Re: [TruthTalk] beginning

[Lance Muir]

DH:You've been on TT too long NOT TO KNOW that, in 
the end, Dean's position on these matters will not come close to your (the 
Mormon) position. When speaking of, say,  DM's position on creation, we do 
not have a 'house of cards' theology. Even though wrong DM is exegeting his 
understanding of the Scriptures. In your case you are NOT EXEGETING SCIPTURE, 
you are proferring Joseph Smith's 'inspired' understanding of the 
beginning. This IS a house of cards position, potentially. IFF Joseph 
Smith's understanding does not correspond with reality then...?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 24, 2006 06:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] beginning
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dave Hansen 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/24/2006 2:07:07 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
beginning

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions being The 
GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles.
DAVEH:  I understand you to mean that the pre-existence 
(where The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles were in existence) 
was not part of the creation in/of the beginningis that 
correct, Dean?
 
cd: Yes I hold that to be correct as we are discussing the 
beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1 of this universe. The  GodHead 
had no beginning not end and the angels came at a different date prior to 
man.Satan is already in the garden in Genesis and mentioned as both being in 
the garden and as being created (v. 15) in Ezekiel 28:13-19. Note in verse 
16 there is no salvation for his sin -not sins-one is en ought to send one 
to hell. So don't sin if you don't receive the gift of Christ-Oops too late- 
for all have sinned and fallen


Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; 
every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the 
diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and 
the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was 
prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I 
have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and 
down in the midst of the stones of fire. 
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that 
thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 
Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they 
have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore 
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy 
thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 

Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy 
beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will 
cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold 
thee. 
Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the 
multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore 
will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and 
I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that 
behold thee. 
Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people 
shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never 
shalt thou 
be any 
more.Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
   
   
   
  
- 
Original Message - 
From: 
Dave 
Hansen 
To: 
TruthTalk
Sent: 
1/23/2006 12:09:11 AM 
Subject: 
[TruthTalk] beginning

cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the 
Bible DAVEH:  What do you perceive the 
beginning to be, Dean?  I am asking this in context of Gen 
1:1..[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
earth.
cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions being 
The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles. Unlike B.Hinn who teaches that the 
earth existed before man and had to be destroyed-prior to the 
flood-Simular to David Miller's theory of the older 
earth.

  
  
   
  cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible 
  if one cares to search enough with believing faith and asking God 
  for the answer-Men have always wanted to give an understanding of God 
  that exists outside of the Bible that why cults profit and the only 
  reason they exist. This started in the Garden with Satan: Yea,hath God 
  said,...?
  
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
thi

[TruthTalk] PhD Thesis?

[Lance Muir]

David:
 
Thanks for your recent reply. I was sure that you'd 
spoken previously of having completed (actually written) your PhD thesis but, 
that it'd been rejected. I ask as I was told in the store once by someone with a 
PhD in paleontology of her not having included her own views but a position that 
would be acceptable to her review committee. I could not see you comprising. If, 
in reality, you wrote your thesis but, had it rejected, I'd still be interested 
in reading it.
 
Did I understand you to say that you've never 
worked in any capacity that called on your training in science? (you do have an 
MA in science do you not?) What then is it that you do 
vocationally?
 
thanks,
 
Lance  

Re: [Bulk] Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??

[Lance Muir]

The 1/3 2/3 thingy...speculation more than reality...right?


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 23, 2006 13:47
Subject: [Bulk] Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??



John, the concept of the fall and original sin is basic 101 theology.
Unfortunately, many of the modern theologians ignore the subject 
completely,

so it might appear to you to be only an assumption.  Not true.  There is
much literature on this, so much so that I hardly know which to point you
toward.  I just did a quick search and found the following Catholic 
article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

You might start there, but there is a whole lot more out there.

The basic concept is very sound.  Death is related to sin, and it is
believed that death as well as sin passed upon men through Adam's fall.
There also is observed a heightened propensity for sin in man because man
universally falls into sin.  In contrast, two-thirds of the heavenly
creatures did not sin.

In modern times, the idea is attacked by the theory of evolution, which
leads some theologians to think that death was not introduced into the 
world

through Adam, but rather Adam was a major development in the evolutionary
scale as man progresses towards immortality and perfection. If death was 
not
introduced to mankind by Adam, then neither was sin.  If that is true, 
then
there was no sin of Adam which condemned mankind into a fallen state with 
a

propensity toward sin.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??

And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy.
In addition,  I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the
"generational curse" is a huge problem as well.

As for me,  I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of 
the
fall.   In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that 
provided

for the opportunity of disobedience.   How is that not true?

I have said this several times before and I say it again:  in all of my
reading, to date,  I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the
theology of the "fall."   Does such exist?  How could it not?   But so 
far,

I can't even find the pickle.   Where's the beef, I say ?? !!

I hate to couch the  rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific
and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology,
but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most
meaningful of ways in this regard.   A book or paper entitled "A Theology 
of

the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth,"  or .. 
well

, you get the picture.   Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an
assumption ,  even in Barth  !!

Understand,  I have been in this theological persuasion for little more 
than

a year.  There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read.  Actually,
"much" is an understatement of grand proportions.   But I have looked for
such an explanation without success.


jd




-- Original message -- 
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's 
is
that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to 
take

our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having a fallen nature
(not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I
understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a 
sacrifice
for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction 
happening.

He is 'bending human nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his
steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the
fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human 
in
every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to 
ours.

Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix
the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. 
I

remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end up
losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or 
both).


D




From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man




- Original Message - 
From: Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Jan

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

Thanks David.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 23, 2006 13:38
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?



Lance wrote:

Ph.D. thesis, David.
Title, chapter headings, availability to be read?
That one!


In my biology program, we did not have a thesis for the Ph.D.  We had a
dissertation.  I never completed this part of the Ph.D. program; hence, I
never earned a Ph.D.  My Master's thesis concerned prey size selection and
the foraging ecology of the mangrove water snake, nerodia fasciata
compressicauda.  My study was published in the journal Copeia during the 
mid

1980's.  I don't have an electronic copy of it.  The library at the
University of South Florida had it on its shelves at one time.  I suppose
you could get a copy through interlibrary loan, but I doubt the subject
matter would interest you much.

I had published another study in Herpetologica sometime around that same
time whereby I described for the first time how these estaurine water 
snakes

obtained fresh water.  It is a less analytical article that might be more
interesting to you, but I think even its subject matter is of little
interest to most people on this forum.  I don't have the formal references
for these studies available right now.

David Miller

--
"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] The fall - Where's the beef ??

[Lance Muir]

That may be true of one of us, Judy. Methinks it is 
thou! 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 13:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The fall - 
  Where's the beef ??
  
  You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word 
  of God.  Your have been
  tutored by the theological arguments put together by 
  men... so between your opinion
  and spiritual reality there is a vast 
  gulf.
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:41:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, 
comes from your fertile imagination. Should you choose to equate 
that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
  Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - 
  Where's the beef ??
  
   
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by 
Judy.  In addition,  I think Judy's attachment to her thinking 
concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well.  

 
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and 
Debbie's.  Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from 
God's
Holy Word.  The curse of the law is a 
present day reality - as is generational curses.  You don't have to 
accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we 
speak.
 
As for me,  I just do not see a change in human nature with 
the event of the fall.   In fact, the fall is only possible 
because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of 
disobedience.   How is that not true?  
 
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible 
very well.  What about the first murder and the fact that within 
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy 
the whole shooting match - except for one family.
 
I have said this several times before and I say it 
again:  in all of my reading, to date,  I have yet to discover 
an actual apologetic for the theology of the 
"fall."   Does such exist?  How could it 
not?   But so far, I can't even find the pickle.   
Where's the beef, I say ?? !!     
 
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must 
be selective along with the fact that you obviously don't have eyes 
to see.
 
I hate to couch the  rise of a budding theologian in terms of 
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" 
theology,  but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute 
in the most meaningful of ways in this regard.   A book or 
paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" 

or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth,"  or 
..  well , you get the picture.   
Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption ,  
even in Barth  !!
 
Who would want to "defend it"  Much better 
to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through 
Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different 
from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
 
Understand,  I have been in this theological 
persuasion for little more than a year.  There is much (even in 
Barth) that I have not read.  Actually,  "much" is an 
understatement of grand proportions.   But I have looked for 
such an explanation without success.  jd
 
    Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of 
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
 
 
 
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
  Man
  
  I think the stumbling block for those 
  coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been 
  an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were 
  blemished in any way, and having a fallen nature (not 
  unreason

Re: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??

[Lance Muir]

Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, comes 
from your fertile imagination. Should you choose to equate that (your 
imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
  Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's 
  the beef ??
  
   
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by 
Judy.  In addition,  I think Judy's attachment to her thinking 
concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well.  
 
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and 
Debbie's.  Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from 
God's
Holy Word.  The curse of the law is a present 
day reality - as is generational curses.  You don't have to accept that 
but they are working in you and in your children as we speak.
 
As for me,  I just do not see a change in human nature with the 
event of the fall.   In fact, the fall is only possible because of 
a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience.   How 
is that not true?  
 
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very 
well.  What about the first murder and the fact that within 
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the 
whole shooting match - except for one family.
 
I have said this several times before and I say it again:  in 
all of my reading, to date,  I have yet to discover an actual 
apologetic for the theology of the "fall."   Does such 
exist?  How could it not?   But so far, I can't even find the 
pickle.   Where's the beef, I say ?? !!    
 
 
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be 
selective along with the fact that you obviously don't have eyes to 
see.
 
I hate to couch the  rise of a budding theologian in terms of 
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" 
theology,  but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in 
the most meaningful of ways in this regard.   A book or paper 
entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" 
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth,"  or 
..  well , you get the picture.   Currently, 
it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption ,  even in 
Barth  !!
 
Who would want to "defend it"  Much better to 
write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from 
yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
 
Understand,  I have been in this theological persuasion 
for little more than a year.  There is much (even in Barth) that I have 
not read.  Actually,  "much" is an understatement of grand 
proportions.   But I have looked for such an explanation without 
success.  jd
 
Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of 
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
 
 
 
 
------ 
  Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
  Man
  
  I think the stumbling block for those coming from a 
  viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable 
  sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any 
  way, and having a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a 
  blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that 
  Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there 
  is more than the legal transaction happening. He is 'bending human 
  nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his steadfast 
  refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature 
  to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, 
  which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the 
  legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the 
  fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I 
  remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end 
  up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or 
  both).
   
  D
  
  
  From: Lance Muir 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 
  1:1

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation

[Lance Muir]

No

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 10:18
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question 
  Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  You are losing me with that comment, Lance.  
  Do you not believe the Lord makes personal covenants with 
  individuals?Lance Muir wrote: 
  

Well.with Israel.through 
Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. 


  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 09:47
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  The Lord made personal covenants with 
  Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: 
  



Who other than Israelites?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Hansen 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  The Lord made covenants with groups of 
  people (Israelites, for instance).  I was trying to distinguish 
  that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that 
  the Lord would make with an individual.  Does that make sense, 
  John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
Maybe.  Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?
 
jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  > DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who 
  would like to > share their thoughts with me about the 
  relationship between personal > covenants and salvation. Do 
  you feel that there is a personal covenant > associated 
  with salvation? > > 
  -- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation

[Lance Muir]

Well.with Israel.through 
Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question 
  Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  The Lord made personal covenants with 
  Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: 
  



Who other than Israelites?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  The Lord made covenants with groups of people 
  (Israelites, for instance).  I was trying to distinguish that kind of 
  (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make 
  with an individual.  Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
Maybe.  Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?
 
jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  > DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who 
  would like to > share their thoughts with me about the 
  relationship between personal > covenants and salvation. Do you 
  feel that there is a personal covenant > associated with 
  salvation? > > 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Lance Muir]

In that case Judy, you are wrong!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 09:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  In your economy Lance; I don't think or speak in 
  those terms. To me a "text" as you call it is
  God's Word for which one either does or does not have 
  understanding.  Man shall not live by
  every "text/doctrine" but by every word that proceeds 
  from the mouth of God"
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:03:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
When one employs a text in order to address a 
concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
   
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a 
sinner-
 
First of all, Dean,  Christ is God and Man.   
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of 
sin nature.  
 
A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and 
the same"
So far as humanity is concerned - There is none 
righteous, no not one.
Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and 
always has been righteous.
The same nature - yesterday, today, and 
forever
 
Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other  
-  
but I believe there is a difference.   The first has 
sinned -  the second only 
has potential for sin..  it is temptable.   

 
Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature  (a sin 
nature) 
or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor 
would 
they have violated that command.  jd
 
A&E were created innocent; they did not 
know sin until they decided to
disobey - that's all it took.  This may 
conflict with your doctrine but that's
just how it is.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was 
Jesus of God's Nature?

 
 
 

  


  
  cd: To me this fits the state of 
  Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not 
  the lost man following Satan state that the world lies in 
  .
   
  Yes, a good analogy 
  but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; 
  how
  crazy does it sound to 
  say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows 
  Satan
  which is the natural 
  mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST 
  he
  walks in the fullness 
  of the Holy Spirit?
   
  cd: If Christ came in the fallen 
  state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was 
  well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? 
  Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the 
  below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but 
  not Abraham's Children-instead you are Satan's 
  Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the 
  two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to 
  Satan-and One can be of Abraham seed and belong to 
  God.Christ was of this nature- Hence He was with this 
  nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented 
  Abraham from killing Isaac He told Abraham that because 
  you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my 
  one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's 
  decedents. 
  
  Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be 
  Abraham's seed, and were never i

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

Ph.D. thesis, David.

Title, chapter headings, availability to be read?

That one!

Lance
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 23, 2006 09:18
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?



Lance wrote:

Do you intend to answer my questions concerning
your thesis?


Sorry, Lance.  I have lots of unread messages.  What thesis?  What
questions?

David Miller

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

[Lance Muir]

Thanks for the insight..into David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 23, 2006 09:14
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"



Lance wrote:

IFO see almost no comparison between the ministry
of Jesus and the ministry of Hinn.


I don't know about your extreme view of "NO" comparison, but I certainly
don't find enough in the anecdotes that come my way to warrant me making 
too

much of an effort to know this man.  At the same time, nobody I have known
flocks to his meeting in such a way as to warrant my concern.  In other
words, he is not a magnet of false theology or a false religious system 
like

Joseph Smith or other such individuals.  The Bible says that the love of
money is the root of all evil, and every critic I have read always focuses
on the money.  If Benny Hinn were dirt poor, I don't think anybody would
care about him.  His critics would go away.  I think that says a lot about
the motivation of his critics.  Such an observation does not justify Hinn,
it only impugns the critic.  I hope you can understand the difference.

In regards to comparing ministries, I think the following passage ought to
be considered and followed:

Mark 9:38-40
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils 
in

thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth
not us.
(39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
(40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Such a passage indicates that there were some who did not do it Jesus's 
way,

and Jesus himself rebuked those who would forbad such a person.  The
perspective of Jesus was, "he that is not against us is on our part."

David Miller

--
"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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

DAVID:

Do you intend to answer my questions concerning your thesis?

Lancel
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 23, 2006 08:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?



JD wrote:

Regarding Adam and Eve  -  if they did not have a
"sinful nature" before their decision to disobey the
Lord, they would  have never disobeyed Him !!


What is your basis for this assumption, John?

Consider the following passage:

Ezekiel 28:15
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, 
till

iniquity was found in thee.

Do you think the angels that sinned also were created with a sin nature?


From my perspective, Adam & Eve did NOT have a sinful nature as part of

their constituency.  It was the defiling nature of sin, and the selfish
nature of a genetic evolutionary force, which has produced the sin nature
that we observe in man today.

David Miller.

--
"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.

[TruthTalk] Everything God WANTS us to know

[Lance Muir]

Question:Let's say that everything that Bill Taylor 
has been outlining these past weeks concerning Who Jesus Is is absolutely the 
case and, there is yet more to be said. In spite of his valiant, lucid attempts 
at explanation, most do not apprehend/believe what he's saying. What 
question(s) ought to be inserted at this juncture?

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Lance Muir]

A point made some time ago to Judy. She didn't 
understand it then and, she'll not understand it now.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:22
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  (*, below, = 'therefore, JC wasn't a human being' which is 
  rational, but not biblical; a sylogistic lie rather than) 
  myth 
   
  On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

[a.]So far as humanity is concerned - There is 
none righteous, no not one.
[b.]Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and 
always has been righteous.
[*.]

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Lance Muir]

When one employs a text in order to address a 
concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
   
   
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a 
sinner-
 
First of all, Dean,  Christ is God and Man.   
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin 
nature.  
 
A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the 
same"
So far as humanity is concerned - There is none 
righteous, no not one.
Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always 
has been righteous.
The same nature - yesterday, today, and 
forever
 
Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other  
-  
but I believe there is a difference.   The first has sinned 
-  the second only 
has potential for sin..  it is temptable.   
 
Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature  (a sin nature) 

or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would 

they have violated that command.  jd
 
A&E were created innocent; they did not know 
sin until they decided to
disobey - that's all it took.  This may 
conflict with your doctrine but that's
just how it is.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus 
of God's Nature?

 
 
 

  


  
  cd: To me this fits the state of 
  Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not the lost 
  man following Satan state that the world lies in 
  .
   
  Yes, a good analogy but we 
  as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; 
  how
  crazy does it sound to say 
  Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows 
  Satan
  which is the natural mind 
  and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST 
  he
  walks in the fullness of 
  the Holy Spirit?
   
  cd: If Christ came in the fallen state 
  He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well 
  pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ 
  was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see 
  Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's 
  Children-instead you are Satan's Children. This shows 
  there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of 
  Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham 
  seed and belong to God.Christ was of this nature- Hence 
  He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God 
  prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He told Abraham that 
  because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold 
  my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's 
  decedents. 
  
  Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's 
  seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye 
  shall be made free? 
  Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
  Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. 
  
  
  Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
  Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place & lt; FONT 
  color=#ff size=3>in you. 
  Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 
  Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, 
  Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 
  Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 
  Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be 
  not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 
  
  Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were

Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

I think the stumbling block for those coming from a 
viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice 
for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having 
a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The 
answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a 
sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction 
happening. He is 'bending human nature back', purifying it, by his 
obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. 
He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored 
human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to 
ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix 
the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I 
remember TFT insisting that wrong views of who Jesus was always end up 
losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or 
both).
 
D


From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PMTo: Debbie 
SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
Man

 
- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as 
Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and 
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a 
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at 
least I have a field to be alone in:-)
 
Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree 
emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this 
topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts 
on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were 
compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that 
concern.
 
The major difference between a belief in 
Jesus as having a human nature other than ours -- some sort of a pre-fallen 
nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, 
is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have 
been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to 
keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put 
sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that 
battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress 
mentality: just keep sin out of his members and he will have proven it can 
be done. Well, that is not only 
not helpful to us -- as we've already missed out on that opportunity 
-- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in 
the way that we experience it. And if he only proved us wrong 
but did not defeat sin from within our plight, 
then all he can really do is become our offering for sin 
(not that he is not that, too). Thus he may be our perpetual bull or goat, 
but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we 
never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting place 
than his. 
 
The best then that your view can offer is a 
substitutionary theory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not 
also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes 
it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you 
will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been 
defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your 
view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; 
and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know 
you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts. On the contrary, see 2 
Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that 
we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from 
eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's 
genitals according to the flesh -- that is, replete with 
David's nature, which is "Sin" with a capital S -- in order that he 
might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might 
experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink 
at.
 
Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James 
4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature

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

[Lance Muir]

IFO see almost no comparison between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry 
of Hinn.



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 22, 2006 17:25
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"



cd:

I think the Street Preachers understand
B. Hinn quite well.


I see it differently.

CD wrote:

I have no problem with laying on hands to heal
the sick-heck-I am even for this-but to travel
great distances to believe Hinn has some special
insite/power with God is error-it is suppose to be
done with the elders of the church.


If the elders of the church do not pray the prayer of faith, and the 
person

finds that he is still sick, then there is nothing wrong with him going to
someone who has faith or who has gifts of healings.  Read 1 Cor. 12 and 
you

will find that gifts of healings, miracles, and faith are not limited to
elders of the church.

CD wrote:

When the women touched Christ and was cured of
the issue of blood-what (virtue) flowed from Christ
to the women Hinn does not have. I suspect that
the only cure Hinn has to offer is to cure one of covenaent
money as he has most of it. You comparison of Christ and
Hinn in the above is a mistake.


I only pointed out that even Jesus Christ could not heal many because of
their unbelief.  If such explains failure in prayer with Jesus Christ, how
much more does it explain failure with us.  Therefore, we ought not deter
the faith of anyone just because they are seeking help through another
minister.  Such objections arise from jealousy and envy, not from the 
Spirit

of God.

The testimony of many people is that they have been healed by God through
Hinn's ministry, which is why so many give money to him.  When a person 
has

an incurable disease, they often become extremely grateful to the person
they view as responsible for facilitating that healing.  I have had the
poorest of the poor give me the widow's mite so to speak.  You don't know
how difficult it is to receive such a gift, but the Spirit taught me long
ago, nobody can give if nobody receives.  Therefore, the answer is to pour
the money back into helping them.  I don't know what Hinn does with his
money.  He may very well be spending it unfaithfully, but if your 
criticism
concerns him receiving lots of money, then your criticism is misdirected 
at

the wrong end of the cash flow.

CD wrote:

By the way when did we become protesters? I understood
you to be a preacher-we are likewise.


Sometimes preachers do protest, and these Benny Hinn events are merely
protests against Hinn.  Just listen to what they are saying, or consider
their signs.  If they were preaching, they would heal the sick through the
laying on of hands and the prayer of faith as the people came in.  It 
seems
to me that these street preachers who protest Hinn are in error, filled 
with
a spirit of envy and backbiting.  I suspect the street preachers 
protesting

at the Promise Keepers events are basically the same thing.

David Miller.

--
"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] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation

[Lance Muir]

Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH.


- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "TruthTalk" 
Sent: January 23, 2006 00:16
Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation


DAVEH:  I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share 
their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants 
and salvation.  Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated 
with salvation?



--
~~~
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.


--
"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] Quote of the Day

[Lance Muir]

Example? The triune God is creator of the cosmos. Creationism puts the 
triune in a 'box' of our making.



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "TruthTalk" 
Cc: "Linda Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 22, 2006 16:55
Subject: [TruthTalk] Quote of the Day



Quote of the Day:

"Truth will set you free; it is the argument that will bind you."  Gene
Colgrove, Crystal River, Florida.

Every Saturday morning, 12-16 men come together and break bread.  It is an
oral "TruthTalk" session at a local restaurant which lasts several hours.
Well, yesterday in our discussions, my friend Gene made the statement 
above.
I asked him if he heard that somewhere.  He said no, the thought is 
original

with him.  I consider it a very worthwhile proverb that I will probably
carry with me for the rest of my life.

David Miller.

--
"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] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation

[Lance Muir]

Who other than Israelites?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question 
  Regarding Covenants & Salvation
  DAVEH:  The Lord made covenants with groups of people 
  (Israelites, for instance).  I was trying to distinguish that kind of 
  (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make 
  with an individual.  Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
Maybe.  Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?
 
jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
  DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to 
  > share their thoughts with me about the relationship between 
  personal > covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a 
  personal covenant > associated with salvation? > > 
-- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] beginning

[Lance Muir]

All the answers to 'what' are in the Bible, 
Dean?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk 
  Sent: January 23, 2006 00:09
  Subject: [TruthTalk] beginning
  cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the 
  Bible DAVEH:  What do you perceive the beginning 
  to be, Dean?  I am asking this in context of Gen 
  1:1..[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
  earth.
  


 
cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible if 
one cares to search enough with believing faith and asking God for the 
answer-Men have always wanted to give an understanding of God that exists 
outside of the Bible that why cults profit and the only reason they exist. 
This started in the Garden with Satan: Yea,hath God said,...?

-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] A model of vociferous but diplomatic engagement

[Lance Muir]

Bill Taylor. Thanks for this, Bill.
 
Lance

[TruthTalk] Fw: Movies page

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: John D 
Wilson 
To: Lance Muir 
Sent: January 21, 2006 17:01
Subject: Movies page


http://www.ransomfellowship.org/Movies.html 

 
Good to talk with you today; as 
always!
 
John

[TruthTalk] Pretend Moderator

[Lance Muir]

One person (unnamed female) is employing too much 
invective in her posts. Ease up a little and utilize substantive argumentation 
to make your points.
 
You're beginning to sound just a bit too much like 
Lance. He thinks you wouldn't appreciate the 
comparison.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Lance Muir]

Jt pronouncements free of editorial component: 'how crazy does it sound..' 
'Jesus..with a nature that follow Satan..' (just a couple I missed last time 
'round)
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 14:27
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
   
   
  On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:48:48 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

cd: Very well thought out Bill and very well 
articulated in your below reply. I agree with it and I realize by 
saying this it would appear as I am back and forth but one must realize 
that this debate seems to be back and forth-with slight shifts from 
everybody which is a good thing as we are adjusting our belief to be more 
concise-meaning we are thinking on a 
deeper level.

  
  

Dean, I don't know about "deeper" 
level.  To me the conflict appears to be between the 
fleshly
vs spiritual mind.  Jesus told the 
religious ppl of his day that they were earthly and earthly 
minded
and that he was from heaven ie: In 
speaking with Nicodemus about the New Birth he says: 
"if
you disbelieve me when I talk to you 
about things on earth, how are you to believe if I 
should
talk to you about things of heaven? 
Noone ever went up into heaven except the one who 
came
down from heaven, the Son of Man whose 
home is in heaven ..."
 
cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity 
(our new state, a Christ-like state)not the lost man following 
Satan state that the world lies in .
 
Yes, a good analogy but we as 
Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; 
how
crazy does it sound to say Jesus 
came into the world with a nature that follows 
Satan
which is the natural mind and 
the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST 
he
walks in the fullness of the 
Holy Spirit?
 
To answer you question: Yes, Jesus was from the seed of 
Abraham and therefore took upon himself the flesh of man- and I see no 
super substance in sight.
 
And here is a perfect example of 
"earthly mindedness" .. the continuing struggle on TT 
about
Jesus' flesh and whether or not he had 
a carnal nature along with the sperm and blood of
David.  Give me a break.  
Children of Abraham are those who walk in the faith of 
Abraham.
and the seed of promise are spiritual 
seed.  He's got his sperm and flesh spread all over 
the
Arab nations for goodness 
sake.
 
I allow that he is wholly God and wholly human 

 
Now what exactly does the above 
mean?  What does God look like and what does it mean to 
be
wholly human?  Noone in this 
generation saw or handled Jesus after the flesh and neither 
did
the generation that came up with this 
specious phrase.  I understand he walked about in a 

flesh body. I am not a gnostic claiming 
he was an ethereal spirit.  It is giving him a 
fallen
nature that I object to and I can not 
understand how adult ppl who are (hopefully) in 
their
right mind can not see the conflict 
between being "fallen in the first Adam" and pure 
and
holy with the fullness of the Holy 
Spirit (that is the Spirit without measure) .. He was not 
a
raving 
schizophrenic.
 
with the understanding that by claiming Humanity- I am 
referring to the state we are in as Christians and that Christ's 
struggles and sufferings come from this nature as opposed to Cain's evil 
nature-which therefore is Satan's nature  which allow for no 
struggle against sin- of course I personally believed he took on a 
Godly nature later on-I am speaking of Cain-of course- not Satan 
:-). 
 
There is no record Dean that Jesus ever 
struggled against sin (as in a sin nature) or that he 
was
ever sick, halt, or maimed because of 
generational iniquity and there was plenty of it in 
David's
family tree.  His struggle was 
against "sinners" and at Gethsemane his obedience was 
tested
by the prospect of laying his life down 
and taking upon Himself all of this mess. That is how 
he
understands it.  He didn't live it 
in his own life experience.  He lived a life of love, healing and 

deliverance.
 
cd: 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Lance Muir]

Judy exemplifies non-inflammatory language: 'Give 
me a break'  'He's got his sperm and flesh spread all over the Arab nations 
for goodness sake' 'adult people who are (hopefully) in their right mind'  
'He was not a raving schizophrenic'
 
 - Original Message - 

  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 11:48
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:48:35 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
God's Nature?

 
 
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:37:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: Very well thought out Bill and very well articulated in 
  your below reply. I agree with it and I realize by saying 
  this it would appear as I am back and forth but one must realize that 
  this debate seems to be back and forth-with slight shifts from everybody 
  which is a good thing as we are adjusting our belief to be more 
  concise-meaning we are thinking on a 
deeper level.
   
  Dean, I don't know about "deeper" 
  level.  To me the conflict appears to be between the 
  fleshly
  vs spiritual mind.  Jesus told the 
  religious ppl of his day that they were earthly and earthly 
  minded
  and that he was from heaven ie: In 
  speaking with Nicodemus about the New Birth he says: 
  "if
  you disbelieve me when I talk to you 
  about things on earth, how are you to believe if I 
  should
  talk to you about things of heaven? Noone 
  ever went up into heaven except the one who came
  down from heaven, the Son of Man whose 
  home is in heaven ..."
   
  cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity 
  (our new state, a Christ-like state)not the lost man following Satan 
  state that the world lies in .
   
  To answer you question: Yes, Jesus was from the seed of 
  Abraham and therefore took upon himself the flesh of man- and I see no 
  super substance in sight.
   
  And here is a perfect example of "earthly 
  mindedness" .. the continuing struggle on TT about
  Jesus' flesh and whether or not he had a 
  carnal nature along with the sperm and blood of
  David.  Give me a break.  
  Children of Abraham are those who walk in the faith of 
  Abraham.
  and the seed of promise are spiritual 
  seed.  He's got his sperm and flesh spread all over 
  the
  Arab nations for goodness 
  sake.
   
  I allow that he is wholly God and wholly human 
  
   
  Now what exactly does the above 
  mean?  What does God look like and what does it mean to 
  be
  wholly human?  Noone in this 
  generation saw or handled Jesus after the flesh and neither 
  did
  the generation that came up with this 
  specious phrase.  I understand he walked about in a 
  
  flesh body. I am not a gnostic claiming 
  he was an ethereal spirit.  It is giving him a 
  fallen
  nature that I object to and I can not 
  understand how adult ppl who are (hopefully) in 
their
  right mind can not see the conflict 
  between being "fallen in the first Adam" and pure 
and
  holy with the fullness of the Holy Spirit 
  (that is the Spirit without measure) .. He was not a
  raving 
  schizophrenic.
   
  with the understanding that by claiming Humanity- I am 
  referring to the state we are in as Christians and that Christ's struggles 
  and sufferings come from this nature as opposed to Cain's evil 
  nature-which therefore is Satan's nature  which allow for no struggle 
  against sin- of course I personally believed he took on a Godly 
  nature later on-I am speaking of Cain-of course- not Satan :-). 
  
   
  There is no record Dean that Jesus ever 
  struggled against sin (as in a sin nature) or that he 
  was
  ever sick, halt, or maimed because of 
  generational iniquity and there was plenty of it in 
  David's
  family tree.  His struggle was 
  against "sinners" and at Gethsemane his obedience was 
  tested
  by the prospect of laying his life down 
  and taking upon Himself all of this mess. That is how 
  he
  understands it.  He didn't live it 
  in his own life experience.  He lived a life of love, healing and 
  
  deliverance.
   
  cd: 
  Hebrews 2:18: For in that he 
  himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are 
  tempted. 
  Clark 
  wrote:
  
  Heb 2:18 - For in that he himself hath 
  suffered - The maxim on which this verse is founded is the 
  following: A state of suffering disposes persons

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

1. Yes I will. I trust that Bill and John would say 
the same. 
 
2. IMO, Dean, Judy is a 'Christian' heretic. Such 
is not an oxymoron.
 
3. I defer to Bill on this one, Dean.
 
4. I was referencing your request to read JND 
further once you'd stated his heretical position christologically. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 09:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 9:26:25 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

1. Yes
 cd:Then if I prove myself right you will 
have to live with your hersery or repent to God and others whom you called 
Heritics? Right?
2.  I'd call them 'Christian' heretics, 
Dean.
cd: Then you would be in error 
Lance.
3.  We speak of Jesus Incarnating as A man 
but, in reality, he was a baby to begin with so, yes a child can understand 
what Bill Taylor is teaching.
cd: Not so Lance -A Child can only understand 
Jesus was a good man sent from God that will help forgivetheir bad 
things.
 
4.  That would be like me saying to DM 
'practicing homosexuals are believers who fall a little short. Thereafter, 
I'd ask him to read the balance of what I said.
cd: You have lost me one this 
one.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 09:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
    From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
Lance, Bill, John, David?

Ah! This then would put JND in the 
position of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to 
suggest that if JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to 
understand better how it is that the Brethren and, their offspring 
preach the 'gospel' that they do. This, in reality, is that to which I 
was alluding when I addressed David Miller on the 'homosexual question'. 
IFF your christology is fundamentally wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) 
then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on pretty much 
everything. 
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is 
also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to 
jump to others being non Christian heretics because they fail to 
understand the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what 
we are discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out 
and be nice. Read the words of Darby below and notice what I 
have underlined-Heck why not read the entire short 
artical-I first gave the longer form because Darby explains 
this well for understanding this topic?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 
08:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
  Lance, Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
    - Original Message - 
From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein 
lies something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why 
not draw that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own 
words then, await a reply?
 
cd: Christ did not lower himself to 
become as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in 
Him would not allow it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 
  07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses article written by 
  Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?
   
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

[Lance Muir]

In front of/inside which churches, Dean? Say more 
please concerning Benny Hinn.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 09:20
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
  over orthodox christology?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:56:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
over orthodox christology?

I'm with ya on the 'wicked thingy'. Now, if SPS 
could just do a 180 and, commence addressing the moralists and the wicked 
within the churches.
cd: We do Lance-We preach in front of and inside 
many Churches and Big events like Benny Hinn and Catholic Churches, Mormon 
Churches-Temples wards and the like-Baptist Churches Wesleyan Churches and 
Humanists Churches (ie Universities)...etc.. They all cast us out as Christ 
was cast out.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 08:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Homosexuality over orthodox christology?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:21:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

Sorry. This reflects a delayed response to 
David indicating wherein he appeared to believe the christological 
controversy to be less important (to him at any rate just now) than his 
being occupied with the homosexual 'agenda' within your 
nation.
cd: Hopefully the letter I sent on John's 
rebuking of Herod will help you understand us. There is a time for 
preaching grace and a time for rebuke-I am led by the Spirit that say 
both should be given-and try to always do so. But God does some times 
tell sinners to cut it out of else-the parables were spoken in a shaded 
manner(ie dark sayings ) so that the hard hearted could not hear-because 
the kingdom was not giving to them and He often sends godly men to tell 
wicked to stop being wicked to hold the wicked to stronger 
accounting.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 
07:17
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  Homosexuality over orthodox christology?
  
  
  cd; Lance I think you need to start putting up the letter 
  you are asking one to explain?
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
    From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 6:19:43 AM 

Subject: [TruthTalk] 
Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

Please explain yourself on this? Isn't 
this backwards? (i.e. Should the latter be wrong, even very wrong, 
then, might the former be informed by an incorrect understanding of 
the 'gospel'. (i.e. again, contract over covenant, fear based 
preaching etc.) 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

1. Yes
2.  I'd call them 'Christian' heretics, 
Dean.
3.  We speak of Jesus Incarnating as A man 
but, in reality, he was a baby to begin with so, yes a child can understand what 
Bill Taylor is teaching.
4.  That would be like me saying to DM 
'practicing homosexuals are believers who fall a little short. Thereafter, I'd 
ask him to read the balance of what I said.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 09:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message ----- 
    From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

Ah! This then would put JND in the position 
of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if 
JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how 
it is that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they 
do. This, in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David 
Miller on the 'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally 
wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on 
pretty much everything. 
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is 
also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to jump 
to others being non Christian heretics because they fail to understand 
the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what we are 
discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out and be 
nice. Read the words of Darby below and notice what I have 
underlined-Heck why not read the entire short artical-I first gave 
the longer form because Darby explains this well for understanding this 
topic?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
      
    ----- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies 
something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw 
that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, 
await a reply?
 
cd: Christ did not lower himself to become 
as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not 
allow it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 
07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
  Lance, Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses article written by Darby: 
  Do you agree with it?If not why?
   
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are 
  saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is 
  this which our epistle sets before us — He who sanctifies (the 
  Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for 
  God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of 
  which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one 
  abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that 
  it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and 
  the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same 
  position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
  It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could 
  not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He 
  could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
  If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed 
  too far, as though He and the others were of the same 
  nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this 
  case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is 
  only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that 
  He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the 
  same nature and position together before God. When I say "the 
  same," it is not in the 

Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

[Lance Muir]

I'm with ya on the 'wicked thingy'. Now, if SPS 
could just do a 180 and, commence addressing the moralists and the wicked within 
the churches.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 08:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
  over orthodox christology?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:21:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
over orthodox christology?

Sorry. This reflects a delayed response to 
David indicating wherein he appeared to believe the christological 
controversy to be less important (to him at any rate just now) than his 
being occupied with the homosexual 'agenda' within your nation.
cd: Hopefully the letter I sent on John's 
rebuking of Herod will help you understand us. There is a time for preaching 
grace and a time for rebuke-I am led by the Spirit that say both should be 
given-and try to always do so. But God does some times tell sinners to cut 
it out of else-the parables were spoken in a shaded manner(ie dark sayings ) 
so that the hard hearted could not hear-because the kingdom was not giving 
to them and He often sends godly men to tell wicked to stop being wicked to 
hold the wicked to stronger accounting.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:17
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  Homosexuality over orthodox christology?
  
  
  cd; Lance I think you need to start putting up the letter you 
  are asking one to explain?
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 6:19:43 AM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
over orthodox christology?

Please explain yourself on this? Isn't this 
backwards? (i.e. Should the latter be wrong, even very wrong, then, 
might the former be informed by an incorrect understanding of the 
'gospel'. (i.e. again, contract over covenant, fear based preaching 
etc.) 

[TruthTalk] Fw: funeral

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 21, 2006 08:32
Subject: funeral

In about 15 minutes I am going to Toronto to the funeral 
of Frau Bertsch, an old family friend who I think was in her 90s. She was 
one of my mother's night school ESL students when I was a little girl. 
She seemed old then already, but was always extremely cheerful, always 
smiling and laughing, even when she got quite old and was often in pain. She was 
a vibrant Christian. She always brought us stuff on her visits when were 
kids--great German gingerbread cookies, candy, and toys--and would always bend 
down and grab my cheek in greeting. When I was about 6 she brought me 
a large doll which became my favourite because its body was not hard holllow 
plastic but made of a sort of firm rubber. It must have been about half as tall 
as me. Once on an outing to Niagara Falls with us Frau Bertsch said happily, 
"Vee haff such nice times togezza!" and it became a family saying. When 
Caspian was a baby she said he had "einen musikalischen Kopf", that is, a 
musical head, meaning its physical shape; well, he is a musician, so I 
guess she was right! 
 

D
 
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release 
Date: 1/19/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

Ah! This then would put JND in the position of 
denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if JND's 
understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how it is 
that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they do. This, 
in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David Miller on the 
'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally wrong (I'm with 
Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on pretty much 
everything. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies 
something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 
'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a 
reply?
 
cd: Christ did not lower himself to become as 
the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not allow 
it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses article written by Darby: Do 
  you agree with it?If not why?
   
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are 
  saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this 
  which our epistle sets before us — He who sanctifies (the Christ), and 
  they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) 
  are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily 
  apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract 
  nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified 
  persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all 
  one company, men together in the same position before God. But the 
  idea goes a little farther.
  It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not 
  have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could 
  not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
  If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too 
  far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as 
  children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have 
  to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom 
  God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the 
  sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature and position 
  together before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same 
  state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the Sanctifier and 
  the sanctified, but in the same truth of human position as it is 
  before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth as man when He, 
  as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He is not 
  ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
  This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in 
  principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only 
  called them His brethren when He had finished the work which 
  enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. He said indeed 
  "mother, sister, brother;" but He did not use the term "my brethren," 
  until He said to Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto 
  them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God an your 
  God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He had been heard from the horns of 
  the unicorn, that He declared the name of a Deliverer-God to His 
  brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of the assembly.
  He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the 
  link itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to 
  the Father, until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had 
  died; until then He remained 
  alone,

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

Yikes! The vagaries make me feel like I'm reading 
me. Please, for my sake, say the same thing in other words.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:43
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
    Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 6:41:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

If, when speaking of Jesus, I thoroughly 
misrepresent and offer up a charicature of Jesus, does this matter? IMO, WHO 
JESUS IS, is so central to 'our gospel' that removing HIM from the center in 
our thinking/preaching is to offer up a gospel that is other than 'Christ 
centered'.
 
  cd:I can agree that it must be 
Christ centered with the belief that there are layers of understanding 
in the Bible and to get a complete grasp  -in my opinion 
-takes time -allow for the fact that the Holy Spirit gives to one as 
needed-mostly while the prior gift is being used to its limit demanding more 
to do the work. 
 
 
 
IMO, this is why the current discussion is 
UTTERLY AND INTRINSICALLY AND ONTOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT! It would appear that 
David Miller has pronounced otherwise on this. He apparently sees 
Christology as a periphoral consideration to his homosexual 
agenda.
 
cd: How do you view John the Baptist leaving 
the water and finding Herod to tell him concerning Herodias" It is not 
lawful for thee to have her" as she was married to Philip,Herod's brother.He 
could have remained preaching at the Jordan river- people were coming to him 
there-the fruit was showing John was doing the right thing but yet he left 
to rebuke Herod and die-why?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 06:26
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  
   
  
 
Dean, that is a different position 
all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what 
you were affirming when answering my question?
 
Bill 
 
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I 
view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I 
agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. 
His nature was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean 
that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone 
in:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

[Lance Muir]

Sorry. This reflects a delayed response to David 
indicating wherein he appeared to believe the christological controversy to be 
less important (to him at any rate just now) than his being occupied with the 
homosexual 'agenda' within your nation.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:17
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality 
  over orthodox christology?
  
  
  cd; Lance I think you need to start putting up the letter you are 
  asking one to explain?
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 6:19:43 AM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Homosexuality over 
orthodox christology?

Please explain yourself on this? Isn't this 
backwards? (i.e. Should the latter be wrong, even very wrong, then, might 
the former be informed by an incorrect understanding of the 'gospel'. (i.e. 
again, contract over covenant, fear based preaching etc.) 

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies something 
of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 'something' 
from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a reply?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses article written by Darby: Do you 
  agree with it?If not why?
   
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, 
  whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our 
  epistle sets before us — He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are 
  sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: 
  an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to 
  express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. 
  Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ 
  and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same 
  position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
  It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have 
  been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do 
  otherwise than call them brethren.
  If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as 
  though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, 
  sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His 
  brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, 
  "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are 
  all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say 
  "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they 
  are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human 
  position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth 
  as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He 
  is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
  This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in 
  principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them 
  His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled Him to present 
  them with Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;" 
  but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to Mary of 
  Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and 
  your Father, and to my God an your God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He 
  had been heard from the horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of 
  a Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of 
  the assembly.
  He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the link 
  itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to the Father, 
  until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had died; until then He 
  remained 
alone,

[TruthTalk] FYI -www.opensourcetheology.net

[Lance Muir]

Worth a look for some. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

If, when speaking of Jesus, I thoroughly 
misrepresent and offer up a charicature of Jesus, does this matter? IMO, WHO 
JESUS IS, is so central to 'our gospel' that removing HIM from the center in our 
thinking/preaching is to offer up a gospel that is other than 'Christ centered'. 
IMO, this is why the current discussion is UTTERLY AND INTRINSICALLY AND 
ONTOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT! It would appear that David Miller has pronounced 
otherwise on this. He apparently sees Christology as a periphoral consideration 
to his homosexual agenda.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 06:26
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  
   
  
 
Dean, that is a different position all-together 
from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming 
when answering my question?
 
Bill 
 
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I 
view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I 
agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His 
nature was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I 
am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone 
in:-)

[TruthTalk] Homosexuality over orthodox christology?

[Lance Muir]

Please explain yourself on this? Isn't this 
backwards? (i.e. Should the latter be wrong, even very wrong, then, might the 
former be informed by an incorrect understanding of the 'gospel'. (i.e. again, 
contract over covenant, fear based preaching etc.) 

[TruthTalk] Fw: hi Lance, it's Domenic. We met last week.

[Lance Muir]

- Original Message - 
From: "Victor Shepherd" 

Sent: January 20, 2006 07:31
Subject: RE: hi Lance, it's Domenic. We met last week.



Lance,

while nothing creaturely is the measure of God's holiness, by revelation 
we
are drawn into fellowship with God and therein are "introduced" to the 
truth
and nature of God's holiness, the need for our holiness, and the gap 
between

what we are and what we are supposed to be.  This is not a natural process
or a case of natural knowledge, however "religous".  Only by grace are we
admitted to intimacy with the holy God (ie., only through faith); once
admitted however, we are confronted with God's holiness and our "cognitive
dissonance" concerning it.

Does this help?

Victor

-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 20, 2006 7:06 AM
To: Victor Shepherd
Subject: Fw: hi Lance, it's Domenic. We met last week.



- Original Message -
From: "Ontario Christian Books" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 19, 2006 11:54
Subject: FW: hi Lance, it's Domenic. We met last week.







From: Dom Ruso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: hi Lance, it's Domenic. We met last week.
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:54:33 -0500



_
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special
stationery, fonts and colors.


http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt
p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.









Lance,
 it was a blessing to finally meet you and to see the good stuff you are
doing in that city. I've been reading and listening to Victor Shepherd.
WOW!
What a great thinker with such a pastoral heart. Something i aspire to 
be.


I have a question! In relation to understanding God's holiness, Dr.
Shepherd
says,  "God's holiness means that God can't be measured or assessed by
anything other than himself." I  understand, but if this is true, which I
believe it is, how can we learn about God or measure if we are actually
learning about him?

Would love to hear your thoughts and make this dialogue a regular thing.
--

Domenic Ruso
The Embassy & Elevation
Associate Pastor
o.519.886.5586
f.519.886.3103
the-embassy.org
thinkerlabs.ca/domruso









--
"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] DAVID MILLER AN EVOLUTIONIST?

[Lance Muir]

David, please:

What sort of 'creationist' are you?
Did you write & complete & submit a Ph.D. thesis? What was the title? What 
were the chapter headings? Would it be possible to read it?

Please explain 'worst answer on the entire exam'.

Lance


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 20, 2006 12:38
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DAVID MILLER AN EVOLUTIONIST?



Lance wrote:

You critiqued the course outline by Victor Shepherd
as to its inordinant 'theological' focus. Are you aware
that the majority of practicing scientists who are
themselves Christians hold to some form of evolution.?
Do you?


I am aware of that.  I am a creationist, and probably primarily for that
reason am not currently a practicing scientist.  They don't give out 
Ph.D.'s

to anyone you know, and my creationist views caused my Ph.D. committee to
split right down the middle, with one professor saying that my answer to
that particular question on my Ph.D. written exams was the best he had 
ever

read, and another professor saying that it was the worst answer on the
entire exam.

Strangely, the most vocal advocates of evolution as an explanation for
origins that I have ever read were from theologians.  They believe in
evolution more strongly than most scientists.  They just don't realize it.
Most scientists simply operate from the currently accepted paradigm of
evolution, as per the Kuhnian concept considered in Victor's course 
outline.


I think evolutionary theory accounts for much post-creation biological
events, but I do not believe that it adequately explains the origin of 
life,

nor does it explain the diversity of life from a single celled original
organism to what we observe today.  I believe that the earth itself is 
very

old, but that the creation of life was done thousands of years ago (not
millions of years) as per the outline given to us in Genesis 1.  I believe
that Genesis 2 is an inside look of the blueprint of God, the wisdom of 
God,

the architect's plan that gives us the why's and wherefore's.

David M.

--
"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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

Well said again, David.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 20, 2006 16:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?


Hi Judy.  Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father.  I think 
over

generalization is a big problem here.

By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about
the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing
as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that 
is

common to men.  Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the
fall.  Consider the following quote from John Calvin:


From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.
==
It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all 
taint,
and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the 
Spirit,

it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of
the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because 
he
was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified 
by

the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would
have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever
Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human
nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the
sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is
inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a
twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the
generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom 
our

integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption.
==

Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would
the writings of you or others on TruthTalk?  Are they not expressions of
what other Christians perceive truth to be?  Why should the fact that 
Calvin

or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage.
Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they 
have

already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Judy wrote:

I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?"


You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome 
starting

with Constantine with the church fathers.

I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was
thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches,
and
the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. 
Since

the
record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what 
the

story
was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their 
teachings

which has culminated in the present day rcc.

Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you
describe
here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the
subjects
of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was.

Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not 
church
infighting.  I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea 
what

he
taught.  I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their 
teachings

out
and putting them on the same level as the Word of God.

This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of 
God,

but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being
the case,
as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about church 
fathers,

you
are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus.

Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this 
issue

is kind
of akin to some of the things he taught.  Reformed theology today claims
that God
decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him
personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that
the Holy
Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as
outrageous.

They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and 
teachings.

David Miller.

The above may be so David; I am mu

Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman

[Lance Muir]

Yikes again.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 20, 2006 12:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman



Lance wrote:

FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD
and G would never allow you, given your
'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.


Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this.  Judy is most 
welcome

to share such in our church.

David Miller.

--
"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] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?

[Lance Muir]

Yikes.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 20, 2006 12:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown 
you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?




Lance wrote:

CALLING DAVID MILLER: ARISE THOU
THAT SLEEPEST! You've not had a more
important discussion (potentially) on TT, David.
Why are you in semi-hybernation? You posted
as temp mod a week or so ago on the most petty
of matters yet, you fail to come forward, comprehensively,
on such as this!  WHY?


No time, Lance.  Besides, Bill Taylor has been making excellent posts.  I
don't want to do anything to hinder what he has been doing.

As for the importance of this issue, it is not even close to being more
important than many other subjects that we have discussed.  In my opinion,
Judy's concepts align closely with past orthodoxy.  In fact, one of my
problems with it is that it is too close to Roman Catholicism's brand of
orthodoxy!

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

Well said, David.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 20, 2006 12:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?



Judy wrote:

I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?"


You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome 
starting
with Constantine with the church fathers.  Clement of Rome, one of the 
first

church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp,
and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting,
being banished themselves like the apostle John was.  This is not meant to
say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being
the case, as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about
church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in
Jesus.  They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them 
here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and 
teachings.


David Miller.

--
"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.

[TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?

[Lance Muir]

CALLING DAVID MILLER: ARISE THOU THAT SLEEPEST! 
You've not had a more important discussion (potentially) on TT, David. Why are 
you in semi-hybernation? You posted as temp mod a week or so ago on the most 
petty of matters yet, you fail to come forward, comprehensively, on such as 
this!  WHY?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 08:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Doesn't take much for you to dive into the 
  character assassination again does it Bill?
  Why is this so close to the surface with 
  you?  It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave 
  the
  judgment to the one who judges 
  righteously.
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mind if I 
decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want 
to emphasize; then I could respond.
 
As an aside, I find it curious that Judy 
is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," 
as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me 
speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as 
well. 
 
Take care,
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: To help  us understand each other better: What part 
  do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just 
  found this.
   
  
  
  Heb 2:1-18 - 
  This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the 
  word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
  memory.
  God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
  means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then 
  shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has 
  announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
  salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of 
  the Holy Ghost established.
  Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
  glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
  calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
  We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
  treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to 
  find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
  prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
  sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
  which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of 
  the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the 
  miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each 
  according to His will.
  The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
  Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which 
  God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is 
  even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world 
  to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with 
  the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter 
  they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on 
  God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, 
  they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them — that 
  is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God 
  shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
  The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the 
  law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the 
  Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His 
  enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is 
  carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will 
  yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world 
  to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony 
  given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is 
  man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

I see what you see, Bill. Yes, it is nigh on 
impossible to hold the position that I yet do. I've posted some old Burns & 
Allen. See if you don't think that Judy might be a TT counterpart to 
Gracie.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 08:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; 
  however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against 
  the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is 
  really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have 
  come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think 
so.
   
  Bill 
  
- Original Message ----- 
    From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:45 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's 
self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have 
you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
  subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mind if I 
  decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I 
  would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something 
  you want to emphasize; then I could respond.
   
  As an aside, I find it curious that Judy 
  is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of 
  men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This 
  to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as 
  well. 
   
  Take care,
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 
7:10 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?


cd: To help  us understand each other better: What 
part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way 
I just found this.
 


Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t 
the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form 
life and memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How 
then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself 
has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony 
of the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on 
the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His 
Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of 
Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect 
to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation 
of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the 
miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to 
each according to His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during 
which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, 
He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with 
the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing 
Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the 
previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they 
are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w 
they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made 
subject to them — that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed 
as it 

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

[Lance Muir]

IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's 
self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you 
ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
  subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mind if I 
  decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
  prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want 
  to emphasize; then I could respond.
   
  As an aside, I find it curious that Judy is 
  not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as 
  she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks 
  not only to her theology, but to her character as well. 
   
  Take care,
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, 
John, David?


cd: To help  us understand each other better: What part do 
you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just 
found this.
 


Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the 
word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then 
shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has 
announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of 
the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to 
find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of 
the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous 
manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to 
His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which 
God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is 
even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world 
to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with 
the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter 
they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on 
God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they 
do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them — that is, this 
habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have 
accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the 
law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the 
Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His 
enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is 
carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will 
yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to 
come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in 
the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made 
him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and 
honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all 
things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has 
made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under 
the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man.
When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, 
namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and 
dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm

Re: [TruthTalk] Thought

[Lance Muir]

Did you at some point in time take a course in 
rebuttal which abbreviated everything to nya, nya, nay?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 06:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
  
  Now where did that profound thought came 
  from?
  What about faith in God by way of the Church 
  Fathers?  What is that?
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:31:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it 
is idolatry.
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman

[Lance Muir]

You drew a one-for-one comparison between your 
(potential) treatment vis a vis teaching and, that of Jesus. I just noticed it, 
that's all, Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 06:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come 
  via the woman
  
  So Lance where do you get your anointing as 
  "chief appraiser?"  It's one that is not listed in all the 
  NT
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:35:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall 
nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy 
Taylor.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  So???
  Most would not allow Jesus himself into their 
  churches to teach even as early as the
  2nd Century he was outside knocking on the 
  door.
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD 
and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in 
their respective churches. No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would 
have sufficient discernment to see this. 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  Are you worried Lance?
  Don't you think God can take care of His 
  Word?  Should we replicate the heresy hunting
  of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a 
  bit more pure?
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Do you now or, have you recently, 
TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH?

   
  On 
  Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was 
God on earth. 
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came 
from the fact that He 
had no earthly faither.  
 
JD when are you going to get a hold of 
yourself and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would 
bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel
go together.  Why??  If sin 
is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in 
infants
so easily then why did Fod's Son have to be born of a 
virgin?
 
Apparently her "generational curse" theory teaches 
that this curse is continued 
only through the father. 
 
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual 
reality.  After all  it was BY ONE 
MAN that sin 
entered this world and death by (or because of) 
sin. 
 
She ignores Job 25: 4  which says  " How then can 
a man be just before God? 
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"  
 
Do you know of any man who wasn't born 
of a woman JD?  Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that 
ALL men are born unclean because of sin.
 
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just  as surely as the 
father.  Houston, we have 
a problem !!  jd
 
We sure have and I think you and 
Houston had better seek the Lord for some
wisdom.  He set the 
standard.  He holds the man accountable and He kept 
His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin 
by having him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  No I most certainly don't Dean; those 
  are Bill's words and Bill's concepts.  Not mine.  
  What I believe is that
  he was not born by 
  procreation like the rest of us since he had no human 
  father.  Mary may have
  contributed an ovum but the male 
  determines a child's gender and his spiritual inheritance 
  also comes by 
  way of the 
  father (ie the sins of the fathers are vis

[TruthTalk] DAVID MILLER AN EVOLUTIONIST?

[Lance Muir]

You critiqued the course outline by Victor Shepherd 
as to its inordinant 'theological' focus. Are you aware that the majority of 
practicing scientists who are themselves Christians hold to some form of 
evolution.? Do you?

Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman

[Lance Muir]

Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall 
nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy Taylor.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 06:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come 
  via the woman
  
  So???
  Most would not allow Jesus himself into their 
  churches to teach even as early as the
  2nd Century he was outside knocking on the 
  door.
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G 
would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their 
respective churches. No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have 
sufficient discernment to see this. 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Are you worried Lance?
  Don't you think God can take care of His 
  Word?  Should we replicate the heresy hunting
  of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit 
  more pure?
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT 
THIS IN ANY CHURCH?

   
  On 
  Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God 
on earth. 
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from 
the fact that He 
had no earthly faither.  
 
JD when are you going to get a hold of 
yourself and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a 
child and his name would be Emmanuel
go together.  Why??  If sin is no 
big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did Fod's Son have to be born of a 
virgin?
 
Apparently her "generational curse" theory teaches that 
this curse is continued 
only through the father. 
 
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual 
reality.  After all  it was BY ONE MAN 
that sin 
entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. 
 
She ignores Job 25: 4  which says  " How then can a 
man be just before God? 
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"  
 
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a 
woman JD?  Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL 
men are born unclean because of sin.
 
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just  as surely as the 
father.  Houston, we have 
a problem !!  jd
 
We sure have and I think you and Houston 
had better seek the Lord for some
wisdom.  He set the standard.  He 
holds the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by 
having him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  No I most certainly don't Dean; those are 
  Bill's words and Bill's concepts.  Not mine.  What I 
  believe is that
  he was not born by 
  procreation like the rest of us since he had no human 
  father.  Mary may have
  contributed an ovum but the male 
  determines a child's gender and his spiritual inheritance 
  also comes by 
  way of the 
  father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) 
  and these are some of the reasons
  why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim 
  that he was exactly the same as us in every way.
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

  cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you 
view Christ as being made of a special kind of 
flesh? 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 
  PM 
  Subj

[TruthTalk] Thought

[Lance Muir]

Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is 
idolatry.

Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman

[Lance Muir]

FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G 
would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective 
churches. No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment 
to see this. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 06:02
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come 
  via the woman
  
  Are you worried Lance?
  Don't you think God can take care of His Word?  
  Should we replicate the heresy hunting
  of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more 
  pure?
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS 
IN ANY CHURCH?

   
  On 
  Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on 
earth. 
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the 
fact that He 
had no earthly faither.  
 
JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself 
and stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a 
child and his name would be Emmanuel
go together.  Why??  If sin is no big 
deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did Fod's Son have to be born of a 
virgin?
 
Apparently her "generational curse" theory teaches that this 
curse is continued 
only through the father. 
 
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual 
reality.  After all  it was BY ONE MAN that 
sin 
entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. 
 
She ignores Job 25: 4  which says  " How then can a man 
be just before God? 
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"  
 
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a 
woman JD?  Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL men 
are born unclean because of sin.
 
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just  as surely as the 
father.  Houston, we have 
a problem !!  jd
 
We sure have and I think you and Houston had 
better seek the Lord for some
wisdom.  He set the standard.  He 
holds the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by 
having him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  No I most certainly don't Dean; those are 
  Bill's words and Bill's concepts.  Not mine.  What I believe 
  is that
  he was not born by 
  procreation like the rest of us since he had no human 
  father.  Mary may have
  contributed an ovum but the male 
  determines a child's gender and his spiritual inheritance also 
  comes by 
  way of the father 
  (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these 
  are some of the reasons
  why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim 
  that he was exactly the same as us in every way.
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

  cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view 
Christ as being made of a special kind of flesh? 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM 
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Jesus , neither God nor Man
  
  Certainly I think Jesus was born of 
  God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his 
  person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that 
  you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. 
  And if you are, then my question would not apply in the 
  same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you 
  to be sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, 
  before you speak on her behalf. 
   
  From my understanding of Judy's 
  position, she denies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood 
  descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes 
  that 

Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman

[Lance Muir]

Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN 
ANY CHURCH?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 04:13
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come 
  via the woman
  
   
   
  On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on 
earth. 
Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact 
that He 
had no earthly faither.  
 
JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and 
stop putting words in my mouth?
The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child 
and his name would be Emmanuel
go together.  Why??  If sin is no big 
deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants
so easily then why did 
Fod's Son have to be born of a virgin?
 
Apparently her "generational curse" theory teaches that this curse 
is continued 
only through the father. 
 
This is no theory JD; it is spiritual 
reality.  After all  it was BY ONE MAN that sin 

entered this world and 
death by (or because of) sin. 
 
She ignores Job 25: 4  which says  " How then can a man be 
just before God? 
Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?"  
 
Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman 
JD?  Job is just stating
the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are 
born unclean because of sin.
 
"Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just  as surely as the 
father.  Houston, we have 
a problem !!  jd
 
We sure have and I think you and Houston had better 
seek the Lord for some
wisdom.  He set the standard.  He holds 
the man accountable and He kept His
ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having 
him born of a virgin woman.
Imagine that???
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's 
  words and Bill's concepts.  Not mine.  What I believe is 
  that
  he was not born by procreation 
  like the rest of us since he had no human father.  
  Mary may have
  contributed an ovum but the male determines 
  a child's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by 
  
  way of the father (ie 
  the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some 
  of the reasons
  why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he 
  was exactly the same as us in every way.
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

  cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view 
Christ as being made of a special kind of flesh? 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM 

  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
  neither God nor Man
  
  Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, 
  Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But 
  before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be 
  making a different argument than Judy's. And if you are, 
  then my question would not apply in the same way to you as it 
  does to her. And so, I would like you to be sure you are truly 
  affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. 
  
   
  From my understanding of Judy's position, 
  she denies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of 
  David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a 
  special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and 
  that that flesh was unrelated to fallen humankind, being only 
  "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like 
  Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot 
  affirm the teaching that Jesus is a physical descendant of Adam, 
  and that he is the physical Seed of Abraham and the physical 
  Seed of David, all according to the flesh. 
   
  You, on the other hand, write that you 
  are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David 
  according to the flesh and that he was born of David's flesh and 
  blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came 
  from the fruit of David's "genitals" (Friberg) according to 
  the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's 
  "offspring."
   
  Dean, that is a different position 
  all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, d

Fw: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 19, 2006 23:48
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

"I did not make it; no, it is making me; it is the very 
truth of God, not the invention of any man." --Rich Mullins, in the song 
Creed.
 
Sadly, Judy prefers religion to the gospel. Happily, the 
gospel includes Judy anyway.
 
D


From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:18 PMTo: Debbie 
SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Something to think 
about

 
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 19, 2006 12:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the 
"exactly like us" part.
This tells me that those who make and profess such 
doctrines have no understanding or
spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of 
God..
 
 
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who made 
  it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward!   Where, 
  in all that, Judy,   do you see even a similarity between that view 
  and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian 
  ???   If you truly believe this,  you neither understand 
  the Mormon God nor the Christian God. 
   
  And,  as I have said before  -- your God is neither of the 
  two.   You stand alone with your thinking on this.   Need 
  I bring up BSF or your pastor again?   
   
  Actually,  Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with you.  
  
   
  You stand alone.  
   
  jd
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with 
that??
 
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our 
  humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus 
  some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
   
  Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is 
  human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human 
  isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, 
  Jesus is more than human but less than God.
   
  JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
  SIMULTANEOUSLY.
   
   
--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release 
Date: 1/19/2006
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release 
Date: 1/19/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

I can't help myself Judy! When I re-read our 
correspondence, I invariably think of George Burns & Gracie Allen so, 'say 
goodnight Gracie'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 15:05
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  So Lance IYO every time I cite Scripture it is in 
  error?
  One of us is wrong and sadly we will have to wait 
  until we are deceased to find out which one it is.
  I see yor doctrine as no different than the doctrine 
  of Balaam which is in effect that ppl will make it with or without 
  sin.
  There is no overcoming involved because of the 
  "incarnation" - at least this is what I have been hearing from 
  you.
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:46:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
You add your meaning to God's Word, Judy, 
'almost' (I included this so as not to be identified by David as a 
blasphemer) 
every time you cite Scripture. How is that 
everyone on TT knows this while you do not?

   
  Excellent point JD
  And we should do the exact same thing with God's 
  Words - that is, let Him be God and refrain from adding
  our meaning to His Word, or subtracting His 
  meaning from His Word as has been done in the past and is
  ongoing today.  His Word says that He hates 
  mixture.  His Word says that Jesus was/is pure and holy 
  from
  His birth.  I rest my case..
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:53:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
OK  -- so why not say it that way?   When you say 
"Then he's a Mormon Jesus  -  
who has a problem with that?"  you are not speaking of a single 
aspect of the Mormon Jesus.   You are equating Lance's 
teaching with Mormonism AND THE ASSOCIATED BIAS THAT EXISTS ON THIS 
FORUM.   You are simply trying to win the argument with the 
use of such language.   Words mean 
something.  We should mean what we say and actually say what we 
mean.  jd
 
 
From: 
  Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that 
  is the "exactly like us" part.
  This tells me that those who make and profess 
  such doctrines have no understanding or
  spiritual discernment and do not walk in the 
  fear of God..
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy 
who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a 
reward!   Where, in all that, Judy,   do you see 
even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ 
to be both YHWH and Messian ???   If you truly believe 
this,  you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian 
God. 
 
And,  as I have said before  -- your God is neither 
of the two.   You stand alone with your thinking on 
this.   Need I bring up BSF or your pastor 
again?   
 
Actually,  Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with 
you.  
 
You stand alone.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a 
  problem with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously 
human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's 
divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. 
(Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 
'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which 
is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God 
isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but 
less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY 
HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

You add your meaning to God's Word, Judy, 'almost' 
(I included this so as not to be identified by David as a blasphemer) every time 
you cite Scripture. How is that everyone on TT knows this while you do 
not?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 13:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  Excellent point JD
  And we should do the exact same thing with God's 
  Words - that is, let Him be God and refrain from adding
  our meaning to His Word, or subtracting His meaning 
  from His Word as has been done in the past and is
  ongoing today.  His Word says that He hates 
  mixture.  His Word says that Jesus was/is pure and holy from
  His birth.  I rest my case..
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:53:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
OK  -- so why not say it that way?   When you say "Then 
he's a Mormon Jesus  -  who has a 
problem with that?"  you are not speaking of a single aspect of the 
Mormon Jesus.   You are equating Lance's teaching with Mormonism 
AND THE ASSOCIATED BIAS THAT EXISTS ON THIS FORUM.   You are 
simply trying to win the argument with the use of such language.   
Words mean something.  We should mean what we say 
and actually say what we mean.  jd
 
 
From: 
  Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is 
  the "exactly like us" part.
  This tells me that those who make and profess 
  such doctrines have no understanding or
  spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear 
  of God..
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who 
made it on another planet and was given this planet as a 
reward!   Where, in all that, Judy,   do you see 
even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ to 
be both YHWH and Messian ???   If you truly believe 
this,  you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian 
God. 
 
And,  as I have said before  -- your God is neither of 
the two.   You stand alone with your thinking on 
this.   Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again?   

 
Actually,  Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with 
you.  
 
You stand alone.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a 
  problem with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human 
with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This 
would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 
'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is 
more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. 
So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than 
God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

My but it does become difficult at times, Judy, 
believing that you don't know what you're doing when you write like 
this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 12:31
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the 
  "exactly like us" part.
  This tells me that those who make and profess such 
  doctrines have no understanding or
  spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of 
  God..
   
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who 
made it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward!   
Where, in all that, Judy,   do you see even a similarity between 
that view and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian 
???   If you truly believe this,  you neither understand 
the Mormon God nor the Christian God. 
 
And,  as I have said before  -- your God is neither of the 
two.   You stand alone with your thinking on this.   
Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again?   
 
Actually,  Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with 
you.  
 
You stand alone.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 

 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem 
  with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with 
our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make 
Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus 
is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than 
human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the 
Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

I say again, Judy, NOT IT IS NOT!! It is, in 
REALITY,  a thoroughly Christian construct.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 11:45
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  Being wholly human and god ATST is a Mormon 
  construct.
  Whereas it would be against the God of the Bible's 
  ways to be "fallen" and wholly God ATST
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:43:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
I assure you (perhaps a Mormon could intervene 
on Judy's behalf) that the statement in caps is NOT the Mormon position. It 
is, in reality, the position held by believing Christians for some 2,000 
years. 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  They do, their stance is that man is progressing 
  toward godhood as they do what the church says 
  and 
  that basically God is a man from the planet 
  Kolob.  Where in the Bible are we told that
   
   JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
  SIMULTANEOUSLY.
   
  This is a human construct; the scriptures 
  themselves teach that he layed aside some things and became 
  a little lower than the angels which is hardly "wholly God" and during his earthly 
  ministry he claimed to 
  have come from "heaven" which is hardly "wholly human" and earthly or of the 
      earth.
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:15:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
NO!

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church 
  teaches Lance?  
  Theirs is a flesh religion and they have 
  no problems with purity and holiness
  Same with the so called "Church fathers" or 
  patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements
  this generation mindlessly parrots.  By 
  the time they began holding these ecumenical councils
  and writing their creeds the professing 
  Church (or embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness.
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if 
Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a 
Mormon Jesus? 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a 
  problem with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our 
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would 
make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is 
human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more 
than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. 
So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than 
God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

I assure you (perhaps a Mormon could intervene on 
Judy's behalf) that the statement in caps is NOT the Mormon position. It is, in 
reality, the position held by believing Christians for some 2,000 
years. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 10:29
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  They do, their stance is that man is progressing 
  toward godhood as they do what the church says and 
  
  that basically God is a man from the planet 
  Kolob.  Where in the Bible are we told that
   
   JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
  SIMULTANEOUSLY.
   
  This is a human construct; the scriptures themselves 
  teach that he layed aside some things and became 
  a little lower than the angels which is hardly "wholly God" and during his earthly 
  ministry he claimed to 
  have come from "heaven" which is hardly "wholly human" and earthly or of the earth.
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:15:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
NO!

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church 
  teaches Lance?  
  Theirs is a flesh religion and they have 
  no problems with purity and holiness
  Same with the so called "Church fathers" or 
  patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements
  this generation mindlessly parrots.  By the 
  time they began holding these ecumenical councils
  and writing their creeds the professing Church 
  (or embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness.
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if Jesus 
is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a Mormon 
Jesus? 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a 
      problem with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our 
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make 
Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human 
all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human 
isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the 
Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

NO!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 10:09
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  Isn't this a form of what the Mormon Church teaches 
  Lance?  
  Theirs is a flesh religion and they have 
  no problems with purity and holiness
  Same with the so called "Church fathers" or 
  patriarchs who came up with the pronouncements
  this generation mindlessly parrots.  By the time 
  they began holding these ecumenical councils
  and writing their creeds the professing Church (or 
  embryonic rcc) was already off into darkness.
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:44:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that 
if Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a 
Mormon Jesus? 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem 
  with that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with 
our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make 
Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus 
is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than 
human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the 
Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

Help me out Judy. Are you meaning to say that if 
Jesus is wholly human and wholly divine simultaneously then, he is a Mormon 
Jesus? 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 09:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to 
  think about
  
  Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with 
  that??
   
  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our 
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus 
some 'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is 
human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human 
isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, 
Jesus is more than human but less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
 

[TruthTalk] Something to think about

[Lance Muir]

Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our 
humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 
'third thing'. (Arianism)
 
Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human 
all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. 
That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than 
human but less than God.
 
JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN 
SIMULTANEOUSLY.

[TruthTalk] Quote of the day

[Lance Muir]

'Once you've thrown away language you've thrown 
away a world.'

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

'I read this to be saying'!! May we put that other 
matter to bed once and for all, DM/JT?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 19, 2006 08:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/18/2006 11:08:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Hebrews 2.11-18.
 
(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,
 
Dean, when I read this, I understand the writer to be saying 
that Christ and us are all physical descendants of the same person, the same 
"one," and that that is why he can call us brothers without being ashamed of 
us in our physical state. How do you read it?
 
cd: I read it as saying that He is not ashamed to call us 
brothers because of our sanctification into God-through salvation and is not 
referring to the flesh at all-that is why it must put on incorruption and 
changed. 
Sanctifying
SANC'TIFYING, ppr. 
1. Making holy; purifying from the defilements of sin; separating 
to a holy use.
2. a. Tending to sanctify; adapted to increase 
holiness.
 
(12) Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst 
of the church will I sing praise unto thee.(13) And again, I will put my 
trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given 
me.
 
(14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
he also himself likewise took part of the same; 
 
Dean, I read this to be saying that Jesus shared the same flesh 
and blood as we have, and not that his flesh and blood was a special kind, 
unlike ours. How do you read it?
 
cd: I read it the same as you-he was as we are now in the flesh 
only his nature was/is more divine and Godlike-but remember whom the 
brethren are-converted sinners-not as the worldly people are but 
brethren.
 
And this he did for us so "that through death he 
might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (15) And 
deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to 
bondage."
cd: Did Christ suffer bondage also Bill?
 
(16) For verily he took not on him the nature 
of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
 
Dean, when I read this, I understand it to be saying that his 
human nature was the same as that of Abraham, Christ being the Seed of 
Abraham. How do you read it?
 
cd: I read him coming from that seed -but lacking the 
weakliness a human father would have giving him. We are not seed of women 
-He was- there is a difference. Mankind first fell due to women's seed by 
sin-I believe God chose women's seed to bring him (man) up from that 
fall by no sin. The Flesh was there-Christ had to deal with that flesh-and 
the divine nature of God gave him the help he needed to rule his flesh. We 
are told to take every thought into captivity so those thoughts come because 
of our flesh nature (fiery darts from the wicked one) and are not 
sin unless we give heed to those thoughts-and a true brother -grown in the 
spirit will not do so. Christ did not do so. Did those thoughts come to 
him-I would say yes as he was in the flesh also but the divine nature-the 
same as the one He gave us-prevented Him from giving heed to those thoughts. 
To think otherwise in my opinion is to make Christ weak-and He was not 
weak.
 
(17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto 
his brethren, 
 
And Dean, I read this to be saying that his human nature had to 
be exactly (i.e., "in all things") like ours, too; we being his brothers. 
How do you read it?
 cd: Yes he had a fleshly body but a divine nature that a 
saved person has-not a nature of bondage a lost man has-until sin came on 
his at the cross.
 
And this so 
"that he might be a merciful and faithful high 
priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of 
the people. (18) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is 
able to succour them that are tempted."
cd: I do not see being tempted to the state of fallen man-who 
gave heed to his temptations Christ did not do so-and by this was able to 
reconcile us to God. Remember we had to change in order to enter the body-He 
was the body.
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

Not maybe, Judy! He does know much more than I. He 
is much brighter than I also.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 09:31
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  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.
   
 

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Lance Muir]

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!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 09:11
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
  
  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 
  hum

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

[Lance Muir]

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'. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 09:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality 
  of "God" -- nonsense
  
  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

[Lance Muir]

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.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 08:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  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, 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Lance Muir]

Your doctrines, Judy, along with some of DM's ARE 
the doctrines of (wo)men.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 08:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
  
  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

[Lance Muir]

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). 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 08:48
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality 
  of "God" -- nonsense
  
  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] The rationality of "God" -- nonsense

[Lance Muir]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES, JUDY!! This ought 
to be a matter of some concern for DM, whom I suspect knows this. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 08:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The rationality 
  of "God" -- nonsense
  
   
  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 ??

[Lance Muir]

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) 
.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 08:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??
  
  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

[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. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2006 06:18
  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.
    
  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.
   

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

[Lance Muir]

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.
 
"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)
 
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. 
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] TT's ??

[Lance Muir]

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

[Lance Muir]

Bill revised his comments, Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 17, 2006 15:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  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' 
predece

[TruthTalk] I've sent an email to 'Wonder Woman'. I await her replay.

[Lance Muir]

Don't hold your breath. I'm also checking for the 
Bat signal should WW be unavailable. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

Let's see if DM is as cavalier as you are on this 
matter, Judy. The cost to him in mocking 'orthodoxy' would be much greater than 
to you. Hels doing his own 'perichoretic dance' you might say. In his case he's 
'dancing', as you like to put it, with himself. He won't commit. At least one 
must commend you, Judy, for putting forward, unabashadly, a thoroughly 
non-orthodox position on so central an issue as 'who Jesus 
is'. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 17, 2006 07:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Lance Muir]

Asked and answered on numerous occasions, Judy. You 
already know that.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 17, 2006 07:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  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. 
 

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

[Lance Muir]

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] Huh ?? and Huh?? again

[Lance Muir]

See Irenaeus & Athanasius 'The unassumed is 
unhealed' If (wo)men are to be fully saved, Christ would have to be FULLY 
HUMAN. 
 
IMO, if He were not fully human then we are yet in 
our sins. This is who Jesus is.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 16, 2006 19:38
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and 
  Huh?? again
  
  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.   Just 
  absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks.   If it wasn't so 
  puzzling, it would be hilarious.
   
  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
   
  -- 
Original message -- 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 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 

Fw: [TruthTalk] Kiss off illumination

[Lance Muir]

IMPORTANT*
 
Here's another fine mess you gotten me into, 
Ollie
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 16, 2006 18:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kiss off illumination

Judy /  DM  -   are you two just having a simple 
discussion about matters that are not really that 
important? Is  that why you can disagree so thoroughly with each 
other  --  neither of you are speaking from a position of 
illumination?   And how can us common folk tell the difference?  

 
Go ahead and tell me this is not a critical issue.   
 
I think the discussion among the three of you, Bill, David and Judy 
has been a very good discussion  -   even excellent at 
times  .   But it has surely shot to hell this notion of 
illumination, hasn't it !!??
 
jd
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

  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: 
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: 
Mond ay, 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 i s 
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 i

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

[Lance Muir]

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" 
<[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.i

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

[Lance Muir]

Well done on the homework front, Judy. What do YOU 
think of Dake's commentary on this matter, Judy?.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 16, 2006 08:35
  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.
   
  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] 

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

[Lance Muir]

IFF you are incorrect on this matter then, 'all 
truth' does NOT include this rather central and rather important matter 
concerning 'who Jesus is'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 16, 2006 08:26
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE 
  HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  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] What is the gospel?

[Lance Muir]

THE CALL? From unbelief to belief? From immorality to morality (already 
addressed). From morality? The latter is certainly no 'straw man'. It may be 
that some on TT need to be called from this. I sometimes see DM with one 
foot in this camp.



- Original Message - 
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 16, 2006 08:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?







[Original Message]
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Date: 1/15/2006 10:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

The problem with Debbie's analysis is that this street preacher does not
herald a call from immoral living to moral living without Christ.

Rather,

the call is to turn from immoral living to a relationship with Jesus

Christ.
It's another one of those straw man divisions which does not really 
exist.


Nevertheless, the Elijah spirit is one which prepares the way of the

Lord,

and one to which we ought not object.  If you happen to have stumbled on

a

street preacher in the spirit of Elijah, you ought not object just

because

your theology tells you he is majoring on the minors.  John the Baptist
prepared people to believe upon Jesus by preaching the following:

Luke 3:7-14
(7) Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him,

O

generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(8) Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to

say

within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you,

That

God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
(9) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree
therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
(10) And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
(11) He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him
impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
(12) Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master,
what shall we do?
(13) And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed

you.

(14) And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we
do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any
falsely; and be content with your wages.

In modern times, the call goes out, "say not that you are Catholic, say

not

you have a pope, say not you are Baptist, or Methodist, or Lutheran, or
Presbyterian.  God is able to raise up children from this sidewalk.
Judgment is coming and every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut

down

and cast into the fire.  Turn away from your sins and believe upon the

Lord

Jesus Christ in deed and in truth.  He that says he believes in him will
keep his commandments."

David Miller.

cd: Amen and Amen.






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

[Lance Muir]

Please check your sources on this, Judy. I believe 
he claimed to be speaking under 'inspiration'. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 16, 2006 07:25
  Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance 
  and "biblical language"
  
   
  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 c

[TruthTalk] A DM like thought

[Lance Muir]

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)

[TruthTalk] Why more theology than science?

[Lance Muir]

DM:
 
I should be pleased to put you in touch with Dr. 
Shepherd. He's open to substantive input as the course will not be taught until 
September, 2007. Please remind me of your scientific credentials so that I might 
commend you to him.
 
Just a thought re: your query: As the cosmos is the 
God's and, not that of the scientists perhaps the scientific considerations 
ought be subsumed under the theological.
 
Lance

[TruthTalk] Science & Theology course by Victor Shepherd

[Lance Muir]

Does anyone have any recommendations as to material 
which addresses the technological shift of recent 
years?

[TruthTalk] Fw: leading into all truth

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 15, 2006 21:04
Subject: leading into all truth

And here is something else interesting, about the Spirit leading into all 
truth. You may recall from the second lecture/chapter his explaining that the 
Spirit mediates all revelation, including whatever the creation reveals 
about itself:
 
"The second way of understanding the wider revelatory work 
of the Spirit takes us beyond divine revelation to the matter alluded to in 
connection with the Fourth Gospel, that of the universal implications of the 
claim that the Spirit is the one who leads into all truth. It is, I believe 
legitimate to extend John's strictly christological construing of the concept of 
truth ["all truth" = Christ], so long as the extension is still christological. 
For John, the one incarnate in Jesus is the one through whom all things came to 
be and are held in being: Christ the creator. The co-eternal Word is thus the 
basis of any and all meaning as 'foundation': not only of the faith of the 
believer, but of the very possibility of knowledge of any kind. If Christ is the 
mediator of creation, then he is the basis of created rationality and therefore 
of human knowledge, wherever and whatever; we might say, of all human culture. 
But that point must be developed pneumatologically also, so that all 
rationality, truth and beauty are seen to be realized through the perfecting 
agency of God the Spirit, who enables things to be known by human minds and made 
by human hands. Christ is indeed the Truth, but the truth becomes truth in all 
the different ways in which it is mediated by the Spirit."
 
That christological extension is interesting for its own sake. But also, 
if the Spirit's leading into all truth includes knowledge of all kinds, it 
seems to me that any claim that he has (as of moment X) delivered 
a complete, finished understanding (i.e., with Cartesian 
certainty)--whether of Christ, Scripture, or any created thing--is ruled 
out. I do not know if I am right to draw this conclusion. After all, the 
Truth that holds everything together must be in a different category from the 
truth of that which is held together. But it is the same Spirit at work 
regardless...
 
D
 
 
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release 
Date: 1/14/2006

[TruthTalk] Fw: glory

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 15, 2006 20:32
Subject: glory

Hey, Lance! I am 
finally reading the last chapter of the Gunton book Jonathan lent me, 
having set it aside for a bit, and have just come to something that speaks very 
interestingly (for me, anyway) to the discussion, on TT, of glory as it relates 
to Jesus' deity and kenosis. The context is the respective mediatory 
functions of the Son and the Spirit in 
revelation:
 
"The Spirit is the 
self-effacing person of the Trinity: the one whose function is to point away 
from himself to Jesus. Wherever there is revelation of any kind, there is the 
work of the creator and redeemer Spirit. But that is not John's primary concern, 
which is to show that revelation means glory, in the present, and it means 
Jesus. The Spirit reveals Jesus as the truth: as the revelation of God the 
Father...[T]he one to whom the Spirit points is also self-effacing, but in a 
different way. Jesus is revealed as the one whose work is to do the will of 
another, of the one who sent him...'We have seen his glory, the glory of the 
only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 
1:14). 
 
"The glory is the glory of 
one who washes the feet of his disciples, is lifted up on the cross, and 
only through the trial of death is elevated to the glory that is reigning with 
the Father. It is important to realize this if we are to understand what 
kind of Father is revealed by the incarnate Son. If it is indeed true that those 
who have seen him have seen the Father, then it is the Father who is revealed in 
the incarnate humanity of this man glorified through 
humbling."
 
If I'm understanding 
this correctly, the point (inside the point about respective mediation) is 
that if Jesus revealed the Father while on earth, we have to allow all of that 
to be part of our idea of divine glory (although there is an 
eschatological aspect to that glory, too--the story of Jesus is not done yet. 
But even when glorified with the glory he had with the Father before the 
foundation of the earth, he remains and always will remain human). The danger, 
otherwise, is to get it backwards: decide who Jesus is, and who the 
Father is, by our own definitions of glory. 

 
Yes?
 
D
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release 
Date: 1/14/2006

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

[Lance Muir]

 
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 15, 2006 13:42
Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?


For cd: I understand 
baptism INTO CHRIST as identification with Christ, acknowledging participation 
in his faith/covenant-keeping for us. That is how it would seal a repentance 
which recognizes him as the one who has done that, and which therefore 
abandons effort on one's own behalf. We keep the covenant insofar as we are 
IN HIM who does so. His acts become 
ours. 
 
I hope this 
helps.
 
D


From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:45 AMTo: Debbie 
SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the 
gospel?

 
- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 15, 2006 07:36
Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?


 
 

 

  - Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/14/2006 2:20:45 PM 
  Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the 
  gospel?
  
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 14, 2006 14:18
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
  
  Of course it is sin and needs repenting of. (JD is 
  actually making the same vocabulary mistake below as DM.) But it is not 
  immorality; in fact, it is morality. Where this whole discussion of 
  repentance began was with a critique of street preachers' focus on 
  repentance as a call to turn from immoral living to moral living. As 
  pointed out long ago by Bill and/or JD, the repentance urged on people in much 
  biblical preaching was not a call to moral living, but a call to recognize 
  God. Insofar as it was a call to moral living, it was to people who were 
  already the people of God, and was a call to recognize God as covenant 
  partner. Peter's sermon fits right into that and moves beyond 
  it; the covenant is gathered up in Christ who turns out to be both its 
  maker and keeper, and that is why repentance is 
  sealed by being baptized into him.
   
  D 
  cd: Debbie would you be so kind as to explain more on 
  this? Thanks.   
  
  
  From: Lance Muir 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 
  1:45 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What 
  is the gospel?
  
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 14, 2006 12:54
  Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
  
  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 
  

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

[Lance Muir]

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: 
Sent: January 15, 2006 23:10
Subject: 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] 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"
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 Messag e - 
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:

Re: [TruthTalk] Differences

[Lance Muir]

Amen!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 15, 2006 23:07
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Differences
  
  I know that you say that you do not believe that one must be right to be 
  saved, but you do not realize that I do not believe one is saved by embracing 
  the right philosophy.  One is saved by faith in Jesus Christ, which 
  results in righteousness being imparted to the believer apart from 
  works.  The fruit of that faith is good works being wrought in the life 
  of the believer.  This is my paradigm.
   
  David Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:03 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Differences

As to your last question  --  you know that I do not 
believe  that one must be right right to be saved.   I fear 
that the answer to your question is what you believe.  
 
The gospel you express on this site is the produce of a very different 
paradigm than mine.   Not that I am right  -  but simply 
that we are most different.  
 
jd
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
  John wrote: > > If you sin and do not repent, for whatever 
  > > reason, will that single sin place you in hell. > 
  > Not true, John. I cannot believe that you would argue such a 
  point. > > John wrote: > > You speak of rebuking 
  and hell muhc more > > ofter than I, of course. > 
  > That's because Jesus spoke of rebuking and hell much more often 
  than you do. > > John wrote: > > Surely we would 
  not check the same boxes > > on whatever test !! LOL > 
  > IMO, you overestimate our differences. If our differences are as 
  severe as > you make them out to be, then it would impossible for 
  us both to be saved. > Is that what you believe? > > 
  David Miller > > > - Original Mes sage - 
  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: 
  Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:32 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Differences > > See below > > -- 
  Original message -- > From: "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > John wrote: > Lance asked 
  about the difference between the Christ of DM and JT and some > 
  others on this forum. There is so much confusion that one scarsely knows 
  > where to begin. Perhaps the best way to say it is this: they 
  believe in a > Christ of Law and grace and others believe in a 
  Christ of Spirit and grace. > The former insists that obedience is 
  the path to God, ala the Old Law -- > and the others believe that 
  obedience is a response to the Indwelling - > an indwelling that 
  cannot possibly miss His mark because He has become a > part of the 
  ontology of the saint. > > John, the only confu sion on this 
  is in your mind. No matter how many times > I tell you what I 
  believe, you prefer to believe falsely about me. You are > not even 
  close to characterizing how I believe. Just because I do not > 
  believe that the law has been done away, as per the teaching of Jesus, but 
  > rather that it is the covenant of law that has been made obsolete 
  by the > sacrifice of Christ, does not mean that I believe that 
  obedience is the path > to God ala the Old Law. I'm not aware of 
  anyone on TruthTalk right now who > thinks that way. Slade did, who 
  you got along with just fine because of his > hippy era liberal 
  bent, but he is not here anymore. If you gave me a > multiple 
  choice test, I would check the same box you would, that obedience > 
  is a response to the Indwelling. I also would check the box for a Christ 
  of > Spirit and grace. Your antinomian bias has confused you 
  concerning what I > believe. > > > If you sin 
  and do not repent, for whatever reason, will that single sin > 
  place you in hell. You speak of rebuking and hell muhc more ofter than I, 
  > of course. Surely we would not check the same boxes on whatever 
  test !! > LOL > > > I do have to ask you, 
  however, that when you say, "an indwelling that cannot > possibly 
  miss the mark because He has become a part of the ontology of the > 
  saint," are you claiming an ontological infallibility for yourself simply 
  > because you are a Christian? > > > I am 
  acknowledging God's guarantee to complete the task He has initiated 
  > within me. If He has become a part of who I am, ontologically, 
  then how > can I be lost apart from an outright rebellion to his 
  presense? With that > in mind, I will answer your question in a 
  single word, "Yes." > > > > > > 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Lance Muir]

'Say not'?


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 15, 2006 22:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?



The problem with Debbie's analysis is that this street preacher does not
herald a call from immoral living to moral living without Christ.  Rather,
the call is to turn from immoral living to a relationship with Jesus 
Christ.

It's another one of those straw man divisions which does not really exist.

Nevertheless, the Elijah spirit is one which prepares the way of the Lord,
and one to which we ought not object.  If you happen to have stumbled on a
street preacher in the spirit of Elijah, you ought not object just because
your theology tells you he is majoring on the minors.  John the Baptist
prepared people to believe upon Jesus by preaching the following:

Luke 3:7-14
(7) Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O
generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(8) Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to 
say

within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That
God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
(9) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree
therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
(10) And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
(11) He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him
impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
(12) Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master,
what shall we do?
(13) And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed 
you.

(14) And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we
do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any
falsely; and be content with your wages.

In modern times, the call goes out, "say not that you are Catholic, say 
not

you have a pope, say not you are Baptist, or Methodist, or Lutheran, or
Presbyterian.  God is able to raise up children from this sidewalk.
Judgment is coming and every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut 
down
and cast into the fire.  Turn away from your sins and believe upon the 
Lord

Jesus Christ in deed and in truth.  He that says he believes in him will
keep his commandments."

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

Couldn't have said it better myself! In fact, what upsets me is that I
couldn't have even said it }:<(

Oh well, that's not going to stop me from agreeing with it :>)

Well said, Debbie.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 14, 2006 14:18
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

Of course it is sin and needs repenting of. (JD is actually making the 
same

vocabulary mistake below as DM.) But it is not immorality; in fact, it is
morality. Where this whole discussion of repentance began was with a
critique of street preachers' focus on repentance as a call to turn from
immoral living to moral living. As pointed out long ago by Bill and/or JD,
the repentance urged on people in much biblical preaching was not a call 
to
moral living, but a call to recognize God. Insofar as it was a call to 
moral
living, it was to people who were already the people of God, and was a 
call

to recognize God as covenant partner. Peter's sermon fits right into that
and moves beyond it; the covenant is gathered up in Christ who turns out 
to
be both its maker and keeper, and that is why repentance is sealed by 
being

baptized into him.

D




From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?



- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 14, 2006 12:54
Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?


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 commen

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

[Lance Muir]

'Wrong again' IYO, David. You do engage Christian women and men in 
conversation, do you not?



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 15, 2006 22:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


Wrong again, Lance.  You have overlooked the very reason the Scriptures 
have

been given to us.  The Scriptures are profitable for reproof, for
correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may 
be

perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  Of course, the
Scriptures won't help if you are dealing with someone who is not a man of
God.  :-)

You should consider taking up street preaching in your old age, Lance.  It
would help you fulfill the following passage:

Titus 1:9
(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


Going to the Bible will NOT bring the issue to resolution, Dean. Judy, DM,
Gary, Bill, John, even I, though only on the rarest of occasions, can 
muster

adequate Scriptural support for a 'view'. Sometimes that 'view' is God's.
Sometimes that 'view' is one's own.

 Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 15, 2006 12:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now





- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 12:31:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


EVERY VIEW IS SUPPORTABLE, DEAN!! The better 'taught' one is, the more
comprehensive that person's presentation is. This applies equally to right
as well as wrong views. IMO, your view is a wrong view on this matter..

cd: That of course would make it wrong because it is in contrast to you
view?So how do we know which view is correct-go to the Bible-or some other
source?

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 15, 2006 12:21
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


cd: Lance you need to recognize that this view is made up of much study 
and

that I can support it with scripture so it is not something just spoke off
of the top of my head as you seem to suppose. If one is to evaluate the
speaker then one must also consider the speakers past statements to
determine the availability of truth offer by the speaker.Which statement 
do

you want me to support?


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 9:13:44 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


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 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:

[Lance Muir]

Why David?


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 15, 2006 22:17
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:



It always amazes me how these theologians talk about theology and science
and their references reflect nearly all theology.

David Miller.


- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:47 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw:


FYI re:Who is Victor?


- Original Message - 
From: "Victor Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 07, 2006 20:35



Lance,

Here's the latest.

Victor


--
"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

[Lance Muir]

Going to the Bible will NOT bring the issue to 
resolution, Dean. Judy, DM, Gary, Bill, John, even I, though only on the 
rarest of occasions, can muster adequate Scriptural support for a 'view'. 
Sometimes that 'view' is God's. Sometimes that 'view' is one's own.
 
 Original Message - 

  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 15, 2006 12:57
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
  working for now
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 12:31:45 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
working for now

EVERY VIEW IS SUPPORTABLE, DEAN!! The better 
'taught' one is, the more comprehensive that person's presentation 
is. This applies equally to right as well as wrong views. IMO, your 
view is a wrong view on this matter..
 
cd: That of course would make it wrong because 
it is in contrast to you view?So how do we know which view is correct-go to 
the Bible-or some other source?
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 15, 2006 12:21
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
  working for now
  
  
  cd: Lance you need to recognize that this view is made up of 
  much study and that I can support it with scripture so it is not something 
  just spoke off of the top of my head as you seem to suppose. If one is to 
  evaluate the speaker then one must also consider the speakers past 
  statements to determine the availability of truth offer by the 
  speaker.Which statement do you want me to support?
   
  
   
  
    ----- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 9:13:44 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, 
done working for now

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 
  t