14 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Are you saying, Judy, that Mary is not of 
David's lineage? You had better think this through, as Jesus absolutely must 
be of the Seed of Abraham, which passes through David on its way to the 
fulfillment of the promise in Christ. "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the 
promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 
'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal 2.16). And it is not by way of 
adoption that Abraham's Seed finds fulfillment in Christ. That would be a 
blasphemous thought: "What purpose then does the law serve? 
It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should 
come to whom the promise was made" (Gal 2.19).
 
You know, Judy, you always say "Show me in 
Scripture." Well, you have been shown. Now, is that all smoke, or are you 
going to live by your words?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:06 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  From: Taylor 
  

  Luke writes 
  that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 
  
   
  Not exactly 
  Bill "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an 
  oath to him, 
  that of the 
  fruit of his loins, according to the 
  flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
  Right, so in 
  Matt we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage but 
  he is
  hardly the 
  biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in 
  his lineage.
   
  hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly 
  brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 
  
  No, he is 
  human like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   
  He did not 
  come to this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a human 
  father - He may have been
  born on this side of the fall but he was most definitely not 
  born fallen. One can not be fallen and holy ATST
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
  But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
  divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I 
  AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this 
  before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the 
  LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
   
  So??  Noone here disputes his 
  heritage.
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
  in one person, united -- but ma

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

What do you think the Holy Spirit is Bill?  You 
don't understand Him do you?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  It was his divine nature that was great, Dean, 
  and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born of 
  the Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 
  
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 
  Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  Judy, we are humans beings indwelt with the Holy 
  Spirit, but we are not God, which is what I mean when I speak of Jesus' divine 
  nature: he was/is God -- and that, my dear, is an infinite 
  difference.
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?
   
  It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's 
  human nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 
  
  "he learned obedience from the things he 
  suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
  state.
   
  What things do you know that He 
  suffered that are relevant to our state Bill?  Do 
  you know that he 
  was ever sick or infirm because 
  of generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. 
  Depressed?
   
  It was his divine nature that was great, 
  Dean, and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
  nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born of the 
  Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 
  
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 
  Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  but at no time did his divinity overwhelm his 
  humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 
  
  human nature, producing obedience rather than 
  sin.  Bill
  
From: Dean 
Moore 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
  David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of 
  new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to 
  fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our 
  side of the fall.
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
  But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
  divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I 
  AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this 
  before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the 
  LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
  in one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
  God or anything more than man and you are courting a 
  demon, who is powerless to save you.
   
  Bill 
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?-- 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. 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:21:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Dean, don't get too excited , here.   Judy does not use the 
  word "human" as the rest of use that word.   
  Nor does she believe that Christ was God in the flesh   
   
  I would ask you once more to control yourself JD and 
  refrain from putting your words in my mouth.
  I am quite capable of speaking for myself; the above 
  is incorrect.
   
  unless you ,too, believe that could be God while being something less 
  than God at the same time. 
   
  Yes, the Son of God. (John 14:28) for whom the Father 
  was "greater" than he. 
   
  If Christ is God in the flesh, then He is fully God because He simply 
  could not be anything less than fully god without being something other than 
  God at the same time.   Neither can He be only part human without 
  being somethin other than human at the same time.  
   
  Of course he can.  He can be whoever God says he 
  is and wants him to be.  He came as the 
  suffering servant,
  remember??
   
  When we reject the incarnation of Christ because of  the fact that 
  we cannot comprehend how He can be fully God and fully man is an insult to the 
  notion that He is unique  (only begotton = unique).   
  Uniqueness,  true uniquessness as in "one of a kind"  cannot be 
  considered rationally.   
   
  He can not be fully God and fully fallen man as you 
  are trying to claim which to me is akin to Calvin making
  God responsible for the fall and all sin thereafter 
  because in Calvin's opinion he decreed all that.
   
  I believe in a triune God because I SEE three personages ,  not 
  because I can explain that reality to anyone !!  It is faith that carries 
  me beyond doubt on this matter and reminds me of my place in 
  the order of this  universe  -  the same universe of which God 
  is the Creator.  
   
  The triune Godhead can be seen in the 
  scriptures.
   
  It is truly heresy to demand and pretend to fully understand Gd in three 
  persons, or God in Christ, or God at all !!  
   
  You can speak for yourself JD .. and you are the 
  ONLY one you can speak for.
   
  jd
   
  -- 
    Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
Excellent points Dean
And you are not trying to cut Him up into different 
exclusive pieces - Hallelujah to King Jesus!!
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: Can that likeness to human flesh also be a reflection of Christ's 
  mental capacity?
  Did that capacity have the likeness to man or was there more?  
  John the Baptist was said to be greatest among men-yet Christ was 
  greater-How can both be true David if He was only a man?  Could 
  Christ be greater than the greatest man and only be a common man?  
  The least in heaven is greater than John-yet there is none greater than 
  Christ in heaven-if so they would have been able to open the book 
  described in Rev.-none could.  Yes, He was sent in the likeness of 
  man and more-much more.What man can retain the memory of sharing glory 
  with God from creation?
   
  
 
In other words, in the same way that we speak of the likeness of 
Christ to Father God, so also we should speak of his likeness to 
humanity and human flesh.
 
David Miller.
 
cd: Can that likeness to human flesh also be a reflection of 
Christ's mental capacity?Did that capacity have the likeness to man or 
was there more?John the Baptist was said to be greatest among men-yet 
Christ was greater-How can both be true David if He was only a man? 
Could Christ be greater than the greatest man and only be a common 
man?The least in heaven is greater than John-yet there is none greater 
than Christ in heaven-if so they would have been able to open the book 
described in Rev.-none could. Yes, He was sent in the likeness of man 
and more-much more.What man can retain the memory of sharing glory with 
God from creation?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  3:25 PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might 
  mean so much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say 
  that Jesus is the image of Father, or that he is like the Father, 
  so much so that when you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, 
  it might be inappropriate to say that J

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:51:05 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you know that he 
  was ever sick or infirm because of 
  generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. Depressed?
   
  Well, of course He got sick.  He was like us in every 
  respect.   
   
  **I said "do you KNOW" which means chapter and verse 
  rather than speculation.
   
  No one I know is demon oppressed as you count demons.   
  Depressed?  
   
  **You don't know how or if I cound demons JD. Jesus 
  depressed would also be demons and
  lying spirits were afraid of him because He had 
  their number.
   
  He cried over Jerusalem.  
   
  He was sad when he let the rich young ruler leave but 
  didn't chase him down...
   
  Angry?  You the scene at the Temple.  Impatient?  Will 
  there be any faith when [I] return?  
   
  Not fallen human anger which is selfish; his was zeal 
  for God - Impatience? No an honest and
  relevant question.
   
  Mistaken in His opinions?  Sure  --  the wedding feast and 
  His decision not to make the water [into] wine. 
   
  He wasn't mistaken - he was pressured into doing 
  something before he was ready.  Have you so 
  far
  found a fallen human being who could change 
  water into wine??
   
  Having to learn the lesson of discipline as a 12 year old  (although 
  His answer to His parents question
   is truth -  you hear nothing of such actions again.)  
  
   
  Was it him learning or the parents?  Today they 
  would be investigated by Social Services for leaving
  without a head count of their children.
   
  It is a fact that He had to learn 
  THE WAYS OF LIFE   (Acts 
   
  Scripture please JD.....
   
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?
   
  It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's 
  human nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 
  
  "he learned obedience from the things he 
  suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
  state.
   
  What things do you know that He 
  suffered that are relevant to our state Bill?  Do 
  you know that he 
  was ever sick or infirm because 
  of generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. 
  Depressed?
   
  It was his divine nature that was great, 
  Dean, and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
  nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born of the 
  Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 
  
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 
  Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  but at no time did his divinity overwhelm his 
  humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 
  
  human nature, producing obedience rather than 
  sin.  Bill
  
From: Dean 
Moore 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
  David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of 
  new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to 
  fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our 
  side of the fall.
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
  was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
  But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
  divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I 
  AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this 
  before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the 
  LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
  in one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
  God or anything more than man and you are courting a 
  demon, who is powerless to save you.
   
  Bill 
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?-- This 
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
to be clean. 
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:38:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  See, The Prophet thinks you are giving me your understanding of my 
  theology  --  only repeating back to me what you think I have 
  said.  Nonsense.  And here is a perfect example.   "What 
  is unassumed is unsaved"  has absolutely no heritage in my 
  writings.   I don't even know what that means.  
   
  What??  You must not read what the buddies 
  you fellowship write or else you are afraid of losing their
  fellowship and don't want to dispute it.  Lance 
  quotes this all the time.  How is it you are into the 
  perichoresis
  and Baxter and the boys and are ignorant of 
  this?  I would say this is major. 
   
  Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks.   If it 
  wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious.
   
  Oooh!  my goodness, it is now getting worse 
  rather than better.  DO YOU SEE THIS LANCE???  JD is 
now
  publicly trashing your doctrine.
   
  In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly 
  ."  I have no clue as to what you are talking 
  about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is 
  ,  well, he is just plain goofy.  jd
   
  Apparently you are not in the family I was thinking 
  you ran with JD,  you must be with them but not of them,
  an "independent" of some kind ... Hmmm the plot 
  thickens!!!
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that 
matter.
You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not 
be validated by God's Word.
If I remember correctly your thing is "what is 
unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed
Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was 
not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem 
to know.
 
 
So,  Judy brings up Adam before the 
fall,  Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy 
then changes the subject  --  and ,  and ,  and what ? 
!!  I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered.  One 
must ask, "why?"  jd 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Judy 
  asks:    
  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, 
  ...
   
  Bill responds
  the first 
  Adam before the fall did not 
  need to be saved Judy. We do. 
   
  Bill
   
  And judy , well, does what?
  The first Adam after 
  the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
  Bill
  and so do we.   Judy
   
   
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

From: Taylor 

  
Luke writes that 
Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 

 
Not exactly Bill 
"David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, 

that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to the 
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
Right, so in Matt 
we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage but he 
is
hardly the 
biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in his 
lineage.
 
hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly 
brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 

No, he is human like 
David was human, born on our side of the fall.
 
He did not come to 
this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a human father - He may 
have been
born 
on this side of the fall but he was most definitely not born fallen. One can 
not be fallen and holy ATST
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I 
AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was not 
his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And notice: he 
did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. 
No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) is 
I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who covenants with 
Abraham. 
 
So??  Noone here disputes his 
heritage.
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in 
one person, united -- but make him anything less than God or 
anything more than man and you are courting a demon, who is 
powerless to save you.
 
Either that or you are courting religious 
spirits who are filling your head with the doctrines they have been 
promoting for thousands of years.  He 
doesn't have to be fully anything. He is who the Word of God
says He is - which is the Word made 
flesh.
 
Bill 
 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
Excellent points Dean
And you are not trying to cut Him up into different 
exclusive pieces - Hallelujah to King Jesus!!
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: Can that likeness to human flesh also be a reflection of Christ's 
  mental capacity?
  Did that capacity have the likeness to man or was there more?  John 
  the Baptist was said to be greatest among men-yet Christ was greater-How can 
  both be true David if He was only a man?  Could Christ be greater than 
  the greatest man and only be a common man?  The least in heaven is 
  greater than John-yet there is none greater than Christ in heaven-if so they 
  would have been able to open the book described in Rev.-none could.  Yes, 
  He was sent in the likeness of man and more-much more.What man can retain the 
  memory of sharing glory with God from creation?
   
  
 
In other words, in the same way that we speak of the likeness of Christ 
to Father God, so also we should speak of his likeness to humanity and human 
flesh.
 
David Miller.
 
cd: Can that likeness to human flesh also be a reflection of Christ's 
mental capacity?Did that capacity have the likeness to man or was there 
more?John the Baptist was said to be greatest among men-yet Christ was 
greater-How can both be true David if He was only a man? Could Christ be 
greater than the greatest man and only be a common man?The least in heaven 
is greater than John-yet there is none greater than Christ in heaven-if so 
they would have been able to open the book described in Rev.-none could. 
Yes, He was sent in the likeness of man and more-much more.What man can 
retain the memory of sharing glory with God from creation?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:25 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity 
  THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean 
  so much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that 
  Jesus is the image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much 
  so that when you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be 
  inappropriate to say that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly 
  like him.  Do you see it differently, Judy?  David 
  Miller.
   
  I don't know   When He walked the earth 
  as a man He was not the Father 
  because He prayed to 
  the Father and when He said these words to Philip ie: 
  "If you have seen me 
  you have seen the Father" (John 14:9) I believe He is 
  referring to the ministry rather than to Himself personally because everything 
  He said and did (both 
  works and words) he had first seen the Father 
  saying 
  and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
   
   
  - Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
   
   
  Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact 
  same thing JD.
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If 
  you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, 
  or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; 
  for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 
  2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same 
  as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen 
  worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does 
  good  EXCEPT ONE.
   
   
  Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional 
  phrase  "IN EVERY WAY"
   
   
  -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I 
  was just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree 
  with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also 
  have divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that 
  we can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am 
  not completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied 
  with doing the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was 
  fully intuned to the divine.
   
  If you had responded by sa

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as common 
  man?
   
  It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's human 
  nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 
  "he learned obedience from the things he 
  suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
  state.
   
  What things do you know that He 
  suffered that are relevant to our state Bill?  Do you 
  know that he 
  was ever sick or infirm because of 
  generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. Depressed?
   
  It was his divine nature that was great, Dean, 
  and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine nature,
   
  Anyone who has been born of the 
  Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 
  
  nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 Cor 
  3:18, Heb 12:10.
   
  but at no time did his divinity overwhelm his 
  humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 

  human nature, producing obedience rather than 
  sin.  Bill
  
From: Dean Moore 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's 
  genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of new humanity, 
  freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 
  No, he is human like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I 
  AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was 
  not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And 
  notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was 
  copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his 
  glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
  covenants with Abraham. 
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in 
  one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
  God or anything more than man and you are courting a demon, 
  who is powerless to save you.
   
  Bill 
  cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
  common man?-- This message 
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean. 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ??

[Judy Taylor]

JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that 
matter.
You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not be 
validated by God's Word.
If I remember correctly your thing is "what is 
unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed
Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was 
not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem 
to know.
 
 
So,  Judy brings up Adam before the 
fall,  Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy 
then changes the subject  --  and ,  and ,  and what ? 
!!  I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered.  One must 
ask, "why?"  jd 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Judy 
  asks:    
  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, ...
   
  Bill responds
  the first Adam 
  before the fall did not need to be 
  saved Judy. We do. 
   
  Bill
   
  And judy , well, does what?
  The first Adam after the 
  fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
  Bill
  and so do we.   Judy
   
   
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  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 Ch

Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:21:07 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Which part of the Jesus I believe 
  in is not according to scripture Bill?   
   
   All of him.
   
  Well the above is a detailed and coherent 
  response - is this the best you can do?
   
  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.
   
  IOW You don't understand Him so he must either 
  conform to the Church Fathers and
  "orthodoxy" or He is an idol?   
  What a good student you have been 
  Bill.
   
  * Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which 
  Judy responded, "How can the Father be greater than 
  God Himself?" (Monday, January 02, 2006)
   
  My response relates to Jesus' own words which are 
  "The Father is greater than Me" (John 14:28)
  So my question still stands. Unanswered I might 
  add.  I don't just make up this stuff you know.
   
  ** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that 
  Jesus is fully human ... 
  and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, January 
  16, 2006)
   
  He has got to be one or the other Bill - or it is 
  YOUR JESUS who is a hybrid and not mine regardless of
  what the Church Fathers came up with.  They were 
  not God - there is a higher authority you know.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Which part of the Jesus I believe in is 
not according to scripture Bill?
What makes Him impotent in your 
opinion?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:36:13 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  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 - 
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
  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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 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 

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

Which part of the Jesus I believe in is 
not according to scripture Bill?
What makes Him impotent in your opinion?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:36:13 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  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 - 
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
  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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 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 >

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

ith 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 schizophreniain 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 thefirst Adam before the fall, the one who was 
created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated likeus 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 whathe 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 thetest 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 ofthe 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 becomeconformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole 
purpose for His comingand His willingness to lay down His human life as 
a perfect sacrifice in our place..
 
From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 AMSubject: 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 unitedin 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; schizophrenicwould 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 MooreTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
 
 
 
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
1/14/2006 1:07:17 PMSubject: 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 
haveseen me you have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't speaking of 
his physical body here; so does GodThe 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

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
Thanks David,
Just a few notations...
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy, Jesus did 
not come ONLY to redeem us spiritually, but physically as well.  Jesus 
redeemed the whole man, spirit, soul, and body.  The body is the last 
thing to experience that redemption, which will be realized in the 
resurrection.
 
He came to make ALL things new - not to leave us as he 
found us ie:
2 Cor 5:17
 
The idea that what happened to Christ will happen to us is realized 
forcefully by acknowledging that he is indeed one of us.  He is not 
just our God.  He is our brother, born of the same flesh.
 
He called himself the Lord from Heaven and John the 
Baptist called him
that also saying "He who comes from above is above all" 
(John 3:31) for
God gives Him the Spirit without measure 
V.34
 
Consider Romans 6:5"For if we have been planted together in the 
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his 
resurrection." The same analogy can be made 
of many things concerning Christ when we realize that he was a man just 
like us.
 
David, I struggled with this early on - that is, the 
idea that Jesus was just like us.
Today Rom 6:5 is saying to 
me that we must die to this old sinful flesh nature to
be planted in the likeness of his death and be eligible 
to be part of His
resurrection.
 
Consider the following passage:
 
Hebrews 12:3-4(3) For consider him that endured such contradiction of 
sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.(4) 
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
 
The idea that gives an instruction like this power and force is the concept 
that he was just like us.  When he resisted sin, he did not have an 
edge over us that was any different than what we have.  
 
What was the sin he resisted to the shedding of 
blood?  Laying his physical
life down voluntarily to take on the sin of the whole 
world at the cross.  I've
never had to make a choice like that one so far.  
Have you?
 
Therefore, even as he resisted sin to the shedding of his own blood, so too 

we can find strength to do the same.  We know this when we realize 
that he 
was made in the likeness of the same sinful flesh as we have, yet he 
resisted 
the temptations of that flesh and did not succomb to it.
 
I have never taken comfort in that David. The comfort I 
receive comes from
the fact that when God 
raised him from the dead he led captivity captive and 
gave gifts to men.  I 
have access to and faith in the same Word he used against 
the adversary in the wilderness and I know who was victorious at Calvary.  
The
way I understand it the 
flesh profits - his or ours.  He prevailed by the 
Spirit.
 
Hebrews 2:11(11) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are 
sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them 
brethren,
 
Those who are "sanctified" post Calvary?
 
Hebrews 2:14(14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh 
and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same
 
Hebrews 2:16-17(16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; 
but he took on him the seed of Abraham.(17) Wherefore in all things it 
behoved him to be made like unto his brethren
 
David Miller.
 
 
From: Judy TaylorTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 3:44 PMSubject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy 
wrote:> 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?
 
If Jesus were only like the first Adam and not like the rest of us, then he 
could onlyredeem those born of his own loins.  In order to redeem 
mankind, including Adam andEve and all of their descendants, he would 
have to become one of us.
 
Why?  What do loins have to do with spsiritual redemption and what it 
takes to redeemmankind?  His salvation unlike the covering of bulls 
and goats is eternal because hisblood is the blood of the eternal 
Spirit. (Hebrews 9:14)
 
Judy wrote:> Jesus was not exactly procreated like us since he had 
no human father so > that mustmess up your thesis at least a 
little.
 
Such does not bother the thesis of the humanity of Jesus one bit.  
Only if you arguethat Jesus did not inherit genetic material from Mary 
would it be a problem. The Biblegives every indication that Jesus was 
related to Mary, related to David, related toAbraham, and related to 
Adam.
 
Yes I understand the genealogies are important and relevant or they 
wouldn't be there...but I see their value as more spiritual than 
biolgical ie: Ishmael was a biolgical sonbut Isaac the child of 
Promise.  I understand blessings and curses to come downthrough 
families generationally in the spiritual sense even though there is 
abiolgical dimension also.
 
David Miller. 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

Oh yes, I have one but apparently He is not the same 
one that you have Bill
Mine is the Lord, a son of man who descended from 
heaven to inhabit a body
prepared for him.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:41:39 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  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
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  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
  

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  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 co

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:40:28 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy, you are completely misunderstanding 
  Bill.  When he speaks of the resurrection, he means bodies which are 
  transformed.  You are reading right past him and seeing something that is 
  not there, much like John does to nearly all my posts.  
   
  I am reading what he is saying 
  David - you may have some inside insight toward him that I don't 
  have.
  I read him saying the Jesus 
  the Christ was fully human (like us) which by nature is fallen in the first 
  Adam and ATST
  Fully God - which is am 
  impossible dichotomy.  He then went on to say that Jesus became 
  human so that he could
  save humanity and take them to 
  heaven.
   
  The mystery of Godliness, God manifest in 
  the flesh, is something taught in Scripture.  
   
  Yes, by way of the fullness of 
  the Holy Spirit in the body God provided for Him.  Can you see it any 
  other way?
   
  When you claim that the flesh of Jesus only 
  looked like our flesh but really was something very different, you are 
  deviating from the concept of "Christ was manifest in the flesh."  You 
  think you are not because you still think he was flesh, but your flesh is an 
  alien flesh that you constantly say was UNLIKE our flesh when the Scriptures 
  say he was LIKE us. 
   
  The ONLY deviation in 
  what I say is my claim that Jesus was pure and holy from his birth which fact 
  makes his flesh
  different from ours since ours 
  is fallen and we are the ones with the dichotomy of the two natures as 
  described by the apostle Paul in Romans 7:8.  I say Jesus the Christ 
  had no such dichotomy although he was severely 
  tested/tempted 
   
  You seem to think that Bill makes Jesus too 
  much like us, but the Bible does not prohibit this viewpoint anywhere.  
  
  In fact, it argues strongly that he was like 
  us in every way.  
   
  I don't see any strong 
  arguments in scripture for His humanity to be exactly like ours - to the 
  contrary, YET WITHOUT SIN 
  says it all.
   
  You have a problem understanding how there 
  can be unity between a God living in a defective 
  body.  I don't blame you, but my experience of the living Christ 
  in me helps me understand how it works.  
   
  Think about it David; Satan 
  has been building strongholds and has had familiar spirits in us and our 
  families for generations.
  As you know these do not leave 
  overnight - salvation is a walk of grace.  Do you think for one moment 
  the demons would
  dare to inhabit Jesus?  
  They wouldn't go anywhere near him, they were afraid he had come to torment 
  them before the time.
   
  It is simply the Spirit filled life.  
  When the spirit reigns and the flesh is kept dead, this is how Jesus 
  lived.  This is how we should live.
   
  I know He left us an example 
  that we should follow in His steps and as a body the Church ought to be doing 
  the same works
  However He lived and walked in 
  the kind of faith we have never ever seen duplicated.  The miracles, 
  walking on water, raising
  the dead.  All we 
  have seen so far are a few crumbs.  
   
  I've already shared the relevant passages 
  from Hebrews that helps us with those.  I hope you have not forgotten 
  them.  I still think you ignore them and do not adequately address 
  them.  If you would like me to post them again, just ask.
   
  I would like to see them again 
  but can't guarantee a change of heart.  I would need to see them by God's 
  Word - I'm sure
  you know what I mean.  I 
  get so frustrated that so much hinges on the Church Fathers.  Why is 
  that??  How can they state
  emphatically that Jesus is 
  fully human and fully God and that his humanity is not divine?  What kind 
  of double talk is that??
   
  David Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:52 
PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It is humanity which Christ came to save, 
  Judy. He did that by assuming human likeness.
   
  What scripture do you base the above 
  on Bill? The same one from 
  Hebrews?
   
  He was raised as well a human, Judy, and sits 
  at his Father's side: a human being. 
   
  So now you claim that a transformed 
  body without blood that is able to walk through 
  walls is in the likeness of our human 
  bodies Bill?
   
  We will be resurrected human, as well 
  -- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
  but with resurrected bodies; bodies 
  all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
  

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy wrote:> 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?
 
If Jesus were only like the first Adam and not like the rest of us, then he 
could only 
redeem those born of his own loins.  In order to redeem mankind, 
including Adam and 
Eve and all of their descendants, he would have to become one of us.
 
Why?  What do loins have to do with spsiritual 
redemption and what it takes to redeem
mankind?  His salvation unlike the covering 
of bulls and goats is eternal because his 
blood is the blood of the eternal Spirit. (Hebrews 9:14)
 
Judy wrote:> Jesus was not exactly procreated 
like us since he had no human father so that must 
mess up your thesis at least a 
little.
 
Such does not bother the thesis of the humanity of Jesus one bit.  
Only if you argue 
that Jesus did not inherit genetic material from Mary would it be a 
problem.  The Bible 
gives every indication that Jesus was related to Mary, related to David, 
related to 
Abraham, and related to Adam.
 
Yes I understand the genealogies are important and 
relevant or they wouldn't be there...
but I see their value as more spiritual than biolgical 
ie: Ishmael was a biolgical son
but Isaac the child of Promise.  I understand 
blessings and curses to come down
through families generationally in the spiritual sense 
even though there is a
biolgical dimension also.
 
David Miller. 
 

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean so 
much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that Jesus is the 
image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much so that when you 
have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be inappropriate to say 
that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly like him.  Do you see it 
differently, Judy?  David Miller.
 
I don't know   When He walked the earth as a 
man He was not the Father 
because He prayed to the 
Father and when He said these words to Philip ie: 
"If you have seen me you 
have seen the Father" (John 14:9) I believe He is 
referring to the ministry 
rather than to Himself personally because 
everything 
He said and did (both 
works and words) he had first seen the Father saying 

and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same 
thing JD.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you 
had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a 
human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then 
he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  
Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also 
fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.
 
 
Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  "IN 
EVERY WAY"
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I was 
just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree with in 
your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we can agree. The 
word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not completely 
satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing the will 
of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to the 
divine.
 
If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human 
mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; 
for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  
Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also 
fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.
 
And, while I understood what you were saying, I also hesitate to speak of 
the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully human and fully 
divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. Anyway, I knew what 
you meant and could thus look through it.
 
Thanks,
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - From: Dean Moore- Original Message 
- From: Taylor
 
So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, let me ask you: do you as 
a human have "divine thoughts"?
 
Billcd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold the perspective that 
Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I realize that the flesh would 
influence one thinking to my limited 'divine 'thoughts but with Christ who 
walked according to the Spirit I see no limitations. Nor do I admit there 
has to be such weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We simply are not 
willing to pray and fast and abstain from things as one should to weaken 
this flesh and hence allow more diviness to control us.- Original 
Message - From: Dean Moore
 
cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
thoughts.- Original Message - From: Taylor
 
If I understand you correctly, Dean, you believe that Christ while walking 
this earth was fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you 
also believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO 
TOO.
 
Bill 
 
--"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.
 

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:22:24 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I understand.  It is mixture; joining 
  the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
   
  No, it is not a mixture, Judy; it is a union. 
  
   
  Hate to have to break it to you like this 
  Bill but there are some things Jesus will not be unified with
  because the Father is holy and so is He; 
  so someone is going to have to do some adjusting here.
   
  There is no confusion.
   
  I am not confused ... No.
   
   And that is your problem: you have a Jesus 
  that is partly this and partly that, but can't be what he came to save. 
  
   
  The only difference between my Jesus and 
  yours Bill is that mine is pure and holy and yours is not 
  because you are determined to 
  make Him conform 
  to our (fallen human) 
  image. 
   
  Yours is a mixture, Judy, 
   
  No Bill; mine is pure and holy - the exact 
  imagine of God the Father.  My Jesus, unlike yours, could 
  say in truth "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" - So let God be true and every man a 
  liar.
   
  a demigod, a hybrid, an alloy, Hermes morphing 
  into Aphrodite -- I don't know. 
   
  Neither do I Bill.  When you have 
  mixture you don't know what you've got do you??
   
  But it is not 
  Jesus Christ the Son of God, son of Mary.  Bill
   
  I know because Jesus Christ, Son of God, 
  son of Mary was the pure and holy Son of God who took 
  upon Himself the FORM of man so that He could bring to us salvation's plan 
  which sadly many wrest 
  to their own destruction..
  
 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
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 

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It is humanity which Christ came to save, Judy. 
  He did that by assuming human likeness.
   
  What scripture do you base the above on 
  Bill? The same one from Hebrews?
   
  He was raised as well a human, Judy, and sits at 
  his Father's side: a human being. 
   
  So now you claim that a transformed body 
  without blood that is able to walk through 
  walls is in the likeness of our human 
  bodies Bill?
   
  We will be resurrected human, as well -- no 
  longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
  but with resurrected bodies; bodies all-the-more 
  human, Judy -- not un-human.
   
  Really?  This is "another gospel" 
  entirely - to claim that God just loves old nasty fallen
  and mean humanity so much that He can't do 
  without each and every one in the same 
  heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out of?
   
  Do you cut out all the scriptures 
  that teach us the earthy is earthy so we must be 
  born into a New Creation and have a 
  complete overhaul to be fit for 
  heaven:
   
  Our minds must be renewed  (Rom 
  12:2)
  Our souls need to be saved by the 
  engrafted word (James 1:21)
  Our bodies must be transformed at the last 
  trump (1 Cor 15:52)
   
  Chsh,
   
  That's what I say ... Judyt
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:41 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit 
  God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
   
  "What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I 
  don't understand the question. 
   
  Oh, weren't 
  we discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the unity of the 
  Godhead? 
  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
   
  I am responding that God is a Spirit 
  and so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls 
  flat.
  So what would be the purpose of 
  illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
  it?
   
  My hunch however is that it will be because 
  God so loved the world ...  
   
  Now where does the above fit into 
   this picture - says Judy scratching her head
   
  From: Taylor 
  
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). 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  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??
 
 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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 Spir

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:41 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's 
  Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
   
  "What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I 
  don't understand the question. 
   
  Oh, weren't we 
  discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the unity of the 
  Godhead? 
  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
   
  I am responding that God is a Spirit and 
  so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls flat.
  So what would be the purpose of 
  illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
  it?
   
  My hunch however is that it will be because God 
  so loved the world ...  
   
  Now where does the above fit into 
   this picture - says Judy scratching her head
   
  From: Taylor 
  
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). 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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 
 

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" 
  <[

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  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.
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

 
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 23:10Subject: 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 po

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  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. 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is 
not the exact same thing JD.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not 
  have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had 
  to disagree; for then he would not have been like 
  us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not 
  mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into 
  this fallen world
  is also fallen.  There is none righteous 
  and none that does good  EXCEPT ONE.
   
   
  Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of 
  the additional phrase  "IN EVERY WAY" 
   
   
  -- 
    Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I was just wanting to better understand 
  what you were wanting me to agree with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also 
  have divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable 
  that we can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am 
  not completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with 
  doing the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully 
  intuned to the divine.
   
  If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did 
  not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would 
  have had to disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not 
  mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation 
  into this fallen world
  is also fallen.  There is none 
  righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
  ONE.
   
  And, while I understood what you were saying, I also 
  hesitate to speak of the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is 
  fully human and fully divine, then he is not partly one and partly the 
  other. Anyway, I knew what you meant and could thus look through 
  it.
   
  Thanks,
   
  Bill
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
   
  So that I know for sure what you mean to 
  convey, let me ask you: do you as a human have "divine 
  thoughts"?
   
  Bill
  cd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold 
  the perspective that Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I 
  realize that the flesh would influence one thinking to my limited 
  'divine 'thoughts but with Christ who walked according to the Spirit I 
  see no limitations. Nor do I admit there has to be such 
  weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We simply are not willing to 
  pray and fast and abstain from things as one should to weaken this 
  flesh and hence allow more diviness to control us.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
 

cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also 
have divine thoughts.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
   
  If I understand you correctly, Dean, 
  you believe that Christ while walking this earth was 
  fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you also 
  believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO 
  TOO.
   
  Bill
   
   

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

[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 23:10Subject: 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,

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

Then apparently you never have gotten the issue 
resolved in your own mind and heart
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:05:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Been there, done that, Judy. I'm not interested 
  in doing it again.
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:14 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I was just wanting to better understand 
  what you were wanting me to agree with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also 
  have divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable 
  that we can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am 
  not completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with 
  doing the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully 
  intuned to the divine.
   
  If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did 
  not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would 
  have had to disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not 
  mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation 
  into this fallen world
  is also fallen.  There is none 
  righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
  ONE.
   
  And, while I understood what you were saying, I also 
  hesitate to speak of the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is 
  fully human and fully divine, then he is not partly one and partly the 
  other. Anyway, I knew what you meant and could thus look through 
  it.
   
  Thanks,
   
  Bill
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
   
  So that I know for sure what you mean to 
  convey, let me ask you: do you as a human have "divine 
  thoughts"?
   
  Bill
  cd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold 
  the perspective that Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I 
  realize that the flesh would influence one thinking to my limited 
  'divine 'thoughts but with Christ who walked according to the Spirit I 
  see no limitations. Nor do I admit there has to be such 
  weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We simply are not willing to 
  pray and fast and abstain from things as one should to weaken this 
  flesh and hence allow more diviness to control us.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
 

cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also 
have divine thoughts.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
   
  If I understand you correctly, Dean, 
  you believe that Christ while walking this earth was 
  fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you also 
  believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO 
  TOO.
   
  Bill
   -- This message has been scanned for 
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean. 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I was just wanting to better understand 
  what you were wanting me to agree with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have 
  divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we 
  can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not 
  completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing 
  the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to 
  the divine.
   
  If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not 
  have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had 
  to disagree; for then he would not have been like 
  us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not 
  mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into 
  this fallen world
  is also fallen.  There is none righteous 
  and none that does good  EXCEPT ONE.
   
  And, while I understood what you were saying, I also 
  hesitate to speak of the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully 
  human and fully divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. 
  Anyway, I knew what you meant and could thus look through it.
   
  Thanks,
   
  Bill
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
   
  So that I know for sure what you mean to 
  convey, let me ask you: do you as a human have "divine 
  thoughts"?
   
  Bill
  cd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold the 
  perspective that Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I realize that 
  the flesh would influence one thinking to my limited 'divine 'thoughts but 
  with Christ who walked according to the Spirit I see no limitations. Nor 
  do I admit there has to be such weakness in us as we also have the 
  Spirit-We simply are not willing to pray and fast and abstain from things 
  as one should to weaken this flesh and hence allow more diviness to 
  control us.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
 

cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have 
divine thoughts.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
   
  If I understand you correctly, Dean, you 
  believe that Christ while walking this earth was fully God. 
  I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you also believe that 
  Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO TOO.
   
  Bill
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

Oophs!  Sorry about that - I guess I was 
responding to Lance, thanks for the correction
Dean.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:21:10 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[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.
 
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 23:10Subject: 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 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:>>>> Here 

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  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. 
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

I think Dake missed it big time on this one ... proving 
once more that there is just once source
for ALL Truth.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:39:42 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Well done on the homework front, Judy. What do 
  YOU think of Dake's commentary on this matter, Judy?.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
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.
 
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 23:10Subject: 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 understand 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 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:>>>> 

Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

Being human is being "made a little lower than the 
angels"  I does not of necessity have to include a
"fallen human nature" which is what is implied when one 
says that His humanity was not divine.  How
one can take such a stand on Jesus being God and ATST 
say his humanity was not divine is beyond
me in light of what His Own Word says about being 
"double souled" - unless what is meant by
"humanity" is the physical body without the 
soul.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:32:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  IFF you are incorrect on this matter then, 'all 
  truth' does NOT include this rather central and rather important 
  matter concerning 'who Jesus is'.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I am speaking of two natures and 
the idea that "the humanity of Christ was not 
divine"
James wrote under the inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit that the double minded or double souled person
is unstable in all of his ways... I don't accept 
the idea that Jesus had two natures. My belief is that
although he layed aside the glory he had with the 
father, he was born with a divine (holy) nature.
and experienced our human nature along with all of 
its falleness when he took it upon himself at the 
cross.  The other 
side of the same coin though is that we become partakers of the divine 
nature when 
we receive Him as a 
covenant partner and  agree to walk after the Spirit learning His will 
and His ways.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:24:10 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

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"?
   
   
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

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.
 
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 23:10Subject: 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 understand 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 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:>>>> Here is an approximation of the [NT] 
biblical language">>>> 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>> trans

[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

I am speaking of two natures and the 
idea that "the humanity of Christ was not divine"
James wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit 
that the double minded or double souled person
is unstable in all of his ways... I don't accept the 
idea that Jesus had two natures. My belief is that
although he layed aside the glory he had with the 
father, he was born with a divine (holy) nature.
and experienced our human nature along with all of its 
falleness when he took it upon himself at the 
cross.  The other side 
of the same coin though is that we become partakers of the divine nature when 

we receive Him as a covenant 
partner and  agree to walk after the Spirit learning His will and His 
ways.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:24:10 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

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"?
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] A DM like thought

[Judy Taylor]

Why?  Isn't it possible to be pre-existent aside 
from being an "Eternal Son" implying that there
must have been two births; and another mother besides 
Mary.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:51 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Those who deny Christ's eternal pre-existence 
  have some difficulty in holding, consistently and coherently, 
  to His Deity (diety for those who prefer 
  it)
   

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

[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 23:10Subject: 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 understand 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 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:>>>> Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical 
language">>>> 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 Jesus 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] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:08:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I respectfully disagree.  jd
   
  About what JD?
  He is right on. I do believe that unregenerated men 
  can decide to stop doing
  something they are told is wrong otherwise civil 
  government would be pointless
  and we would be living in total anarchy.
   
  From: 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > FWIW, from my 
perspective, Judy believes none of these things. In fact, she > seems 
to believe that unregenerated man can choose to believe in Jesus > 
Christ. I have a different perspective that I would share with her if there 
> were not so many other posts flying that take my time to read.. I 
believe > that it takes a work of the Holy Spirit to draw men and 
cause them to > believe. I tend to agree with the perspective that 
man is regenerated at the > point just before believing because Jesus 
said that unless one is born > again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
God. How can an unregenerated man > believe in that which he cannot 
see? > > In any case, I'm sure Judy believes that 
unregenerated men can decide to > stop doing something that they have 
been told is wrong . Unregenerated man > also can decide to do 
something good, like give money to the poor, etc. I > do not think 
Judy would say that Christ stopped being God. This is a straw > man 
argument. Why don't you let her speak for herself rather than trying to 
> speak for her? > > David Miller. > > 
- Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: 
Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:45 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The 
mystery of Judy's gospel > > > 1. You believe that 
unregenerated man cannot do what is right. You have > stated that 
many times in the past. I was just hoping that you good > explain how 
that can be true with the example of Nineveh hanging over this > 
theological conclusion. > > 2. Secondly, you believe that 
Christ stopped being God in spite of the oft > quoted (by you) 
passage "God is the same yesterday, t oday, and forever." > I was 
hoping for an explanation of this, as well. > > Ask me a 
question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to answer it > 
emphatically , not fearing being "set up." I do not mind being responsible 
> for what I consider to be true. Could you please do the same? I 
doubt > anyone on this forum can tell the rest of us what you 
believe. Seriously > > jd > > > > 
-- Original message -- > From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > God is the Creator of the ppl in 
Nineveh also and He is merciful and > longsuffering enough > 
to want to give them one more chance which they took for a measure of time 
> even though they > regressed later and were eventually 
destroyed. Their response to Jonah's > warning bought > them 
some time but unfortunately they did not gain eternity. > > On 
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And 
what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh? They don't have 
> to have the > Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has 
the Spirit? > > jd > > From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Yes ... and Jonah was called by God 
and anointed to speak by the Spirit of > God.. > > On 
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > But 
aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God > 
without the Spirit of God? > jd > > From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Death reigned from Adam to Moses 
and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's > day.. So obviously > 
the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on 
> these people to repent > and they did do that in sackcloth 
and ashes... even without theological > permission. > > 
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] ast.net writes: 
> well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to 
the Law. > And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin 
exist apart from > the law? > Paul says it does. Jonah is 
certainly not calling them to live their lives > as the > Jews 
lived theirs !! jd > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > I'm with Bill 
on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. > > 
I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so int

Re: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:47:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You often have trouble quoting our very words in a given post -  and 
  you expect us to believe 
  that you can speak for the likes of Judy Taylor?  
   
  Why get all over him JD when you are doing the exact 
  same thing here and now.
   
  When we have our   trist over the Gentiles in Romans 
  2,  you and she both insist that these Gentiles must be regenerated 
  (saved - born again) because an unsaved Gentile cannot do by nature the things 
  of the law unless that "nature" be the "new nature" spoken of elswhere.  
  
   
  Wrong.  Unless they are regenerated God's Law 
  will not be written on their hearts.  Big difference.
  Unregenerated ppl can do a lot of things that look 
  good but their motives are all wrong and they are at
  enmity with God and His Law.  Anyone who is 
  doing by nature the things written in God's Law has got to
  have a new nature.
   
  You write  -  Why don't you let her speak for 
  herself rather than trying to speak for her?   
  And I am wondering why you do not go and do likewise.  
   
  I'm glad he doesn't do likewise - at times he appears 
  to be the only sane voice ... and most 
  definitely
  the only one who takes the time and trouble to try 
  and understand what I am saying and to give a
  respectful and coherent response.
   
  Part of the confusion several of us have with both of you is bond to your 
  unwillingness to be clear and 
  consistent with what you actually believe.  I have lost count of the 
  rather important questions I have asked 
  you both, only to be ignored by Judy and watch you get busy doing 
  something else, only to return after 
  the questioning has grown cold and meaningless.  You will , no 
  doubt, deny even this  --  but it is true, 
  nonetheless.  jd
   
   
   
  -- 
    Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FWIW, from my perspective, Judy believes none of these things.  In 
fact, she seems to believe that unregenerated man can choose to believe 
in Jesus Christ.  I have a different perspective that I would share 
with her if there were not so many other posts flying that take my time 
to read.  I believe that it takes a work of the Holy Spirit to draw 
men and cause them to believe.
 
My belief is probably closer to yours than you 
think. I do not believe in the
"total depravity" taught by Calvinists and I do 
believe that noone can come
to or believe in Christ unless they are drawn by 
the Father and I understand
this to happen as the Word of God is preached under 
the anointing of the
Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, 
righteousness, and judgment.
(John 16:8).  So yes, I do believe the 
unregenerate can make the choice to
believe.
 
I tend to agree with the perspective that man is regenerated at the 
point just before believing because Jesus said that unless one is born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  How can an unregenerated 
man believe in that which he cannot see?
 
I believed on and received Jesus at a Street 
Preacher Rally before I 
understood there was a 
whole Kingdom that came with Him.  Thank you for
periodically giving your assessment DM.  It's 
encouraging to know that
not everyone reads and builds straw men to 
challenge what I write.
 
In any case, I'm sure Judy believes that unregenerated men can decide 
to stop doing something that they have been told is wrong.  
Unregenerated man also can decide to do something good, like give money 
to the poor, etc.  I do not think Judy would say that Christ 
stopped being God.  This is a straw man argument.  Why don't 
you let her speak for herself rather than trying to speak for her?
 
David Miller.
 
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:45 PMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The 
mystery of Judy's gospel
 
 
1.  You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is 
right.  You have stated that many times in the past.   I 
was just hoping that you good explain how that can be true with the 
example of Nineveh hanging over this theological conclusion.
 
2.  Secondly,  you believe that Christ stopped being God in 
spite of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the same  
yesterday, today, and forever." I was hoping for an explanation of this, 
as well.
 
Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to answer 
it emphatically , not fearing being "set up."   I do not mind 
being responsible fo

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

My mother always said "To err is human, to forgive 
divine"  so I am sure Dean has divine thoughts
I've seen his public forgiveness right on 
TT
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:13:41 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, 
  let me ask you: do you as a human have "divine thoughts"?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:40 
PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE


cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
thoughts.
 

 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/15/2006 1:53:48 PM 
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  If I understand you correctly, Dean, you 
  believe that Christ while walking this earth was fully God. I DO 
  TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you also believe that Christ while 
  on this earth was fully human. I DO TOO.
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:34 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE


 
 

 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/15/2006 6:49:49 AM 
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  Dean:I'd ask of you what I asked of DM, 
  namely, outline your own position regarding 'who Jesus is' rather than 
  just picking around the edges of other's comments concerning 'who 
  Jesus is'. JUST WHICH JESUS DO YOU SPEAK OF WHEN 
  SPing? 
   
  cd: I believe that Jesus Christ of 
  Nazareth is the son of God who came to earth to first teach us a more 
  correct way (truth) and then to die on a tree for the sins of the 
  whole world to pay God redemption price for mankind. He was divine in 
  words, nature, and character. He was God who gave up dwelling as a 
  spirit to take on a lower form in order to die as a spirit cannot die 
  but the flesh can. After death He still exists in the form of a 
  body but not one of flesh (corruption) as the price paid forever 
  marked him also-to I believe towards his eternal glory as we will view 
  those marks in his body. I don't believe it to be possible that God 
  would cease to exist in his spirit nature so while he was in earthly 
  form He had to also exist in heavenly form. This mediator (go between 
  God and man)must exist in both forms in order to relate one to the 
  other. In other words Christ knows what we are capable in doing and 
  what we are capable of overcoming-therefore there will be no excuse.I 
  hope this helps y ou understand my beliefs 
Lance.
   
  --- Original Message - 
  
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 14, 2006 
17:42
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE


 
 

 

  - Original 
  Message - 
  From: Lance Muir 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 
  1/14/2006 10:07:54 AM 
  Subject: Re: 
  Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
  DIVINE
  
  Divine = 
  God
   
   
  cd: Lance Webster puts it this 
  way-Note that Christ fits many of the below 
  definitions.
   
  
  
  DIVINE, a. [L., a 
  god.] 
  
  1. Pertaining to the true God; as 
  the divine nature; 
  divine 
  perfections.
  2. Pertaining to a heathen deity, 
  or to false gods.
  3. Partaking of the nature of 
  God.
  Half human, half 
  divine.
  4. Proceeding from God; as 
  divine judgments.
  5. Godlike; heavenly; excellent in 
  the highest degree; extraordinary; apparently above what 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now

[Judy Taylor]

So Lance have you now put on a new hat
As referee of sorts?  All conversations similar to 
what?
All sins may grow from a fertile ground of unbelief but 
this is straining over gnats
because just a tiny little bit of leaven can spoil 
the whole lump ...
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:13:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Key:'I view'. Please take note as all 
  conversations are similary constructed JT and DM.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 15, 2006 09:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
working for now


cd: I view the word "unbelief" to portray a larger image than 
what has been stated in this discussion. To have unbelief is not only to 
reject the person of Christ but to also reject his words which very clearly 
points one towards God's law and God's grace. So if John 3:18 is correct 
then one must receive this larger image if not on new birth then later at 
the bidding of the Holy Ghost. Note and point : One sin can send one to hell 
if there is refusal of compliance to the conviction power of the 
Spirit (1 Cor 6:9)-so be not deceived-but sin can also make one least 
in the kingdom of heaven.This speaks of a personal judgement between the 
person and God.
 

 

  ----- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/15/2006 8:28:37 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
  working for now
  
  If this Victor person is correct and "UNBELIEF" 
  is the predicament humanity is in then why was the Holy Spirit 
  
  sent to reprove the WORLD (note this is not just 
  God's covenant ppl) of SIN, righteousness, 
  and judgment? 
  (John 16:8)  Why didn't God send Him as 
  an antidote to "unbelief" only if this is the main problem??
   
  On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:50:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 

To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02
Subject: OK, done working for now

paragraph 
in this lecture of Victor's:
 
I've often said, too, 
that the hardest part of any service of worship for the minister is the 
children's story, because nearly all the children's stories here are 
moralistic bromides. It's just moralistic bromide. And the Gospel isn't 
heard because we assume that children can't understand the Gospel. They 
can be taught not to steal, and they can be taught not to swear, but 
they can't understand the Gospel. This is ridiculous, but keep your eye 
on the Christian education wing of your church or denomination, because 
that's where the Gospel goes down.
 
It strikes me 
that street preaching and children's sermons go down the same wrong 
path! 
 
Paragraph from 
next lecture:
 

The 
protestant reformers maintain that the root problem is Sin and it gives 
rise to sins. But be sure you know which is which, or you will never 
come to terms with the Gospel. 
Morality maintains that little "s" sins plural is the human 
predicament. The Gospel maintains that capital "S" Sin singular – 
unbelief – is the 
predicament.
 
This is the 
difference between David's understanding of repentance and 
Bill's/JD's.
 
D
 
--No virus found in this outgoing 
message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus 
Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] OK, done working for now

[Judy Taylor]

Dean:
I think we've hit the slippery slope here.  Ppl 
always want to wrangle about hell, sin, and sins and use great
lofty words of man's wisdom to talk their way out of it 
all.  However, just one sin can damn the soul because
sin is active and always bearing it's own fruit (ie: 
lust leads to more lust) and the wages of sin is death. Ppl who
claim to know Jesus and walk in darkness lie and do not 
the truth.  Liars don't inherit the Kingdom - so 

where does one go from 
here?  This is why we need the Street Preachers 
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:06:31 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: I view the word "unbelief" to portray a larger image than 
  what has been stated in this discussion. To have unbelief is not only to 
  reject the person of Christ but to also reject his words which very clearly 
  points one towards God's law and God's grace. So if John 3:18 is correct then 
  one must receive this larger image if not on new birth then later at the 
  bidding of the Holy Ghost. Note and point : One sin can send one to hell if 
  there is refusal of compliance to the conviction power of the 
  Spirit (1 Cor 6:9)-so be not deceived-but sin can also make one least in 
  the kingdom of heaven.This speaks of a personal judgement between the 
  person and God.
   
  
   
  
    - Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 8:28:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
working for now

If this Victor person is correct and "UNBELIEF" is 
the predicament humanity is in then why was the Holy Spirit 
sent to reprove the WORLD (note this is not just 
God's covenant ppl) of SIN, righteousness, 
and judgment? 
(John 16:8)  Why didn't God send Him as 
an antidote to "unbelief" only if this is the main problem??
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:50:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02
  Subject: OK, done working for now
  
  paragraph 
  in this lecture of Victor's:
   
  I've often said, too, 
  that the hardest part of any service of worship for the minister is the 
  children's story, because nearly all the children's stories here are 
  moralistic bromides. It's just moralistic bromide. And the Gospel isn't 
  heard because we assume that children can't understand the Gospel. They 
  can be taught not to steal, and they can be taught not to swear, but they 
  can't understand the Gospel. This is ridiculous, but keep your eye on the 
  Christian education wing of your church or denomination, because that's 
  where the Gospel goes down.
   
  It strikes me that 
  street preaching and children's sermons go down the same wrong path! 
  
   
  Paragraph from 
  next lecture:
   
  
  The 
  protestant reformers maintain that the root problem is Sin and it gives 
  rise to sins. But be sure you know which is which, or you will never come 
  to terms with the Gospel. Morality 
  maintains that little "s" sins plural is the human predicament. The Gospel 
  maintains that capital "S" Sin singular – unbelief – is 
  the predicament.
   
  This is the 
  difference between David's understanding of repentance and 
  Bill's/JD's.
   
  D
   
  --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked 
  by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - 
  Release Date: 1/13/2006
   
   

Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences

[Judy Taylor]

 
It is an irony or ironies that Lance Muir himself would 
deign to write the following
about another person ..
 
"Should you wish to continue to pontificate from on 
high then, we shall not hear matters of substance. We shall only hear you 
judge us. (something you seem to do regularly)" 
 
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We (DM & JT) read me just fine, says DM. I misread them, says DM. What, 
IMO, is actually being said is that the two of you may warn, judge, malign 
and critique from some mythical position you believe yourselves to occupy. 
I, and according to the two of you, others as well, simply don't understand 
you. (have you sought professional help on this?). I (we) await your 
'teaching' on Who Jesus Is, DM. It may elicit an 'Amen' from one and all. It 
may not. Should you wish to continue to pontificate from on high then, we 
shall not hear matters of substance. We shall only hear you judge us. 
(something you seem to do regularly)
 
 
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: 
January 15, 2006 07:58Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
 
 
> Because when we read you, we see a constant effort to misrepresent us 
and> try to catch us in our words just as the scholars and Pharisees did 
to> Jesus.  On the other hand, the feedback you give us from how we 
represent> you tells us that we are reading and understanding you just 
fine.>> David Miller.>> - Original Message - 
> From: Lance Muir> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:53 AM> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Differences>>> It fascinates me that both yourself and DM 
believe that > readers/participants> on TT do not 'know' you. You 
both have no hesitation to say that you > 'know'> us. Why is that, 
Judy (DM)?> - Original Message - > From: Judy 
Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Sent: January 14, 2006 16:47> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Differences>>> You wouldn't know what my thoughts make of 
Isaiah's Immanuel or the "mind > of> Christ" Gary because 
you> are off into another orbit.  jt>> On Sat, 14 Jan 
2006 14:27:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:> myth (one delves into humanity, ppl & their thoughts bec of 
the mind of> Immanuel--Isaiah's view makes more sense of him than yours 
does)>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
writes:> Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's 
thoughts>> --> "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.
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now

[Judy Taylor]

If this Victor person is correct and "UNBELIEF" is the 
predicament humanity is in then why was the Holy Spirit 
sent to reprove the WORLD (note this is not just God's 
covenant ppl) of SIN, righteousness, and 
judgment? 
(John 16:8)  Why didn't God send Him as an 
antidote to "unbelief" only if this is the main problem??
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:50:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02
  Subject: OK, done working for now
  
  paragraph in this 
  lecture of Victor's:
   
  I've often said, too, that 
  the hardest part of any service of worship for the minister is the children's 
  story, because nearly all the children's stories here are moralistic bromides. 
  It's just moralistic bromide. And the Gospel isn't heard because we assume 
  that children can't understand the Gospel. They can be taught not to steal, 
  and they can be taught not to swear, but they can't understand the Gospel. 
  This is ridiculous, but keep your eye on the Christian education wing of your 
  church or denomination, because that's where the Gospel goes 
  down.
   
  It strikes me that 
  street preaching and children's sermons go down the same wrong path! 
  
   
  Paragraph from next 
  lecture:
   
  
  The protestant 
  reformers maintain that the root problem is Sin and it gives rise to sins. But 
  be sure you know which is which, or you will never come to terms with the 
  Gospel. Morality maintains that little 
  "s" sins plural is the human predicament. The Gospel maintains that capital 
  "S" Sin singular – unbelief – is the 
  predicament.
   
  This is the difference 
  between David's understanding of repentance and 
  Bill's/JD's.
   
  D
   
  --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by 
  AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - 
  Release Date: 1/13/2006
   

[TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FWIW, from my perspective, Judy believes none of these things.  In 
fact, she seems to believe that unregenerated man can choose to believe in 
Jesus Christ.  I have a different perspective that I would share with 
her if there were not so many other posts flying that take my time to 
read.  I believe that it takes a work of the Holy Spirit to draw men 
and cause them to believe.
 
My belief is probably closer to yours than you think. I 
do not believe in the
"total depravity" taught by Calvinists and I do believe 
that noone can come
to or believe in Christ unless they are drawn by the 
Father and I understand
this to happen as the Word of God is preached under the 
anointing of the
Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, 
righteousness, and judgment.
(John 16:8).  So yes, I do believe the 
unregenerate can make the choice to
believe.
 
I tend to agree with the perspective that man is regenerated at the 
point just before believing because Jesus said that unless one is born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  How can an unregenerated man 
believe in that which he cannot see?
 
I believed on and received Jesus at a Street Preacher 
Rally before I 
understood there was a whole 
Kingdom that came with Him.  Thank you for
periodically giving your assessment DM.  It's 
encouraging to know that
not everyone reads and builds straw men to 
challenge what I write.
 
In any case, I'm sure Judy believes that unregenerated men can decide to 
stop doing something that they have been told is wrong.  Unregenerated 
man also can decide to do something good, like give money to the poor, 
etc.  I do not think Judy would say that Christ stopped being 
God.  This is a straw man argument.  Why don't you let her speak 
for herself rather than trying to speak for her?
 
David Miller.
 
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:45 PMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery 
of Judy's gospel
 
 
1.  You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is right.  
You have stated that many times in the past.   I was just hoping 
that you good explain how that can be true with the example of Nineveh 
hanging over this theological conclusion.
 
2.  Secondly,  you believe that Christ stopped being God in spite 
of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the same  yesterday, today, 
and forever." I was hoping for an explanation of this, as well.
 
Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to answer it 
emphatically , not fearing being "set up."   I do not mind being 
responsible for what I consider to be true.  Could you please do the 
same?  I doubt anyone on this forum can tell 
the rest of us what you believe.    Seriously
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and He is merciful and 
longsuffering enoughto want to give them one more chance which they took 
for a measure of time even though theyregressed later and were 
eventually destroyed.  Their response to Jonah's warning boughtthem 
some time but unfortunately they did not gain eternity.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:And what 
does that have to do with the people of Nineveh?  They don't have to 
have theSpirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit?
 
jd
 
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of 
God..
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:But 
aren't you the one who  preaches that one cannot do the works of God 
without the Spirit of God?jd
 
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's 
day.. So obviouslythe wages of sin is death with or without a written 
Law.  Jonah called on these people to repentand they did do that in 
sackcloth and ashes...  even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:well, 
Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not call them to the Law.And 
it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist 
apart from the law?Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not 
calling them to live their lives as theJews lived theirs !!  
jd
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of 
course.
 
I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but 
don't bring God into your folly.The pagan Persian City of Nineveh 
repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32)  And what do 
yousuppose his message to them was?From: Judy Taylor
 
How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

So you know better than the Bible - or you are out 
beyond the Bible. Whichever it is Lance you apparently think
it gives you the ability and licence to critique 
everything that comes along.  I find it quite amazing that you 
appear
to think that you and you alone know the 
difference between a discerning and a naive "believer" while ATST
since you have been on this list I have not once seen 
you differentiate between the holy and the profane.
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:58:51 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy:THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, JT, YOU DO BELIEVE THE 
  BIBLE!! DM ALSO BELIEVES THE BIBLE! Wherein there lies coincidence between 
  that which God Himself says and, that which you've (both) interpreted the 
  Bible to say then Praise God. Wherein that is not so then, it is at best 
  harmles to the discerning believer and, at worst, dangerous to the naive 
  believer.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 14, 2006 21:59
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The 
mystery of Judy's gospel

 
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:45:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1.  You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is 
  right.  You have stated that many times in the past.   I 
  was just hoping that you good explain how that can be true with the 
  example of Nineveh hanging over this theological conclusion.  
   
  I have no problem with unregenerated man 
  repenting and this is what the ppl of Nineveh did; when one
  have no theological boxes there is no 
  problem.
   
   
  2.  Secondly,  you believe that Christ stopped being God in 
  spite of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the 
  same  yesterday, today, and forever."    I was 
  hoping for an explanation of this, as well.  
   
  No worries JD.  Yesterday he was God the 
  Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his place
  in the Godhead forever.  Actually you do not 
  quote correctly JD.  It is Jesus Christ, the same 
  yesterday,
  today and forever.
   
  Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to 
  answer it emphatically , not fearing being "set up."   I do 
  not mind being responsible for what I consider to be 
  true.  Could you please do the same?  I 
  doubt anyone on this forum can tell the rest of us what you 
  believe.    Seriously  jd
   
  That's easy JD.  I BELIEVE THE 
  BIBLE
   
   
   
  ------ 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also 
and He is merciful and longsuffering enough
to want to give them one more chance which they 
took for a measure of time even though they 
regressed later and were eventually 
destroyed.  Their response to Jonah's 
warning bought
them some time but unfortunately they did 
not gain eternity.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh?  
  They don't have to have the 
  Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit?  
  
   
  jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Yes ... and Jonah was called by God 
and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God..
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  But aren't you the one who  preaches that one cannot do 
  the works of God without the Spirit of God?  
  jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it 
reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously
the wages of sin is death with or 
without a written Law.  Jonah called on these people to 
repent
and they did do that in sackcloth and 
ashes...  even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  well, Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not 
  call them to the Law.  
  And it is the Law that defines sin to be 
  sin. Can sin exist apart from the 
  law?  
  Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Differences

[Judy Taylor]

You err Lance; what I mainly respond to is Garys and 
your gross misrepresentation of what I write and
I think it safe to assume that the same applies to 
DavidM since he appears to be a thorn in your side.
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:53:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It fascinates me that both yourself and DM 
  believe that readers/participants on TT do not 'know' you. You both have no 
  hesitation to say that you 'know' us. Why is that, Judy (DM)?
  
     
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
You wouldn't know what my thoughts make of Isaiah's 
Immanuel or the "mind of Christ" Gary because you 
are off into another orbit.  jt
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:27:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (one delves into humanity, 
  ppl & their thoughts bec of the mind of 
  Immanuel--Isaiah's view makes more sense of him than yours 
  does)
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's 
thoughts
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

Gary what is your problem?  I am not saying 
anything scripture does not say first ...  see 
Hebrews

 
13:7 
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken 
unto you the word of God: 
whose faith follow, considering the end of their 
conversation. 
13:8 
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 
 
Jesus - the Word of God is what they spoke and He is the 
same yesterday, today, and for ever.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:01:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..your 
  comments represent another of your manufactured scriptural 
  over-rides in support of a false philosophical projection, pejorative, in 
  its impact, to the person of JC--perhaps a subtle ad 
  hominem in our archive/d context
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:47:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..iow, your 
comments counter Hebrews; are self-generated opinion (perhaps somewhat 
unwittingly, Lance) rooted in common philosophy mired militantly 
 in mitigating JCs deity
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:36:07 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  myth (private 
  philosophy not bible teaching; 'leaders', in Heb 13, refers to: those 
  who 'say with confidence', to: those who 'spoke the word of God' 
  presented in the OT text/s employed in context by the author of 
  Hebrews)
   
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:59:29 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
|| Yesterday he 
was God the Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his 
place

  ||
   
 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:45:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1.  You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is 
  right.  You have stated that many times in the past.   I was 
  just hoping that you good explain how that can be true with the example of 
  Nineveh hanging over this theological conclusion.  
   
  I have no problem with unregenerated man repenting 
  and this is what the ppl of Nineveh did; when one
  have no theological boxes there is no 
  problem.
   
   
  2.  Secondly,  you believe that Christ stopped being God in 
  spite of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the 
  same  yesterday, today, and forever."    I was hoping 
  for an explanation of this, as well.  
   
  No worries JD.  Yesterday he was God the Word, 
  today He is God the Word, and this will be his place
  in the Godhead forever.  Actually you do not 
  quote correctly JD.  It is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
  today and forever.
   
  Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to 
  answer it emphatically , not fearing being "set up."   I do not 
  mind being responsible for what I consider to be 
  true.  Could you please do the same?  I 
  doubt anyone on this forum can tell the rest of us what you 
  believe.    Seriously  jd
   
  That's easy JD.  I BELIEVE THE 
BIBLE
   
   
   
  -- 
Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and 
He is merciful and longsuffering enough
to want to give them one more chance which they 
took for a measure of time even though they 
regressed later and were eventually 
destroyed.  Their response to Jonah's warning bought
them some time but unfortunately they did not 
gain eternity.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh?  They 
  don't have to have the 
  Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit?  
  
   
  jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Yes ... and Jonah was called by God 
and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God..
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  But aren't you the one who  preaches that one cannot do the 
  works of God without the Spirit of God?  
      jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it 
reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So 
obviously
the wages of sin is death with or without a 
written Law.  Jonah called on these people to 
repent
and they did do that in sackcloth and 
ashes...  even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  well, Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not 
  call them to the Law.  
  And it is the Law that defines sin to be 
  sin. Can sin exist apart from the 
  law?  
  Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not calling 
  them to live their lives as the 
  Jews lived theirs !!  jd
   
  



On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm with Bill on this one. God is 
  with Bill on this one, IMO, of course.
   
  I'm not surprised since you 
  and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring 
  God into your folly.
  The pagan Persian City of 
  Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32)  
  And what do you
  suppose his message to 
  them was?  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is 
of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine 
that claims one must be 
regenerated before it is possible 
to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes 
out of a misunderstanding of 
the spiritual realities involved.  
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
 

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Judy Taylor]

God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and He is 
merciful and longsuffering enough
to want to give them one more chance which they took 
for a measure of time even though they 
regressed later and were eventually 
destroyed.  Their response to Jonah's warning bought
them some time but unfortunately they did not gain 
eternity.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh?  They 
  don't have to have the 
  Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit?  
   
  jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Yes ... and Jonah was called by God 
and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God..
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But aren't you the one who  preaches that one cannot do the 
  works of God without the Spirit of God?  
  jd
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned 
over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So 
obviously
the wages of sin is death with or without a 
written Law.  Jonah called on these people to repent
and they did do that in sackcloth and 
ashes...  even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  well, Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not call 
  them to the Law.  
  And it is the Law that defines sin to be 
  sin. Can sin exist apart from the law?  
  
  Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not calling 
  them to live their lives as the 
  Jews lived theirs !!  jd
   
  



On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm with Bill on this one. God is 
  with Bill on this one, IMO, of course.
   
  I'm not surprised since you and 
  Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into 
  your folly.
  The pagan Persian City of Nineveh 
  repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32)  And what do 
  you
  suppose his message to them 
  was?  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a 
Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that 
claims one must be regenerated 
before it is possible to repent 
because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a 
misunderstanding of the spiritual 
realities involved.  
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the 
  NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not 
  a means by which or through which people are saved. It is 
  Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete 
  with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore 
  our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it 
  is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. 
  Amen.
  
   
  Lance, I now see what you meant today 
  about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full 
  message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp 
  the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous 
  times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, 
  before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the 
  repentance, arise out of that.
   
  D
  --No virus found in this outgoing 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / 
  Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 
  1/10/2006
   
   
   
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Judy Taylor]

Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed 
to speak by the Spirit of God..
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But aren't you the one who  preaches that one cannot do the works of 
  God without the Spirit of God?  
  jd
   
  From: 
    Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned 
over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So 
obviously
the wages of sin is death with or without a written 
Law.  Jonah called on these people to repent
and they did do that in sackcloth and 
ashes...  even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  well, Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not call them 
  to the Law.  
  And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. 
  Can sin exist apart from the law?  
  Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not calling them to 
  live their lives as the 
  Jews lived theirs !!  jd
   
  



On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm with Bill on this one. God is with 
  Bill on this one, IMO, of course.
   
  I'm not surprised since you and Bill 
  are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your 
  folly.
  The pagan Persian City of Nineveh 
  repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32)  And what do 
  you
  suppose his message to them 
      was?  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a 
Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims 
one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total 
depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities 
involved.  
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is 
  replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means 
  by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who 
  is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our 
  behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the 
  greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the 
  good news of Jesus Christ. Amen.
  
   
  Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw 
  Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above 
  is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of 
  what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know 
  Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The 
  accountability, the repentance, arise out of 
  that.
   
  D
  --No virus found in this outgoing 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / 
  Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 
  1/10/2006
   
   
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Judy Taylor]

It does to the merciful and caring heart ..  
Yes it does.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:37:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is.  Perhaps 
  Judy has been right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the 
  one who has been thinking too optimistically about your salvation and 
  ontological status in Jesus Christ.   DM
   
  Is this supposed to matter?  
   
  From: 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > 
> DM should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and > > expound that 
difference then, just move on. > > Lance, I try not to make 
assumptions about what other people believe. Let > Bill clarify his 
position first if you don't mind. I don't know whether or > not Bill 
excludes the concept of sin from repentance. If he does, you will > 
be hearing me expound upon our differences. You forget that you and Bill 
> are better read and trained in theological matters. I am ignorant 
in this > area. What seems clear to you is not clear to me. I didn't 
even notice > that there might be a difference in our understanding 
of the word repentance > until subsequent reads of his post prompted 
by your post claiming that Bill > did not answer in the affirmative t 
hat repentance is part of the gospel. > I'm expecting to see some 
back pedalling by Bill perhaps prompted from > private posts by you, 
or to see Bill clarify his viewpoint on the place of > the call to 
repentance in the preaching of the gospel. > > If Bill does 
have an esoteric definition of repentance, then his perspective > 
that most people have no idea what it means to repent takes on many other 
> considerations. Is salvation found in turning away from sin and 
turing to > the person of Jesus Christ, or is it found by changing 
one's philosophy > about the Godhead, from Judaic monotheism to 
understanding the Trinity! I'm > truly still shell shocked that this 
is where we are at in our discussion. I > am hoping that the answer 
is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been > right all along in 
her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been > thinking 
too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in > 
Jesus Ch rist. > > David Miller. > > > 
- Original Message - > From: Lance Muir > To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:56 AM 
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > 
> EVERYONE on TT, Judy, believes their observations to be 'rooted and 
> grounded' in Scripture. Each believes, where they are in their 
journey just > now, to have reflected that which the Lord Himself 
would have them say. I > BELIEVE THIS OF YOU. I BELIEVE THIS OF DM. 
ETC. However, when one encounters > duplicity, faulty argumentation, 
a careless 'reading' of another's > 'mail'..then, a corrective must 
be offered. Also JT, you and DM, rather > strangely I would suggest, 
regularly demean any who acknowledge the > contribution of another 
believer in print. It's almost like suggesting that > all sufficiency 
is to be found in 'God, The Book, and You'. Accessing any > other 
source whatsoe ver is cause for criticism. > > Now, as to the 
matter of 'repentance' (please correct me Bill if I'm > 
misrepresenting you on this) DM and Bill have differing understandings. DM 
> should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and expound that difference 
then, just > move on. I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on 
this one, IMO, of > course. > - Original Message - 
> From: Judy Taylor > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: January 13, 2006 06:29 
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > 
> How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because 
after all > it is his doctrine that claims one > must be 
regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total > 
depravity" and this comes out of a > misunderstanding of the 
spiritual realities involved. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 
-0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > From: 
Debbie Sawczak > Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is 
replete with directives to > repent. But repentance is not a means by 
which or through which people are > saved. It is Jesus Christ who is 
our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete > with mediation on our 
behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Judy Taylor]

Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over 
Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously
the wages of sin is death with or without a written 
Law.  Jonah called on these people to repent
and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes...  
even without theological permission.
 
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  well, Nineveh was not under the Law.  Jonah does not call them to 
  the Law.  
  And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can 
  sin exist apart from the law?  
  Paul says it does.   Jonah is certainly not calling them to 
  live their lives as the 
  Jews lived theirs !!  jd
   
  



On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill 
  on this one, IMO, of course.
   
  I'm not surprised since you and Bill are 
  so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your 
  folly.
  The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented 
  at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32)  And what do you
  suppose his message to them 
  was?  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a 
Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one 
must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total 
depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities 
involved.  
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is 
  replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by 
  which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our 
  Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. 
  Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the 
  world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus 
  Christ. Amen.
  
   
  Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw 
  Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is 
  the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what 
  Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ 
  first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, 
  the repentance, arise out of that.
   
  D
  --No virus found in this outgoing 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus 
  Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Differences

[Judy Taylor]

You wouldn't know what my thoughts make of Isaiah's 
Immanuel or the "mind of Christ" Gary because you 
are off into another 
orbit.  jt
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:27:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (one delves into humanity, ppl & 
  their thoughts bec of the mind of Immanuel--Isaiah's view makes 
  more sense of him than yours does)
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's 
thoughts
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Differences

[Judy Taylor]

 

  
,,your 
doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--
sorta like you 
are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of 
God,
 
Someone with the mind 
of Christ thinks on God's thoughts rather than those of Bob Dylan 
Gary
Is this a 
problem for you?
 
 'Immanuel' be damned?
 
Oh well!  Out of 
the abundance that fills the heart the mouth 
speaks..!!!
 
 
 
cd: My doctrine is as Judy's but we 
will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and 
there are many parts to the same body.I would like to think my mind is being 
shaped by God-with the thoughts of God. I would not damn Emmanuel as He 
presented me to God and taught me of God greatness-yet God gave me to 
Christ as His own which I hope to live up to-may God help me live up to that 
which is Christ.In the below letter I stated that "Gary is into Gary" I did 
this so we could come to this point of discussion. You are into your 
expressive form of art which you enjoy presenting-weather or not other can 
learn from this form-or even understand what you are saying is secondary to 
what you love in this form of _expression_-Therefore I conclude self is 
more important than others to you and hence the statement.This is not to 
belittle you but you "seem" to have much to offer the hearer-but if one 
speaks in a language none can understand what gain does God receive from 
your wo rk. Have you considered finding someone to interpret for you? If 
not-then be silent as Paul ordered the church who were also speaking in 
"tongues" that could not be understood.I mean this for your good 
Gary.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  are you 
  street preachin' these days?
   
  On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment 
on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and 
asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math 
is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in 
grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses 
students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would 
realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an 
appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the 
trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can 
learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in 
my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he 
ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is 
blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught 
somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see 
this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding 
that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it 
behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward 
Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing 
around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they 
would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to 
truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his 
beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from 
dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my 
limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by 
the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited 
knowledge.  This is all just my opinion given to help-for you 
and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any 
feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as 
people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified 
one.
 

||
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

 
Fat nancy 2001 obviously was not born of the Spirit and 
was most definitely not privy
to Hebrews 6:4,5  Are you Gary?
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:18:18 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  the mindset in 
  which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God
   
  this point is at 
  root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it  to the 
  bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the 
  divine
   
  God's divinity is 
  essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is 
  essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority 
  & power
   
  "As great as you 
  are a man, you'll never be greater than 
  yourself."    
  --fat nancy, 2001
  ::
   
  As great as you 
  are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself.
     --g 
   
   
  On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> 
  Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9||
  > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
  Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests 
  that you're a philosopher, also not > a very  good one; that there 
  is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 
  2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
  writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had 
  laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> 
  ||
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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 split personality?
 
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"?
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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.
 
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"?
   

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

[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 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  Here is 
  an approximation of the [NT] biblical language"
   
  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 text (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" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when 
speaking of WHO Jesus 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  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 Message - 
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 Holy Spirit.
DAVEH responds:   Any room for individuals in 
that equation?..The oneness of God is 
thereforeFather, 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 
his 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

[TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Judy Taylor]

Well it is something that needs to be repented of JD; 
if it is not sin, then why the need to repent?
Dead works is something lifeless as opposed to works of 
righteousness which are the fruit of walking after the spirit.
One is dead religion - the other is life and 
peace.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:17:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yes   --  and who said that "repentance from dead 
  works"  is speaking of sin, anyway?   "Dead works" is that body 
  of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING 
  HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this 
  [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I 
  think, and as it is attached to Acts 2  --   the best possible 
  understanding of what happened on that First Day.   
   
  There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in 
  mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self 
  justification.  
   
  jd
  From: 
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



From: Debbie Sawczak 
 
Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is 
what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with 
immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises 
between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who 
Christ is.
 
yD  


From: Lance Muir 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 
10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
What is the gospel?
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

Re: repentance: 
basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he 
posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible 
teaching
 
however, the 
point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a 
scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private 
notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly 
(through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you 
sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 
6:1'
 
the issue 
historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 
while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical 
bias, bec to you it sounds always like it 
does
 
in the end, it 
simply ain't bible teaching, Bro
 
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel 
on one's > interpretation of one sermon. 
||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine 
of Christ > is repentance from dead works.  This clearly links 
repentance and sin.  
||
--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by 
AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - 
Release Date: 1/13/2006
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by 
AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - 
Release Date: 1/13/2006
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:03:37 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

I 
don't believe you understand His nature at all Lance; also I fail to see why 
it is so important to you that he be
God walking around on earth - why not allow 
him to be as the scripture reveals.
 
cd: Judy - see scripture revealing more of Christ 
also.
Lance and Baxter's "dancing around" theory has some very good 
points/teachings if one looks past the undertones of Augustness - which 
Calvin popularized to the protestant world (notice Blaine and Dave I said 
protestant world which Armenians - I my opinion-aren't a part of as the 
doctrines are separate/differant.). 
 
Thanks for this Dean but I don't see the 
relevance of this "so called" divine procession and I can't see an 
"eternal"
son in scripture.  He did not have two 
births and was not a creation of the Father at the 
beginning.
 
The point I am hoping to make is that Christ was more than 
a man while on earth. If a king took off his royal clothing and put on rags 
and emptied himself of most of his wealth and went out into the cold so as 
to experience what the common man experienced he would still be a King only 
one in rags. This king would know he was still a king-as Christ identified 
himself as such - He knew that He was more than a man and considered himself 
equal with God-His covering didn't make up his identity- rather who He was 
made that identity foremost.  He remember a Glory that was shared with 
the Fathers before the world began - How can any man hold a memory of that 
magnitude and still be just a man?
 
Well to everything there is a season and a 
time for every purpose under heaven. When he was born in that 
manger
in Bethlehem it was in human form - a 
little lower than the angels, even though we do have the prophetic 
voices
telling us that he would be so much 
more.  He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King.
 
Job asked God for a Mediator as a go between God and man - God 
honored that request and sent down a Mediator who could experience both 
sides of the issue. 
 
I believe Job was speaking prophetically 
see (Job 19:25) where he says "I know that my redeemer lives and that he 
shall stand at the latter day upon the earth"
 
Christ by walking in the form of man with the temptations of a 
man - due to the flesh- Yet was also able to relate with God's side of the 
issue in his divinness. Hope this helps and know that this is my 
understanding-if anything can be added to help my understanding please do 
so-Thank you.
 
 
  It is after his death (as a 
man)
burial and resurrection that God the Father exalted 
Him and gave Him a Name above every Name so that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every 
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of
God the Father.
cd: I see God as honoring Christ for the work on the cross-but 
knees bowed to him here while on earth also-The soldiers fell backwards to 
their knees in the garden when Christ said "I am" and many others bowed 
before Him which was allowed as He was God in the flesh.Remenber He 
identified himself as the great "I am". This is identifying himself as 
God.Yes he was made in the flesh a little lower than the Angles but still 
commanded those same angles as He could have called 12 legions to His 
defense-in the wilderness of temptation these Angels came and 
served/ministered to him in the form of servants. No Angel ever allowed a 
man to bow before them-Yet Christ allowed this to be so.He was therefore 
greater than the Angels and hence much more than the common 
man.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:11:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I think I know where you are going with this, 
  David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his 
  death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates 
  Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at 
  least, I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on 
  that, then? Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do 
  with his position; it was not a change in nature.
   
  Lance
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)

Lance, in your theology, was Jesus 
exalted in any way, after hi

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Message - 
  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 Holy 
  Spirit.
  DAVEH responds:   Any room for individuals in that 
  equation?..The oneness of God is 
  thereforeFather, 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 his 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 therefore 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. 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

Those are not my words JD, that must have been what you 
THOUGHT Judy said.
What does Emmanuel mean??
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:28:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yes, Judy has stated to me in past times that Jesus was only a 
  representative of God while here on earth.
   
  jd
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



I think I know where you are going with this, 
David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his 
death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates 
Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at least, 
I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on that, then? 
Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do with his 
position; it was not a change in nature.
 
Lance

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Lance, in your theology, was Jesus 
  exalted in any way, after his crucifixion?  
   
  Does the following _expression_ by Peter 
  also puzzle you?
   
  Acts 2:36(36) 
  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made 
  that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ.
   
  David 
  Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 
12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)

I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what 
about Jesus made Him divine'. It is not as if he were a man to whom 
a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. 
He is divine because he is God the Son who has existed from 
eternity, of one nature with the Father and Spirit, come AS A 
human being. Your question is like asking what makes God God. He ain't 
Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus revealing his 
Superman garb.   

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 13, 2006 
10:49
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
  
  Dean and Lance,
  What exactly was it about jesus that made him 
  divine?
  Since you say you know what it was not - can 
  you now tell me what it is?
  judyt
   
  On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

 
    
Lance wrote:  
It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if 
it were then all believers would be equally divine. 


  
  

   
  Yes; this is what I thought to 
  myself also when I read Judy's post about 
  that.
   
  D
  cd: Lance and 
  Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit 
  "without measure" have on you statement? 
  
  Albert Barns wrote:
  
  Joh 3:34 - 
  Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
  Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of 
  God.
  For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. 
  Though Jesus was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God 
  anointed him, or endowed him with the influences of his 
  Spirit, so as to be completely qualified for his great 
  work.
  By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, 
  completely. The prophets were inspired on particular occasions 
  to deliver special messages. The Messiah was continually 
  filled with the Spirit of God. "The Spirit dwelt in him, not 
  as a vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a bottomless ocean 
  (Henry).
   
   
   
   
 
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

 
Surely you don't believe that God died do you 
Lance?
God didn't sin to begin with - it was the first man 
Adam who fell incurring the curse upon mankind
And the second man Adam who paid the price and is the 
first born of the New Creation
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:35:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I'm wanting to know, as this is quite clear, if 
  DM's position is identical with your own on this? 
  Once I hear from him I shall get back to 
  you..
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I don't believe you understand His nature at all 
Lance; also I fail to see why it is so important to you that he 
be
God walking around on earth - why not allow him to 
be as the scripture reveals.  It is after his death (as a 
man)
burial and resurrection that God the Father exalted 
Him and gave Him a Name above every Name so that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every 
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of
God the Father.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:11:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I think I know where you are going with this, 
  David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his 
  death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates 
  Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at 
  least, I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on 
  that, then? Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do 
  with his position; it was not a change in nature.
   
  Lance
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)

Lance, in your theology, was Jesus 
exalted in any way, after his crucifixion?  
 
Does the following _expression_ by Peter 
also puzzle you?
 
Acts 2:36(36) 
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made 
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ.
 
David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 
  12:09 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
  
  I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 
  'what about Jesus made Him divine'. It is not as if he were a man 
  to whom a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' 
  him God. He is divine because he is God the Son who has existed from 
  eternity, of one nature with the Father and Spirit, come AS 
  A human being. Your question is like asking what makes God God. He 
  ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus 
  revealing his Superman garb.   
      
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 
10:49
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Dean and Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made 
him divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - 
can you now tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, 
  if it were then all believers would be equally divine. 
  
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought 
to myself also when I read Judy's post about 
that.
 
D
cd: Lance and 
Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that 
spirit "without measure" have on you 
statement? 

Albert Barns wrote:

Joh 3:34 - 
Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of 
God.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:28:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Deity means being God. Do you think that when 
  Jesus laid aside his glory, he ceased to be God? 
   
  No, I am not saying that exactly; 
  what I am saying is that he didn't come here the same as he was 
  there
  because he took upon himself the 
  form of a servant and was made a little lower than the angels.
   
  And are you saying that the difference between 
  Jesus and other human beings, with respect to the 
  Holy Spirit, is merely quantitative? 

   
  Yes, he was given the Spirit 
  without measure; other born again human beings who are part of 
the
  New Creation are given a 
  measure.  Another difference I pointed out and you seem to want to 
  ignore
  is holiness of 
  character.
   
  Third, even if a mere man were completely holy, 
  unblemished, how could his sacrifice avail for any 
  more than just one person?
   
  Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 
  9:14-16)
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 13:32
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

Depends what you are calling "his diety"  If 
it is the glory he had with the Father since the world began
then yes he emptied himself leaving that behind 
when he took upon himself a body of flesh.  The difference
between him and other humans indwelt by the Spirit 
is the measure (ie he was given the Spirit without measure)
along with holiness; he loved righteousness 
and hated evil an ordinary human would never qualify as a 
perfect
sacrifice without blemish.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:05:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Do you mean, Judy, that he left behind his 
  deity when he was on earth, that he was not God while on earth? In that 
  case, how was he different from any other human being indwelt by the 
  Spirit? And how could the sacrifice of such a one avail for the whole 
  human race, let alone the whole cosmos? It is God alone who saves, is it 
  not?
   
   
  
- Original Message ----- 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 12:32
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)

 
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:09:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 
  'what about Jesus made Him divine'. 
  It is not as if he were a man to 
  whom a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him 
  God. 
  He is divine because he is God the Son 
  who has existed from eternity, of one nature with the Father 
  and Spirit, 
  come AS A human being. 
   
  He is God the Word from 
  eternity; there is no mention of the second member of the Godhead 
  being a son until the
  day he was begotten (Ps 
  2:7, Heb 1:5; 3:5, 6; 2 Pet 1:17, 18).  Then there is the fact 
  that he is also the son of man.
  His existence from eternity 
  has been The Promise.
   
  Your question is like asking what makes 
  God God. He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe 
  thus revealing his Superman garb.  
   
  No he layed aside his 
  superman garb and emptied himself as per Phil 2  ATST he was holy 
  and separate from sinners...
  So you believe he walked as 
  God and was as much God on earth as he was in heaven 
  Lance? 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Dean and 
Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made 
him divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - 
can you now tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, 
  if it were then all believers would be equally divine. 
  
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought 
to myself also when I read Judy's post about 
that.
  

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

I don't believe you understand His nature at all Lance; 
also I fail to see why it is so important to you that he be
God walking around on earth - why not allow him to be 
as the scripture reveals.  It is after his death (as a man)
burial and resurrection that God the Father exalted Him 
and gave Him a Name above every Name so that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every 
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of
God the Father.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:11:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I think I know where you are going with this, 
  David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his death 
  and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates Judy's view 
  that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at least, I think this 
  is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on that, then? Yes/No. As for 
  his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do with his position; it was not a 
  change in nature.
   
  Lance
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

Lance, in your theology, was Jesus exalted 
in any way, after his crucifixion?  
 
Does the following _expression_ by Peter 
also puzzle you?
 
Acts 2:36(36) 
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made 
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
 
David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:09 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what 
  about Jesus made Him divine'. It is not as if he were a man to whom 
  a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. He 
  is divine because he is God the Son who has existed from eternity, of 
  one nature with the Father and Spirit, come AS A human being. Your 
  question is like asking what makes God God. He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who 
  needs only to remove his robe thus revealing his Superman 
  garb.   
  
    - Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 10:49
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ 
- incarnate God (Judy)

Dean and Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made him 
divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - can 
you now tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it 
  were then all believers would be equally divine. 
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought to 
myself also when I read Judy's post about 
that.
 
D
cd: Lance and 
Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit 
"without measure" have on you statement? 

Albert Barns wrote:

Joh 3:34 - 
Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of 
God.
For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. Though 
Jesus was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God anointed 
him, or endowed him with the influences of his Spirit, so as to 
be completely qualified for his great work.
By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, 
completely. The prophets were inspired on particular occasions 
to deliver special messages. The Messiah was continually filled 
with the Spirit of God. "The Spirit dwelt in him, not as a 
vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a bottomless ocean 
(Henry).
 
 
 
 
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

Depends what you are calling "his diety"  If it is 
the glory he had with the Father since the world began
then yes he emptied himself leaving that behind when he 
took upon himself a body of flesh.  The difference
between him and other humans indwelt by the Spirit is 
the measure (ie he was given the Spirit without measure)
along with holiness; he loved righteousness and 
hated evil an ordinary human would never qualify as a perfect
sacrifice without blemish.
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:05:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Do you mean, Judy, that he left behind his deity 
  when he was on earth, that he was not God while on earth? In that case, how 
  was he different from any other human being indwelt by the Spirit? And 
  how could the sacrifice of such a one avail for the whole human race, let 
  alone the whole cosmos? It is God alone who saves, is it not?
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 13, 2006 12:32
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

 
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:09:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what 
  about Jesus made Him divine'. 
  It is not as if he were a man to whom 
  a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. 
  
  He is divine because he is God the Son who 
  has existed from eternity, of one nature with the Father and 
  Spirit, 
  come AS A human being. 
   
  He is God the Word from 
  eternity; there is no mention of the second member of the Godhead being a 
  son until the
  day he was begotten (Ps 2:7, 
  Heb 1:5; 3:5, 6; 2 Pet 1:17, 18).  Then there is the fact that he is 
  also the son of man.
  His existence from eternity has 
  been The Promise.
   
  Your question is like asking what makes God 
  God. He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus 
  revealing his Superman garb.  
   
  No he layed aside his superman 
  garb and emptied himself as per Phil 2  ATST he was holy and separate 
  from sinners...
  So you believe he walked as God 
  and was as much God on earth as he was in heaven Lance? 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Dean and 
Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made him 
divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - can 
you now tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it 
  were then all believers would be equally divine. 
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought to 
myself also when I read Judy's post about 
that.
 
D
cd: Lance and 
Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit 
"without measure" have on you statement? 

Albert Barns wrote:

Joh 3:34 - 
Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of 
God.
For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. Though 
Jesus was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God anointed 
him, or endowed him with the influences of his Spirit, so as to 
be completely qualified for his great work.
By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, 
completely. The prophets were inspired on particular occasions 
to deliver special messages. The Messiah was continually filled 
with the Spirit of God. "The Spirit dwelt in him, not as a 
vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a bottomless ocean 
(Henry).
 
 
 
 
   
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:09:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what about 
  Jesus made Him divine'. 
  It is not as if he were a man to whom 
  a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. 
  
  He is divine because he is God the Son who has 
  existed from eternity, of one nature with the Father and Spirit, 
  
  come AS A human being. 
   
  He is God the Word from eternity; 
  there is no mention of the second member of the Godhead being a son until 
  the
  day he was begotten (Ps 2:7, Heb 
  1:5; 3:5, 6; 2 Pet 1:17, 18).  Then there is the fact that he is also the 
  son of man.
  His existence from eternity has 
  been The Promise.
   
  Your question is like asking what makes God God. 
  He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus revealing his 
  Superman garb.  
   
  No he layed aside his superman garb 
  and emptied himself as per Phil 2  ATST he was holy and separate from 
  sinners...
  So you believe he walked as God and 
  was as much God on earth as he was in heaven Lance? 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Dean and 
Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made him 
divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - can you 
now tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it 
  were then all believers would be equally divine. 
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought to 
myself also when I read Judy's post about that.
 
D
cd: Lance and 
Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit 
"without measure" have on you statement? 

Albert Barns wrote:

Joh 3:34 - 
Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of 
God.
For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. Though 
Jesus was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God anointed him, or 
endowed him with the influences of his Spirit, so as to be 
completely qualified for his great work.
By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, completely. 
The prophets were inspired on particular occasions to deliver 
special messages. The Messiah was continually filled with the Spirit 
of God. "The Spirit dwelt in him, not as a vessel, but as in a 
fountain, as in a bottomless ocean (Henry).
 
 
 
 
   
   

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

[Judy Taylor]

Dean and Lance,
What exactly was it about jesus that made him 
divine?
Since you say you know what it was not - can you now 
tell me what it is?
judyt
 
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
   
      
  Lance wrote:  
  It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it were 
  then all believers would be equally divine. 
  


  
 
Yes; this is what I thought to myself also when I 
read Judy's post about that.
 
D
cd: Lance and 
Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit "without 
measure" have on you statement? 

Albert Barns wrote:

Joh 3:34 - 
Whom God hath sent - The Messiah.
Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of God.
For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. Though Jesus 
was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God anointed him, or endowed 
him with the influences of his Spirit, so as to be completely qualified 
for his great work.
By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, completely. The 
prophets were inspired on particular occasions to deliver special 
messages. The Messiah was continually filled with the Spirit of God. 
"The Spirit dwelt in him, not as a vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a 
bottomless ocean (Henry).