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

[knpraise]

Judy versus the Bible:
 
 

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



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

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

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

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

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

so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

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


OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
Sure the Godhead are One and united - in Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you united? 
 
In marriage between humans it is "one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between the two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no schism.  Bill
 
There would have been disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic would be the right term.  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would 
be the purpose??
 
 

From: Judy Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

And while you're at it, will you explain your schism with your husband, too? 
 
(If this needs clarification, just ask)
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.o

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

 

"And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." 1John 4.3
When John wrote this,  was Jesus Christ God or not?   Only the fool would say "no."  (How's that for setting the stage for the "right" answer.)  
 
That being true, that the Christ of   I John has risen and resumed His role as God  (I speak as Judy believes)  -  then John is saying that "God" came in the flesh.   
The Jesus Christ that John knew, as he wrote this first letter was God, in the mind of John.   The confession is either the grandest truth or the biggest lie  of the age  --  that Jesus Christ (God) came in the flesh.   
 
Amen.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Probably the most important of all posts concerning this thread.  
 
Amen.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

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

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

From: Taylor 


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

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

[Dave Hansen]

I took him to be asking if I think I
will ever be divine; i.e., a God myself


DAVEH:  No..That's not quite what I was asking, Bill.  I realize
you don't feel a divine kinship to God, but I assume you believe you
are a son of God.  I'm trying to find out what that means to
you.  (As you know, I have a much different perspective, and I'm trying
to understand your contrasting view of what it means to be a son of
God.)



Taylor wrote:

  Well then you answer him, Miller :>)   I took him to be asking if I think I
will ever be divine; i.e., a God myself. I do not. If you think otherwise,
then enlighten me too.


- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
DIVINE


  
  
Dave Hansen makes an excellent point here.  I hope you will be able to
respond, Bill.  I have many passages in the back of my mind that would
support Dave Hansen on this point.

David Miller.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS

  
  NOT
  
  
DIVINE

He is God and we are not.

DAVEH:  In a previous post, you had answered No. when I asked you if you
believe we have divine roots.  I realize that we are not God, but yet I
believe there is a relationship we can have with God that encourages us to
become like him.  I assume you do not recognize that relationshipis

  
  that
  
  
correct?  So, how do you perceive becoming one of the sons of God.do

  
  you
  
  
believe you fit into that category, Bill?  And if so, what does it mean to
you?

Taylor wrote:
DH  >  So.what do you perceive to be the limitations that prevent us
from becoming like God?

He is God and we are not.

Bill
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS

  
  NOT
  
  
DIVINE


DAVEH  As you know, the LDS believe that mortals can become like God.  I
assume you agree with the following.

We can become perfect (in a complete sense) like God.

We can know the difference between good and evil.

We can become one with him, as he (Jesus) is one with his Father.

We will eventually be resurrected like him.

So.what do you perceive to be the limitations that prevent us from
becoming like God?

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

Bill


  


-- 
~~~
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] Cutting off and new life

[knpraise]

Oh yea!  I fregot about dat.  
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

or if an administrator says so?
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:23:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How does that go? " It is only ad hom if it is not true."  
 
||

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

[knpraise]

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

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

Dean, don't get too excited , here.   Judy does not use the word "human" as the rest of us that word.   
Nor does she believe that Christ was God in the flesh   
 
I would ask you once more to control yourself JD and refrain from putting your words in my mouth.
I am quite capable of speaking for myself; the above is incorrect.
 
Oh really??  !!  Your words , not mine  --  "  Jesus
could not have been exactly the same as us because we are all born into an Eph 2  reality and He was not.   As i said  --  Judy does not use the word "human" as the rest of us use that word.   
 
 
unless you ,too, believe that could be God while being something less than God at the same time. 
 
Yes, the Son of God. (John 14:28) for whom the Father was "greater" than he. 
 
If Christ is God in the flesh, then He is fully God because He simply could not be anything less than fully god without being something other than God at the same time.   Neither can He be only part human without being somethin other than human at the same time.  
 
Of course he can.  He can be whoever God says he is and wants him to be.  He came as the suffering servant,
remember??
 
Judy defends the notion that Jesus is only part God, in the above.   She ignores the fact that "servant" is a station in life while "God" is descriptive of the very being of the Divine.   To be part human is to be something other than human.  To be part God is to be something other than God.   Whatever Jesus is, whoever Jesus is -  He is the SAME yesterday, today AND FOREVER  --  which means He never changes.  Once God, always God.   
 
 
When we reject the incarnation of Christ because of  the fact that we cannot comprehend how He can be fully God and fully man, it  is an insult to the notion that He is unique  (only begotton = unique).   Uniqueness,  true uniquessness as in "one of a kind"  cannot be considered rationally.   
 
He can not be fully God and fully fallen man as you are trying to claim which to me is akin to Calvin making
God responsible for the fall and all sin thereafter because in Calvin's opinion he decreed all that.
Your comments about Calvin beg the question at hand.   You just got through saying  He can be whoever God says he is and wants him to be.  So, He can be fully God and fully man  !!  You have just admitted the possibility  !!!  
 
I believe in a triune God because I SEE three personages ,  not because I can explain that reality to anyone !!  It is faith that carries me beyond doubt on this matter and reminds me of my place in the order of this  universe  -  the same universe of which God is the Creator.  
 
The triune Godhead can be seen in the scriptures.
Of course.  
 
It is truly heresy to demand and pretend to fully understand Gd in three persons, or God in Christ, or God at all !!  
 
You can speak for yourself JD .. and you are the ONLY one you can speak for.
I speak "revealed truth,"  and since you are a sister of the illumination,  you should know this.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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


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

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

- Original Message - 
From: Judy T

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

[Dave Hansen]

Jesus and the Father are of the same substance

DAVEH:  What do you mean by substance, DavidM?

David Miller wrote:

  
  
  
  There is only one person who is the Father.  Clearly, Jesus is
describing likeness.  Whether you are Trinitarian or Oneness in
doctrine concerning the Godhead, the view is that Jesus and the
Father are of the same substance.  If memory serves me correctly,
the Greek word is actually the same as that translated likeness. 
   
  In other words, in the same way that we speak of the likeness of
Christ to Father God, so also we should speak of his likeness to
humanity and human flesh.


-- 
~~~
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] Rats !!! about the bats

[knpraise]

:-) How is it that I understand you?  Its kind of scary.
 
Look for the silent declaration of a debt paid as one flies with the eagles and comes to rest near an Ash tree close to home.  
 
j The Mays d
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

patience is preaching in due time the word of our blessings (now or not yet) will come forth
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:25:11 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes !!  If you have not yet received the blessing of that endeavor  -- I will send out another tomorrow and canel the first.
 
 
jd 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

yo Bishop--didst thee send ferth de batman's cheque?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:19:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As you look first here and , then, there for Me, you look in vain.  You will cry out for My Presense,  and [be assured} I will answer !!  You will put your search in words and [be assured]  I will speak,  "You have found Me  -- Here am I  !!!"  
If  --  ah yes, there is a condition  -- If, I say, you stop the pointing of the finger, and remove the burden you place on others.  If , I say, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and give yourself  --  YOURSELF - to the afflicted in healing remedy, then, and only then,  shall your light begin to appear, your personal darkness being swept away by the ever increasing light and [then] you will know that the Lord is your continual guide.  The end of your personal drought and new found strength in your very bones will be the reward you search for {for I am the end of your thirst and the strength of your person).    IS 58:9-11   JDS translation.
 
That which is seen as self-effacing in our God is required of us, as well.  
 
jds
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
- 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
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

Probably the most important of all posts concerning this thread.  
 
Amen.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

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

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

From: Taylor 


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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:08 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  What person among us indwelt with the Holy Spirit 
  could deny that Jesus Christ was born with David's blood running through his 
  veins?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

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

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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


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

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

From: Taylor 

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

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

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

From: Taylor 

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

Judy, you are not the Holy Spirit.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:17 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  What do you think the Holy Spirit is Bill?  You 
  don't understand Him do you?
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

It was his divine nature that was great, Dean, 
and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
nature,
 
Anyone who has been born of 
the Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 

nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 
2 Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
 
Judy, we are humans beings indwelt with the 
Holy Spirit, but we are not God, which is what I mean when I speak of Jesus' 
divine nature: he was/is God -- and that, my dear, is an infinite 
difference.
 
Bill

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

cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
common man?
 
It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's 
human nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 

"he learned obedience from the things he 
suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
state.
 
What things do you know that 
He suffered that are relevant to our state Bill?  
Do you know that he 
was ever sick or infirm 
because of generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. 
Depressed?
 
It was his divine nature that was great, 
Dean, and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
nature,
 
Anyone who has been born of 
the Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 

nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 
Cor 3:18, Heb 12:10.
 
but at no time did his divinity overwhelm 
his humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 

human nature, producing obedience rather 
than sin.  Bill

  From: Dean 
  Moore 
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus 
, neither God nor Man

Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of 
new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated 
to fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on 
our side of the fall.
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham 
was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. 
But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his 
divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I 
AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and 
this before his glorification) is I AM; that 
is, Yahweh, the LORD who covenants with 
Abraham. 
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, 
two realities in one person, united -- but make 
him anything less than God or anything more than man 
and you are courting a demon, who is powerless to save 
you.
 
Bill 
cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same 
as common man?-- 
  This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
  content by Plains.Net, and 
  is believed to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

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

  Luke writes that 
  Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): 
  
   
  Not exactly Bill 
  "David being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, 
  
  that of the 
  fruit of his loins, according to the 
  flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
  Right, so in Matt 
  we have a genealogy that shows Joseph is in David's lineage but he 
  is
  hardly the 
  biological father of Jesus is he?  Even though Jesus is born in his 
  lineage.
   
  hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly 
  brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 
  
  No, he is human 
  like David was human, born on our side of the 
  fall.
   
  He did not come 
  to this earth through procreation Bill. He did not have a human father - 
  He may have been
  born 
  on this side of the fall but he was most definitely not born fallen. One 
  can not be fallen and holy ATST
   
  And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I 
  AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was 
  not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And 
  notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was 
  copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his 
  glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
  covenants with Abraham. 
   
  So??  Noone here disputes his 
  heritage.
   
  Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in 
  one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
  God or anything more than man and you are courting a demon, 
  who is powerless to save you.
   
  Either that or you are courting religious 
  spirits who are filling your head with the doctrines they have been 
  promoting for thousands of years.  
  He doesn't have to be fully anything. He is who the Word of 
  God
  says He is - which is the Word made 
  flesh.
   
  Bill 
   
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:53 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as common 
man?
 
It's Bill, but I would say that Christ's human 
nature was the same as common man -- or statements like 
"he learned obedience from the things he 
suffered" would be meaningless, or at least irrelevant to us in our 
state.
 
What things do you know that He 
suffered that are relevant to our state Bill?  Do you 
know that he 
was ever sick or infirm because of 
generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. 
Depressed?
 
It was his divine nature that was great, Dean, 
and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine 
nature,
 
Anyone who has been born of the 
Spirit is well on the road to becoming a partaker of the divine 

nature Bill see 2 Pet 1:14, 2 Cor 
3:18, Heb 12:10.
 
but at no time did his divinity overwhelm his 
humanity; instead it came alongside and worked in unison with his 

human nature, producing obedience rather than 
sin.  Bill

  From: Dean Moore 
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of new 
humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to 
fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our 
side of the fall.
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, 
I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it 
was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. 
And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that 
he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his 
glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who 
covenants with Abraham. 
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities 
in one person, united -- but make him anything less than 
God or anything more than man and you are courting a 
demon, who is powerless to save you.
 
Bill 
cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as 
common man?-- This 
  message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[ttxpress]

or if an 
administrator says so?
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:23:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  How does that go? " It is only ad hom if it is not true."  
  
   
  ||

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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



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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

Judy, you make a good point.   But the fact remains that Peter did say this.  And an audience of thousands heard these very words.   They (the audience) has no other opinion on the subject than what they hear Peter say  --  how could they not understand that Christ is born of the David's loin and NOT think that He is fully human?   Peter is either fostering a grand misconception or he is telling the truth.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

From: Taylor 


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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

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

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



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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Rats !!! about the bats

[ttxpress]

patience 
is preaching in due time the word of our blessings (now or not 
yet) will come forth
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:25:11 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yes !!  If you have not yet received the blessing of that 
  endeavor  -- I will send out another tomorrow and canel the 
  first.
   
   
  jd 
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

yo 
Bishop--didst thee send ferth de batman's 
cheque?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:19:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  As you look first here and , then, there for Me, you look in 
  vain.  You will cry out for My Presense,  and [be assured} I 
  will answer !!  You will put your search in words and [be 
  assured]  I will speak,  "You have found Me  -- Here am 
  I  !!!"  
  If  --  ah yes, there is a condition  -- If, I say, 
  you stop the pointing of the finger, and remove the burden you place 
  on others.  If , I say, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and 
  give yourself  --  YOURSELF - to the afflicted in healing 
  remedy, then, and only then,  shall your light begin to appear, your 
  personal darkness being swept away by the ever increasing light and [then] 
  you will know that the Lord is your continual guide.  The end of your 
  personal drought and new found strength in your very bones will be the 
  reward you search for {for I am the end of your thirst and the strength of 
  your person).    IS 
  58:9-11   JDS translation.
   
  That which is seen as self-effacing in our God is required of us, as 
  well.  
   
  jds
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
- 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
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Rats !!! about the bats

[knpraise]

Yes !!  If you have not yet received the blessing of that endeavor  -- I will send out another tomorrow and canel the first.
 
 
jd 
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

yo Bishop--didst thee send ferth de batman's cheque?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:19:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As you look first here and , then, there for Me, you look in vain.  You will cry out for My Presense,  and [be assured} I will answer !!  You will put your search in words and [be assured]  I will speak,  "You have found Me  -- Here am I  !!!"  
If  --  ah yes, there is a condition  -- If, I say, you stop the pointing of the finger, and remove the burden you place on others.  If , I say, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and give yourself  --  YOURSELF - to the afflicted in healing remedy, then, and only then,  shall your light begin to appear, your personal darkness being swept away by the ever increasing light and [then] you will know that the Lord is your continual guide.  The end of your personal drought and new found strength in your very bones will be the reward you search for {for I am the end of your thirst and the strength of your person).    IS 58:9-11   JDS translation.
 
That which is seen as self-effacing in our God is required of us, as well.  
 
jds
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
- 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
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[knpraise]

How does that go? " It is only ad hom if it is not true."  
 
But you are right, of course.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

ad hominem
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:02:20 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..DM believes this makes him an administrator of the will of God in the lives of others,  I see no such thing. 

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

[knpraise]

Dean, don't get too excited , here.   Judy does not use the word "human" as the rest of use that word.   Nor does she believe that Christ was God in the flesh   unless you ,too, believe that could be God while being something less than God at the same time.   
 
If Christ is God in the flesh, then He is fully God because He simply could not be anything less than fully god without being something other than God at the same time.   Neither can He be only part human without being somethin other than human at the same time.   
 
When we reject the incarnation of Christ because of  the fact that we cannot comprehend how He can be fully God and fully man is an insult to the notion that He is unique  (only begotton = unique).   Uniqueness,  true uniquessness as in "one of a kind"  cannot be considered rationally.   
 
I believe in a triune God because I SEE three personages ,  not because I can explain that reality to anyone !!  It is faith that carries me beyond doubt on this matter and reminds me of my place in the order of this  universe  -  the same universe of which God is the Creator.  
 
It is truly heresy to demand and pretend to fully understand Gd in three persons, or God in Christ, or God at all !!  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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


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

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

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean so much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that Jesus is the image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much so that when you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be inappropriate to say that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly like him.  Do you see it differently, Judy?  David Miller.
 
I don't know   When He walked the earth as a man He was not the Father 
because He prayed to the Father and when He said these words to Philip ie: 
"If you have seen me you have seen the Father" (John 14:9) I believe He is 
referring to the ministry rather than to Himself personally because everything 
He said and did (both works and words) he had first seen the Father saying 
and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same thing JD.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT ONE.
 
 
Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  "IN EVERY WAY"
 
 
-- Original message 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

My first post  "disappeared."    Maybe my computer sent the dern thing.  I will try it again.  
 
Was He sick?  Certainly.  He was human in every respect as we.  Generational curses  -  do not apply to anyone you know in the sense that they speck of original sin.  "Oppressed by demons"    -   neither were any of the apostles and no one that I personally know.  Depressed?  Well, he cried over Jerusalem, so  "yes."  Angry?  See the Temple and the money changers.   Loss of patience  (to some degree) ?  Absolutely  (the account of the feeding of the 5000  and then the 4000 and then the apostles concern about lunch !!  Mistaken in some of His opinions?  certainly  -  see the wedding feast and His decision not to turn water into wine.   He had to learn the wa
ys of life (Acts 2:28) .  His humanity is just like ours.  But , of course,  you don't believe that He was human or God while on this earth.  
 
Look  --  there is simply no rational path to the understanding of Jesus Christ  or any other aspect of the Living God.   All we know is what we read in the papers   (read:  Bible).  If the question is not asked and answered in those pages,  we cannot be fully convinced of any of  our conclusions.   
 
Church history can and should play a role in all this  --  but for some, it is not allowed.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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


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

From: Dean Moore 
- Original Message - 

From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our side of the fall.
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in one person, united -- but make him anything less than God or anything more than man and you are courting a demon, who is powerless to save you.
 
Bill 
cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as common man?-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: glory

[ttxpress]

yo Bishop--didst 
thee send ferth de batman's cheque?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:19:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  As you look first here and , then, there for Me, you look in vain.  
  You will cry out for My Presense,  and [be assured} I will answer 
  !!  You will put your search in words and [be assured]  I will 
  speak,  "You have found Me  -- Here am I  !!!"  
  If  --  ah yes, there is a condition  -- If, I say, you 
  stop the pointing of the finger, and remove the burden you place on 
  others.  If , I say, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and give 
  yourself  --  YOURSELF - to the afflicted in healing remedy, then, 
  and only then,  shall your light begin to appear, your personal darkness 
  being swept away by the ever increasing light and [then] you will know that 
  the Lord is your continual guide.  The end of your personal drought and 
  new found strength in your very bones will be the reward you search for {for I 
  am the end of your thirst and the strength of your 
  person).    IS 58:9-11   JDS 
  translation.
   
  That which is seen as self-effacing in our God is required of us, as 
  well.  
   
  jds
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



 
- 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
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[ttxpress]

ad 
hominem
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:02:20 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..DM believes this makes him an administrator of the will of God in the 
  lives of others,  I see no such 
thing. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

Do you know that he 
was ever sick or infirm because of generational curses?  Oppressed by demons. Depressed?
 
Well, of course He got sick.  He was like us in every respect.   No one I know is demon oppressed as you count demons.   Depressed?  He cried over Jerusalem.  Angry?  You the scene at the Temple.  Impatient?  Will there be any faith when [I] return?  Mistaken in His opinions?  Sure  --  the wedding feast and His decision not to make the water [into] wine.   Having to learn the lesson of discipline as a 12 year old  (although His answer to His parents question is truth -  you hear nothing of such actions again.)  
 
It is a fact that He had to learn THE WAYS OF LIFE   (Acts 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



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


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

From: Dean Moore 
- Original Message - 

From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of new humanity, freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; No, he is human like David was human, born on our side of the fall.
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was not his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And notice: he did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) is I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who covenants with Abraham. 
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in one person, united -- but make him anything less than God or anything more than man and you are courting a demon, who is powerless to save you.
 
Bill 
cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as common man?-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. 
 

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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


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

  
  Judy 
  asks:    
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
  be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the 
  first Adam before the fall, 
  ...
   
  Bill responds
  the first 
  Adam before the fall did not 
  need to be saved Judy. We do. 
   
  Bill
   
  And judy , well, does what?
  The first Adam after 
  the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
  Bill
  and so do we.   Judy
   
   
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



The first Adam after the fall 
did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a 
curse along with the rest of creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus 
went to the cross in order to institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the 
Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  
The Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
 
Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not 
Jesus who takes on our likeness although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam 
failed; and was without sin where we
are for the most part loaded down with 
it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
like the second Adam is the Lord from 
heaven.  I don't see anything earthy about
him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.
 

 
 
From: Taylor 

  
 

Tell me why he (Jesus) 
HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
the
first Adam before the 
fall, ...
 
Because the first 
Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We 
do.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 
  2006 11:50 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

so there is no way 
that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not 
create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 
1.26

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

From: Taylor 

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

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

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

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

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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. It was his divine nature that was great, Dean, 
and in that he was unlike us, as we do not have a divine nature, 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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:19 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither 
  God nor Man
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 7:34:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , 
neither God nor Man

Luke writes that Jesus was born of the fruit of David's 
genitals (Act 2.30): hence he was not some kind of new humanity, 
freshly brewed with new material, unrelated to fallen humankind; 
No, he is human like David was human, born on our side of the 
fall.
 
And to the naysayers Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I 
AM"; hence Jesus pre-dated even Abraham, David' predecessor. But it was not 
his humanity which pre-dated David; it was his divinity. And notice: he 
did not say that his Father was the I AM, and that he was copying him. 
No, Jesus said that he (and this before his glorification) is 
I AM; that is, Yahweh, the LORD who covenants with 
Abraham. 
 
Jesus is FULLY GOD and fully man, two realities in 
one person, united -- but make him anything less than God or 
anything more than man and you are courting a demon, who is 
powerless to save you.
 
Bill 
cd: Jd would you say Christ was the same as common 
man?-- This message has been 
  scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[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?

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

[Dean Moore]

 
 

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

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean so much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that Jesus is the image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much so that when you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be inappropriate to say that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly like him.  Do you see it differently, Judy?  David Miller.
 
I don't know   When He walked the earth as a man He was not the Father 
because He prayed to the Father and when He said these words to Philip ie: 
"If you have seen me you have seen the Father" (John 14:9) I believe He is 
referring to the ministry rather than to Himself personally because everything 
He said and did (both works and words) he had first seen the Father saying 
and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same thing JD.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT ONE.
 
 
Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  "IN EVERY WAY"
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I was just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to the divine.
 
If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT ONE.
 
And, while I understood what you were saying, I also hesitate to speak of the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully human and fully divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. Anyway, I knew what you meant and could thus look through it.
 
Thanks,
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - From: Dean Moore- Original Message - From: Taylor
 
So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, let me ask you: do you as a human have "divine thoughts"?
 
Billcd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold the perspective that Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I realize that the flesh would influence one thinking to my limited 'divine 'thoughts but with Christ who walked according to the Spirit I see no limitations. Nor do I admit there has to be such weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We simply are not willing to pray and fast and abstain from things as one should to weaken this flesh and hence allow more diviness to control us.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore
 
cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine thoughts.- Original Message - From: Taylor
 
If I understand you

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

[Dean Moore]

> [Original Message]
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/16/2006 3:58:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
>
> Dean, I have never been a supporter of Benny Hinn.  I have never been to
any 
> meeting of his or met him.  I did not even remember until you just now 
> posted this, but my mother did once sing in his choir when he held a
healing 
> crusade near her town.  As far as I know, this was a one time thing.
>
> In any case, my primary point is that Benny Hinn is not known among 
> Pentecostal circles as an inspired teacher / evangelist.  He has a
healing 
> ministry.  Benny has the tendency to want to be a teacher, but it has
gotten 
> him into trouble time and time again because the truth is that his gift
is 
> not teacher.
>
> You probably thought I was a supporter of him because I have objected to 
> street preachers who go to his crusades to protest him.  These are 
> non-Pentecostal street preachers who are filled with envy IMO.  Whether
one 
> agrees with him or not, the people who go to these meetings are usually 
> those who need healing desperately.  The street preachers should not be 
> saying anything that is contrary to faith such that it would hinder them 
> receiving what they need from Jesus Christ.  If they want to go and lay 
> hands on the sick there and heal them, fine, but to go and protest is
wrong. 
> Even Jesus could not heal many because of the unbelief of the people. 
> Street preachers should not be contributing to unbelief.  If their
theology 
> about healing is all messed up, they need to fix it, but in the mean
time, 
> they should not go out to subvert the way of a minister they don't 
> understand.  See Lam. 3:36.
>
> David Miller.
cd: I think the Street Preachers understand B.Hinn quite well. 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.
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. By
the way when did we become protesters? I understood you to be a preacher-we
are likewise.
>
> --
> "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.



--
"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] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Dean Moore]

 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 3:48:39 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

What is a good point, Dean? She made several points, none of which were representative of my beliefs, either that or were not antithetical to my beliefs and as such were not adequate rebuttals. Please be more specific.
 
Bill
 
cd: This is a good point Bill.
 
Judy wrote:

So now you claim that a transformed body without blood that is able to walk through 
walls is in the likeness of our human bodies Bill?

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[Taylor]

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 
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
Exactly !!!   As an on looker (you can thank me 
later) ,  it is obvious that  Judy neither thinks Christ to be 
God (incarnate) nor fully human (incarnate).  
 
No wonder she objects to the word INCARNATE.   Under 
no circumstance, is Jesus incarnate. 
 
The fact that John 1:14 has no meaning to Judy as relates to 
this discussion is noteworthy , as well.   The "Word" of John , 
chapter one, is defined in terms of "God"  and "flesh"  -  yet 
Judy denies that either term fully and completely applies to Christ.  Which 
part of Jesus is not according to scripture, she asks  -   and 
Bill says  ALL OF HIM. 
 
Amen to that.
 
jd

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




Which part of the Jesus I believe in 
is not according to scripture Bill?   
 
 All of him.
 
What makes Him impotent in your 
opinion?   
 
He is neither God 
nor man, but something less than the former* and greater than the latter**; 
hence he is unrelated to both and therefore irrelevant, just an idol you 
worship.
 
 
* Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which Judy responded, 
"How can the Father be greater than God Himself?" (Monday, January 02, 
2006)
 
** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that 
Jesus is fully human ... and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, 
January 16, 2006)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity 
  THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  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>

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

[knpraise]

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 chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 
 
I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and God. 
 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?  

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Like v like in every respect

[knpraise]

When I tell my employee,  "Make 20 doors like this one, in every respect"  He knows exactly what I mean.   I don't want the doors made out of another type of wood,  with another type of edge detail, with the hinge holes in a diffeent location ,  with the finish less or more glossy.   
 
We use the word "like" because each door will have its own uniqueness.  The gloss finish will not be exactly the same.  The grain pattern will be different from one door to the next.   And so on.   
 
You need to understand that  to say  "like such and such"  and "like such and such in every respect" are two very different things.       at least in terms of instruction and emphasis.   There is room from confusion with the first  --  the second cannot be misunderstood except by those with some kind of agenda.  
John the Baptist was like us in every respect, as well.  He is not exactly like anyone --  and no one argues that he was or was not a man !!   You strain at gnats while swallowing the camel.
 
 
jd
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

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


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



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

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

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 

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

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
 

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

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

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ??

[Judy Taylor]

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

  
  Judy 
  asks:    
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be 
  like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before 
  the fall, ...
   
  Bill responds
  the first Adam 
  before the fall did not need to be 
  saved Judy. We do. 
   
  Bill
   
  And judy , well, does what?
  The first Adam after the 
  fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
  Bill
  and so do we.   Judy
   
   
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



The first Adam after the fall did 
indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse 
along with the rest of creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went 
to the cross in order to institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the 
Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The 
Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
 
Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus 
who takes on our likeness although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam 
failed; and was without sin where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  
Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  
I don't see anything earthy about
him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.
 

 
 
From: Taylor 

  
 

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
the
first Adam before the fall, 
...
 
Because the first Adam 
before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We 
do.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  11:50 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

so there is no way that 
this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not 
create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the 
first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which 
"likeness" 
Adam forfeited when 
he chose to go with Eve 
into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men 
(including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 

the first Adam rather 
than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of 
the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 

and His willingness to 
lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are 
making much too much of Seth having been born in the image 

of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me 
what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's 
image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they 
were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is 
starting
over even though it 
didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 
8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I 
don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that 
should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 

his humanness with his divinity. 

 
I understand.  It is 
 

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ??

[knpraise]

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



The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
 
Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy about
him.  Temptation or no temptation.
 

 
 
From: Taylor 


 

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, ...
 
Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 
 
I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and God. 
 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated like
us since he had no human father so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
 
And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
and we would therefore still be in sin.  Bill
 
Not so; all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
test that A&E failed and he did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.

From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than th

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

[knpraise]

Exactly !!!   As an on looker (you can thank me later) ,  it is obvious that  Judy neither thinks Christ to be God (incarnate) nor fully human (incarnate).  
No wonder she objects to the word INCARNATE.   Under no circumstance, is Jesus incarnate.  
 
The fact that John 1:14 has no meaning to Judy as relates to this discussion is noteworthy , as well.   The "Word" of John , chapter one, is defined in terms of "God"  and "flesh"  -  yet Judy denies that either term fully and completely applies to Christ.  Which part of Jesus is not according to scripture, she asks  -   and Bill says  ALL OF HIM.  
 
Amen to that.
 
jd
 
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




Which part of the Jesus I believe in is not according to scripture Bill?   
 
 All of him.
 
What makes Him impotent in your opinion?   
 
He is neither God nor man, but something less than the former* and greater than the latter**; hence he is unrelated to both and therefore irrelevant, just an idol you worship.
 
 
* Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which Judy responded, "How can the Father be greater than God Himself?" (Monday, January 02, 2006)
 
** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that Jesus is fully human ... and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, January 16, 2006)

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

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" <[EM

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  
  Which part of the Jesus I believe 
  in is not according to scripture Bill?   
   
   All of him.
   
  Well the above is a detailed and coherent 
  response - is this the best you can do?
   
  What makes Him impotent in 
  your opinion?   
   
  He is neither God 
  nor man, but something less than the former* and greater than the latter**; 
  
  hence he is 
  unrelated to both and therefore irrelevant, just an idol you 
  worship.
   
  IOW You don't understand Him so he must either 
  conform to the Church Fathers and
  "orthodoxy" or He is an idol?   
  What a good student you have been 
  Bill.
   
  * Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which 
  Judy responded, "How can the Father be greater than 
  God Himself?" (Monday, January 02, 2006)
   
  My response relates to Jesus' own words which are 
  "The Father is greater than Me" (John 14:28)
  So my question still stands. Unanswered I might 
  add.  I don't just make up this stuff you know.
   
  ** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that 
  Jesus is fully human ... 
  and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, January 
  16, 2006)
   
  He has got to be one or the other Bill - or it is 
  YOUR JESUS who is a hybrid and not mine regardless of
  what the Church Fathers came up with.  They were 
  not God - there is a higher authority you know.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Which part of the Jesus I believe in is 
not according to scripture Bill?
What makes Him impotent in your 
opinion?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:36:13 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  David,
   
  I am not saying that the Jesus I believe in -- that is, 
  the Jesus of Scripture -- cannot save her, 
  or that she is not saved by that same Jesus. I am saying that the Jesus she describes cannot save her, 
  
  as he is impotent to save her or 
  anyone else, and if it were true what she says about the hybrid she 
  believes in, 
  we are all doomed.
   
  And so my apologies for not being more specific. I can 
  see where you misunderstood me.
   
  Bill
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:00 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE 
  HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  > Judy wrote:> 
  >> I don't see anything earthy about him.> >> 
  Temptation or no temptation.> > Bill wrote:> > ... 
  then you are still in your sins and you> > do not have a 
  Savior.> > I would have to disagree with you here, 
  Bill.  Such would make salvation > dependent upon her 
  intellectual understanding.> > It seems to me that Judy 
  knows her Savior.  She just does not understand the > aspects 
  of humanity about him that we are now discussing.  Nevertheless, she 
  > has placed faith in him, despite this, and she knows him well 
  enough through > the Spirit to have experienced the forgiveness of 
  sins and life everlasting.> > David Miller.> > 
  - Original Message - > From: Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
  January 16, 2006 4:41 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
  > I don't see anything earthy about him.  Temptation or no 
  temptation.> > Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins 
  and you do not have a Savior.> > Bill> - Original 
  Message - > From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
  January 16, 2006 2:22 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
  > The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the 
  wrath of God > Bill> and so do we.  Our "humanity" is 
  under a curse along with the rest of > creation Bill> Which 
  is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to 
  > institute a> "New Creation" and this is why he is called 
  the Second Adam.  The first Adam> is earthy or of the earthy 
  (as we are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from > 
  heaven.> > Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not 
  Jesus who takes on our likeness > although he> passed in all 
  the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin > where 
  we> are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 
  15:42-52.  Sounds to > me> like the second Adam is the 
  Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy > about> 
  him.  Temptation or no temptation.> > > > 
  From: Taylor> > Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in 
  every way?  Why couldn't he have > been like the> first 
  Adam before the fall, ...> > Because the first Adam before 
  the fall did not ne

Re: [TruthTalk] Kiss off illumination

[knpraise]

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 in their nature and character > spiritually - which "likeness"> Adam forfeited when he chose 
to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the > wrong fruit.> > Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in > the likeness of> the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)> > The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is > to become> conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His > coming> and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our > place.> > Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been > born in the image> of Adam (see Gen

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

[Taylor]

Which part of the Jesus I believe in 
is not according to scripture Bill?   
 
 All of him.
 
What makes Him impotent in your 
opinion?   
 
He is neither God nor 
man, but something less than the former* and greater than the latter**; hence he 
is unrelated to both and therefore irrelevant, just an idol you 
worship.
 
 
* Lance wrote, "Jesus is God," to which Judy responded, "How 
can the Father be greater than God Himself?" (Monday, January 02, 
2006)
 
** "How can [the Church fathers] state emphatically that Jesus 
is fully human ... and that his humanity is not divine?" (Monday, January 
16, 2006)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE 
  HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  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: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 4:41 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
> I don't see anything earthy about him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.> > Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and 
you do not have a Savior.> > Bill> - Original 
Message - > From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 2:22 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath 
of God > Bill> and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a 
curse along with the rest of > creation Bill> Which is spelled 
out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to > 
institute a> "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second 
Adam.  The first Adam> is earthy or of the earthy (as we 
are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from > heaven.> 
> Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who takes on 
our likeness > although he> passed in all the areas where the 
first Adam failed; and was without sin > where we> are for the 
most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to 
> me> like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I 
don't see anything earthy > about> him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.> > > > From: Taylor> > 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he 
have > been like the> first Adam before the fall, ...> 
> Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved 
Judy. We do.> > Bill> - Original Message - 
> From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 11:50 AM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
> > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> so there is 
no way that this would be the same concept Bill.> > Why is 
that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen > 
1.26).> > Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature 
and character > spiritually - which "likeness"> Adam forfeited 
when he chose to go with Eve into disob

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  David,
   
  I am not saying that the Jesus I believe in -- that is, the 
  Jesus of Scripture -- cannot save her, 
  or that she is not saved by that same Jesus. I am saying that the Jesus she describes cannot save her, 
  
  as he is impotent to save her or anyone 
  else, and if it were true what she says about the hybrid she believes 
  in, 
  we are all doomed.
   
  And so my apologies for not being more specific. I can see 
  where you misunderstood me.
   
  Bill
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:00 PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY 
  OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  > Judy wrote:> 
  >> I don't see anything earthy about him.> >> Temptation or 
  no temptation.> > Bill wrote:> > ... then you are 
  still in your sins and you> > do not have a Savior.> > 
  I would have to disagree with you here, Bill.  Such would make salvation 
  > dependent upon her intellectual understanding.> > It 
  seems to me that Judy knows her Savior.  She just does not understand the 
  > aspects of humanity about him that we are now discussing.  
  Nevertheless, she > has placed faith in him, despite this, and she 
  knows him well enough through > the Spirit to have experienced the 
  forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.> > David 
  Miller.> > - Original Message - > From: 
  Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: 
  Monday, January 16, 2006 4:41 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
  > I don't see anything earthy about him.  Temptation or no 
  temptation.> > Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and 
  you do not have a Savior.> > Bill> - Original Message 
  - > From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: 
  Monday, January 16, 2006 2:22 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
  > The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath 
  of God > Bill> and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a 
  curse along with the rest of > creation Bill> Which is spelled 
  out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to > institute 
  a> "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam.  
  The first Adam> is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The 
  Second Adam is the Lord from > heaven.> > Your gospel is 
  inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness > 
  although he> passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and 
  was without sin > where we> are for the most part loaded down 
  with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to > me> like 
  the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy 
  > about> him.  Temptation or no temptation.> 
  > > > From: Taylor> > Tell me why he 
  (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have > 
  been like the> first Adam before the fall, ...> > Because 
  the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.> 
  > Bill> - Original Message - > From: Judy 
  Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: 
  Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > 
  > > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.> > Why 
  is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen > 
  1.26).> > Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature 
  and character > spiritually - which "likeness"> Adam forfeited 
  when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the > wrong 
  fruit.> > Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this 
  world by procreation in > the likeness of> the first Adam rather 
  than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)> > The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is > to become> 
  conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His 
  > coming> and His willingness to lay down His human life as a 
  perfect sacrifice in our > place.> > Laying aside the 
  fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been > born in 
  the image> of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, 
  then, with > killing someone who> was no longer created in God's 
  image, but in Adam's),> > At the beginnign they were created in 
  God's image and now Noah who found > grace is starting> over 
  even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of > 
  humanity (all but 8 ppl)> to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is 
  interested in fellowshipping with a >

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

[Taylor]

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: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 4:41 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity 
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > > I don't 
see anything earthy about him.  Temptation or no temptation.> 
> Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and you do not have a 
Savior.> > Bill> - Original Message - > 
From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 2:22 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity 
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > > The 
first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God > 
Bill> and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the 
rest of > creation Bill> Which is spelled out in scripture.  
Jesus went to the cross in order to > institute a> "New Creation" 
and this is why he is called the Second Adam.  The first Adam> is 
earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from 
> heaven.> > Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not 
Jesus who takes on our likeness > although he> passed in all the 
areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin > where we> 
are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  
Sounds to > me> like the second Adam is the Lord from 
heaven.  I don't see anything earthy > about> him.  
Temptation or no temptation.> > > > From: 
Taylor> > Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every 
way?  Why couldn't he have > been like the> first Adam before 
the fall, ...> > Because the first Adam before the fall did not 
need to be saved Judy. We do.> > Bill> - Original 
Message - > From: Judy Taylor> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, 
January 16, 2006 11:50 AM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity 
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT > DIVINE> > > > 
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> so there 
is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.> > Why is 
that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen > 
1.26).> > Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and 
character > spiritually - which "likeness"> Adam forfeited when he 
chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the > wrong 
fruit.> > Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this 
world by procreation in > the likeness of> the first Adam rather 
than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)> > The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is > to become> 
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His 
> coming> and His willingness to lay down His human life as a 
perfect sacrifice in our > place.> > Laying aside the fact 
that you are making much too much of Seth having been > born in the 
image> of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, 
with > killing someone who> was no longer created in God's image, 
but in Adam's),> > At the beginnign they were created in God's 
image and now Noah who found > grace is starting> over even though 
it didn't take too many generations for the whole of > humanity (all but 
8 ppl)> to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in 
fellowshipping with a > bunch of devils.> > Judy, I fail to 
understand why that should even prevent Christ from being > united in his 
person,> his humanness with his divinity.> > I 
understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is 
> something God hates.> > The only thing which could have 
severed that union was the one thing which > he did not do:> sin. 
Hence in his pe

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

[Judy Taylor]

 
All of the scriptures below say "LIKENESS" David.  
I don't have any problem with that.
What I have a problem with is going on to make 
"likeness equal to same as"  Jesus
could not have been exactly the same as us because we 
are all born into an Eph 2
reality and He was not.  John the Baptist, 
the greatest of the OT prophets didn't
think he was just like him at all, in fact John didn't 
think himself worthy to fasten the
latchet on his sandal and said:
 
 "He that cometh from above is above all; he that 
is of the earth is earthy and speaketh 
of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all. 
V.34 For he whom God hath sent 
speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the 
spirit to Him by measure unto Him. 
The Father loves the Son and hath given all things into 
his hand." (John 3:31,34)
 
We are to take on (be conformed to) His likeness and 
one must be born again to
even be able to see or comprehend the Kingdom of Heaven 
which he came to
introduce to mankind.
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nobody is denying tht Jesus is the second Adam from heaven.  Saying 
that he became flesh and was made in the likeness of men does not deny his 
divine origin.
 
Judy wrote:>  Your gospel is inverted ...> It is not 
Jesus who takes on> our likeness
 
Your statement here contradicts Scripture.
 
Hebrews 2:17(17) Wherefore in ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like 
unto his brethren ...
 
Romans 8:3(3) ... God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
 
Philippians 2:7-8(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
him the form of a servant, and was MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN:(8) And 
being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross.
 
David Miller
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 4:22 PMSubject: 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 
Billand so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the 
rest of creation BillWhich 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 Adamis 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 hepassed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; 
and was without sin where weare for the most part loaded down with 
it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to melike the second Adam is 
the Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy abouthim.  
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 thefirst 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 TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:so 
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 
1.26).
 
Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character 
spiritually - which "likeness"Adam forfeited when he chose to go with 
Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation 
in the likeness ofthe first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 
5:3)
 
The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is 
to becomeconformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole 
purpose for His comingand His willingness to lay down His human life as 
a perfect sacrifice in our place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been 
born in the imageof Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be 
wrong, then, with killing someone whowas no longer created in God's 
image, but in Adam's),
 
At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found 
grace is startingover even though it didn't take too many generations 
for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)to be destroyed.  I don't 
believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being 
united in his person,his humanness with his divinity.
 
I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which 
is something God hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which 
he did not do:sin. Hence in his person, he was able

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

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

[David Miller]

Judy wrote:
>> I don't see anything earthy about him.
>> Temptation or no temptation.

Bill wrote:
> ... then you are still in your sins and you
> do not have a Savior.

I would have to disagree with you here, Bill.  Such would make salvation 
dependent upon her intellectual understanding.

It seems to me that Judy knows her Savior.  She just does not understand the 
aspects of humanity about him that we are now discussing.  Nevertheless, she 
has placed faith in him, despite this, and she knows him well enough through 
the Spirit to have experienced the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE


I don't see anything earthy about him.  Temptation or no temptation.

Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and you do not have a Savior.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE


The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of 
creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to 
institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from 
heaven.

Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness 
although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin 
where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to 
me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy 
about
him.  Temptation or no temptation.



From: Taylor

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have 
been like the
first Adam before the fall, ...

Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE




On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.

Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 
1.26).

Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character 
spiritually - which "likeness"
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the 
wrong fruit.

Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in 
the likeness of
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)

The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is 
to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His 
coming
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.

Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been 
born in the image
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with 
killing someone who
was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's),

At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found 
grace is starting
over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of 
humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a 
bunch of devils.

Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being 
united in his person,
his humanness with his divinity.

I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is 
something God hates.

The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which 
he did not do:
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced 
schizophrenia
in the relationship between humanity and God.

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have 
been like the
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly 
procreated like
us since he had no human father so that must mess up your thesis at least a 
little.

And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced this 
reconciliation; for what
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own would have had no bearing upon 
human flesh,
and we would therefore still be in sin.  Bill

Not so; all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved 
passing the
test that A&E failed and he did that in the wilderness... right after his 
baptism.
From: Judy Taylor

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROT

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

[David Miller]

Nobody is denying tht Jesus is the second Adam from heaven.  Saying that he 
became flesh and was made in the likeness of men does not deny his divine 
origin.

Judy wrote:
>  Your gospel is inverted ...
> It is not Jesus who takes on
> our likeness

Your statement here contradicts Scripture.

Hebrews 2:17
(17) Wherefore in ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like unto his 
brethren ...

Romans 8:3
(3) ... God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for 
sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Philippians 2:7-8
(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a 
servant, and was MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN:
(8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE


The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God 
Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of 
creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went to the cross in order to 
institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The Second Adam is the Lord from 
heaven.

Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness 
although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin 
where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to 
me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I don't see anything earthy 
about
him.  Temptation or no temptation.



From: Taylor

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have 
been like the
first Adam before the fall, ...

Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE




On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.

Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 
1.26).

Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character 
spiritually - which "likeness"
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the 
wrong fruit.

Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in 
the likeness of
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)

The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is 
to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His 
coming
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.

Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been 
born in the image
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with 
killing someone who
was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's),

At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found 
grace is starting
over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of 
humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a 
bunch of devils.

Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being 
united in his person,
his humanness with his divinity.

I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is 
something God hates.

The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which 
he did not do:
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced 
schizophrenia
in the relationship between humanity and God.

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have 
been like the
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly 
procreated like
us since he had no human father so that must mess up your thesis at least a 
little.

And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced this 
reconciliation; for what
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own would have had no bearing upon 
human flesh,
and we would therefore still be in sin.  Bill

Not so; all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved 
passing the
test that A&E failed and he did that in the wilderness... right after his 
baptism.
From: Judy Taylor

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.

Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 
1.26).

Yes they did created t

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  I don't see anything 
  earthy about him.  Temptation or no 
  temptation.
   
  Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and 
  you do not have a Savior. Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
The first Adam after the fall did 
indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse 
along with the rest of creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went 
to the cross in order to institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the 
Second Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The 
Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
 
Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus 
who takes on our likeness although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam 
failed; and was without sin where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  
Read 1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  
I don't see anything earthy about
him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.
 

 
 
From: Taylor 

  
 

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
the
first Adam before the fall, 
...
 
Because the first Adam 
before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We 
do.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  11:50 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

so there is no way that 
this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not 
create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the 
first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which 
"likeness" 
Adam forfeited when 
he chose to go with Eve 
into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men 
(including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 

the first Adam rather 
than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of 
the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 

and His willingness to 
lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are 
making much too much of Seth having been born in the image 

of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me 
what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's 
image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they 
were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is 
starting
over even though it 
didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 
8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I 
don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that 
should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 

his humanness with his divinity. 

 
I understand.  It is 
mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed 
that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able 
to undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 

in the relationship between humanity 
and God. 
 
Tell me why he (Jesus) 
HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
the
first Adam before the 
fall, the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly 
procreated like

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

[Taylor]

I don't see anything 
earthy about him.  Temptation or no 
temptation.
 
Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and you 
do not have a Savior.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:22 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  The first Adam after the fall did 
  indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
  and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse 
  along with the rest of creation Bill
  Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went 
  to the cross in order to institute a
  "New Creation" and this is why he is called the 
  Second Adam.  The first Adam
  is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The 
  Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
   
  Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus 
  who takes on our likeness although he
  passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; 
  and was without sin where we
  are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 
  1 Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
  like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I 
  don't see anything earthy about
  him.  Temptation or no temptation.
   
  
   
   
  From: Taylor 
  

   
  
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
  be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
  the
  first Adam before the fall, 
  ...
   
  Because the first Adam 
  before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  so there is no way that 
  this would be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create 
  us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
  Yes they did created the 
  first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which 
  "likeness" 
  Adam forfeited when 
  he chose to go with Eve 
  into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
   
  Thereafter all men 
  (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
  
  the first Adam rather than 
  the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
   
  The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
  become
  conformed to the image of 
  the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
  and His willingness to lay 
  down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
  place.
   
  Laying aside the fact that you are making 
  much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
  of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me 
  what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
  was no longer created in God's 
  image, but in Adam's), 
   
  At the beginnign they were 
  created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is 
  starting
  over even though it didn't 
  take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 
  ppl)
  to be destroyed.  I 
  don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
  devils.
   
  Judy, I fail to understand why that 
  should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
  
  his humanness with his divinity. 
  
   
  I understand.  It is 
  mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
  hates.
   
  The only thing which could have severed 
  that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
  sin. Hence in his person, he was able to 
  undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
  in the relationship between humanity and 
  God. 
   
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD 
  to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
  the
  first Adam before the fall, 
  the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated 
  like
  us since he had no human 
  father so that must mess up your thesis at least a 
little.
   
  And were he not like us in every way, he 
  could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
  
  he would have done in a flesh unlike our 
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

The first Adam after the fall did 
indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill
and so do we.  Our "humanity" is under a curse 
along with the rest of creation Bill
Which is spelled out in scripture.  Jesus went to 
the cross in order to institute a
"New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second 
Adam.  The first Adam
is earthy or of the earthy (as we are).  The 
Second Adam is the Lord from heaven.
 
Your gospel is inverted Bill.  It is not Jesus who 
takes on our likeness although he
passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; 
and was without sin where we
are for the most part loaded down with it.  Read 1 
Cor 15:42-52.  Sounds to me
like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.  I 
don't see anything earthy about
him.  Temptation or no temptation.
 

 
 
From: Taylor 

  
 

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be 
like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, 
...
 
Because the first Adam 
before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the 
first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when 
he chose to go with Eve 
into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including 
us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than 
the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay 
down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making 
much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what 
would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's 
image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were 
created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is 
starting
over even though it didn't 
take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 
ppl)
to be destroyed.  I 
don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should 
even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 

 
I understand.  It is 
mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed 
that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to 
undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and 
God. 
 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
the
first Adam before the fall, 
the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated 
like
us since he had no human 
father so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
 
And were he not like us in every way, he 
could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 

he would have done in a flesh unlike our 
own would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
and we would therefore still be in 
sin.  Bill
 
Not so; all he had to do was 
meet God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
test that A&E failed and 
he did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
so there is no way that 
this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not 
create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
   

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

[David Miller]

Judy, Jesus did not come ONLY to redeem us spiritually, but physically as 
well.  Jesus redeemed the whole man, spirit, soul, and body.  The body is 
the last thing to experience that redemption, which will be realized in the 
resurrection.

The idea that what happened to Christ will happen to us is realized 
forcefully by acknowledging that he is indeed one of us.  He is not just our 
God.  He is our brother, born of the same flesh.

Consider Romans 6:5
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall 
be also in the likeness of his resurrection."

The same analogy can be made of many things concerning Christ when we 
realize that he was a man just like us.

Consider the following passage:

Hebrews 12:3-4
(3) For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against 
himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
(4) Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

The idea that gives an instruction like this power and force is the concept 
that he was just like us.  When he resisted sin, he did not have an edge 
over us that was any different than what we have.  Therefore, even as he 
resisted sin to the shedding of his own blood, so too we can find strength 
to do the same.  We know this when we realize that he was made in the 
likeness of the same sinful flesh as we have, yet he resisted the 
temptations of that flesh and did not succomb to it.

Hebrews 2:11
(11) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of 
one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Hebrews 2:14
(14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 
also himself likewise took part of the same

Hebrews 2:16-17
(16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him 
the seed of Abraham.
(17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his 
brethren

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE



From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy wrote:
> Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he 
> have been
> like the first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?

If Jesus were only like the first Adam and not like the rest of us, then he 
could only
redeem those born of his own loins.  In order to redeem mankind, including 
Adam and
Eve and all of their descendants, he would have to become one of us.

Why?  What do loins have to do with spsiritual redemption and what it takes 
to redeem
mankind?  His salvation unlike the covering of bulls and goats is eternal 
because his
blood is the blood of the eternal Spirit. (Hebrews 9:14)

Judy wrote:
> Jesus was not exactly procreated like us since he had no human father so 
> that must
mess up your thesis at least a little.

Such does not bother the thesis of the humanity of Jesus one bit.  Only if 
you argue
that Jesus did not inherit genetic material from Mary would it be a problem. 
The Bible
gives every indication that Jesus was related to Mary, related to David, 
related to
Abraham, and related to Adam.

Yes I understand the genealogies are important and relevant or they wouldn't 
be there...
but I see their value as more spiritual than biolgical ie: Ishmael was a 
biolgical son
but Isaac the child of Promise.  I understand blessings and curses to come 
down
through families generationally in the spiritual sense even though there is 
a
biolgical dimension also.

David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

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

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

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

[David Miller]

Dean, I have never been a supporter of Benny Hinn.  I have never been to any 
meeting of his or met him.  I did not even remember until you just now 
posted this, but my mother did once sing in his choir when he held a healing 
crusade near her town.  As far as I know, this was a one time thing.

In any case, my primary point is that Benny Hinn is not known among 
Pentecostal circles as an inspired teacher / evangelist.  He has a healing 
ministry.  Benny has the tendency to want to be a teacher, but it has gotten 
him into trouble time and time again because the truth is that his gift is 
not teacher.

You probably thought I was a supporter of him because I have objected to 
street preachers who go to his crusades to protest him.  These are 
non-Pentecostal street preachers who are filled with envy IMO.  Whether one 
agrees with him or not, the people who go to these meetings are usually 
those who need healing desperately.  The street preachers should not be 
saying anything that is contrary to faith such that it would hinder them 
receiving what they need from Jesus Christ.  If they want to go and lay 
hands on the sick there and heal them, fine, but to go and protest is wrong. 
Even Jesus could not heal many because of the unbelief of the people. 
Street preachers should not be contributing to unbelief.  If their theology 
about healing is all messed up, they need to fix it, but in the mean time, 
they should not go out to subvert the way of a minister they don't 
understand.  See Lam. 3:36.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"


cd: David I understood you to support B.Hinn-Is your Mother still part of
His choir?


> [Original Message]
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/16/2006 2:28:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
>
> Dean wrote:
> > Should have left B. Hinn out of It.
>
> Did you notice how he called him another inspired teacher/evangelist?  I
> would never describe him that way, and I don't personally know anyone who
> would.
>
> David Miller.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 1/16/2006 5:36:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
> >
> > 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.
>
> cd: Now you have gone and done it Lance :-) Should have left B. Hinn out
of
> It.
> >
> > - 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
> > >

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

[Taylor]

What is a good point, Dean? She made several 
points, none of which were representative of my beliefs, either that or were not 
antithetical to my beliefs and as such were not adequate rebuttals. Please be 
more specific.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:38 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  
  cd: Good point Judy.
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 2:54:20 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

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

  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT 
  inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the 
purpose??
   
  "What would be the purpose" of what, 
  Judy; I don't understand the question. 
   
  Oh, 
  weren't we discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the 
  unity of the Godhead? 
  The same is true with God. The 
  bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when 
  saying this; 
  hence there is a oneness or unity 
  within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union
   
  I am responding that God is a 
  Spirit and so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls 
  flat.
  So what would be the purpose of 
  illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
  it?
   
  My hunch however is that it will be 
  because God so loved the world ...  
   
  Now where does the above fit into 
   this picture - says Judy scratching her head
   
  From: Taylor 
  
so there is no way that this would be the same concept 
Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not 
create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

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

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
what schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The 
bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to 
become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming 
together would be united -- and not just physically, I might 
add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with 
God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the 
same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity 
within the nature of God, a coming together of a 
plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 
4:24) so there is no way that this would be the same concept 
Bill.  
Sure the Godhead are 
  

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

[David Miller]

There is only one person who is the Father.  Clearly, Jesus is 
describing likeness.  Whether you are Trinitarian or Oneness in doctrine 
concerning the Godhead, the view is that Jesus and the Father are of the same 
substance.  If memory serves me correctly, the Greek word is actually the 
same as that translated likeness. 
 
In other words, in the same way that we speak of the likeness of Christ to 
Father God, so also we should speak of his likeness to humanity and human 
flesh.
 
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:25 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE 
  HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean so 
  much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that Jesus is 
  the image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much so that when 
  you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be inappropriate to 
  say that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly like him.  Do you 
  see it differently, Judy?  David Miller.
   
  I don't know   When He walked the earth as a 
  man He was not the Father 
  because He prayed to the 
  Father and when He said these words to Philip ie: 
  "If you have seen me you 
  have seen the Father" (John 14:9) I believe He is 
  referring to the ministry 
  rather than to Himself personally because 
  everything 
  He said and did (both 
  works and words) he had first seen the Father 
  saying 
  and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
   
   
  - Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
   
   
  Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same 
  thing JD.
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you 
  had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a 
  human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then 
  he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same 
  as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen 
  worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good 
   EXCEPT ONE.
   
   
  Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  
  "IN EVERY WAY"
   
   
  -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I was 
  just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree with 
  in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
  thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we can agree. 
  The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not completely 
  satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing the will 
  of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to the 
  divine.
   
  If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human 
  mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to 
  disagree; for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 
  2.17).
   
  Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same 
  as"  Every human being born by procreation into this fallen 
  worldis also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good 
   EXCEPT ONE.
   
  And, while I understood what you were saying, I also hesitate to speak of 
  the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully human and fully 
  divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. Anyway, I knew 
  what you meant and could thus look through it.
   
  Thanks,
   
  Bill
   
   
  - Original Message - From: Dean Moore- Original 
  Message - From: Taylor
   
  So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, let me ask you: do you 
  as a human have "divine thoughts"?
   
  Billcd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold the perspective 
  that Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I realize that the flesh 
  would influence one thinking to my limited 'divine 'thoughts but with 
  Christ who walked according to the Spirit I see no limitations. Nor do I 
  admit there has to be such weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We 
  simply are not willing to pray and fast and abstain from things as one 
  should to weaken this flesh and hence allow more diviness to control 
  us.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore
   
  cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
  thoughts.- Original Message - From: Taylor
   
  If I understand you correctly, Dean, you believe that Christ wh

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

[David Miller]

Judy, you are completely misunderstanding 
Bill.  When he speaks of the resurrection, he means bodies which are 
transformed.  You are reading right past him and seeing something that is 
not there, much like John does to nearly all my posts.  
 
The mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the 
flesh, is something taught in Scripture.  When you claim that the flesh of 
Jesus only looked like our flesh but really was something very different, you 
are deviating from the concept of "Christ was manifest in the flesh."  You 
think you are not because you still think he was flesh, but your flesh is an 
alien flesh that you constantly say was UNLIKE our flesh when the Scriptures say 
he was LIKE us.  You seem to think that Bill makes Jesus too much like us, 
but the Bible does not prohibit this viewpoint anywhere.  In fact, it 
argues strongly that he was like us in every way.  
 
You have a problem understanding how there can 
be unity between a God living in a defective body.  I don't blame you, but 
my experience of the living Christ in me helps me understand how it works.  
It is simply the Spirit filled life.  When the spirit reigns and the flesh 
is kept dead, this is how Jesus lived.  This is how we should live.  

 
I've already shared the relevant passages from 
Hebrews that helps us with those.  I hope you have not forgotten 
them.  I still think you ignore them and do not adequately address 
them.  If you would like me to post them again, just ask.
 
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:52 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
It is humanity which Christ came to save, Judy. 
He did that by assuming human likeness.
 
What scripture do you base the above on 
Bill? The same one from 
Hebrews?
 
He was raised as well a human, Judy, and sits 
at his Father's side: a human being. 
 
So now you claim that a transformed body 
without blood that is able to walk through 
walls is in the likeness of our human 
bodies Bill?
 
We will be resurrected human, as well 
-- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
but with resurrected bodies; bodies 
all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
 
Really?  This is "another gospel" 
entirely - to claim that God just loves old nasty fallen
and mean humanity so much that He can't 
do without each and every one in the same 
heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out of?
 
Do you cut out all the scriptures 
that teach us the earthy is earthy so we must be 
born into a New Creation and have a 
complete overhaul to be fit for 
heaven:
 
Our minds must be renewed  (Rom 
12:2)
Our souls need to be saved by the 
engrafted word (James 1:21)
Our bodies must be transformed at the 
last trump (1 Cor 15:52)
 
Chsh,
 
That's what I say ... Judyt
 
Bill

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

  so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create 
  us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
  what schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married

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

[Dean Moore]

cd: Good point Judy.
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 2:54:20 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

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

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

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

so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

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


OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
Sure the Godhead are One and united - in Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you united? 
 
In marriage between humans it is "one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between the two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no schism.  Bill
 
There would have been disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic would be the right term.  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would 
be the purpose??
 
 

From: Judy Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

And while you're at it, will you explain your schism with your husband, too? 
 
(If this needs clarification, just ask)
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE


 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

Dean,
I think this is where "theology" gets itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so long.
How ironic that his mentor Bill would write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated it to qualify something.  
So 

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

[Dean Moore]

cd: Good point Bill.
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 2:15:05 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE


Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, ...
 
Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do.
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 
 
I understand.  It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and God. 
 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated like
us since he had no human father so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
 
And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
and we would therefore still be in sin.  Bill
 
Not so; all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
test that A&E failed and he did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.

From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
.

 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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


OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the Godhead are One and united
in Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ b

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

[Dean Moore]

cd: David I understood you to support B.Hinn-Is your Mother still part of
His choir?


> [Original Message]
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/16/2006 2:28:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
>
> Dean wrote:
> > Should have left B. Hinn out of It.
>
> Did you notice how he called him another inspired teacher/evangelist?  I 
> would never describe him that way, and I don't personally know anyone who 
> would.
>
> David Miller.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 1/16/2006 5:36:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
> >
> > 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.
>
> cd: Now you have gone and done it Lance :-) Should have left B. Hinn out
of
> It.
> >
> > - 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 abov

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

and doing which he explains further in John 14:10 and John 5:19.
 
 
- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
 
 
Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same 
thing JD.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you 
had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, or a 
human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for then 
he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  
Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also 
fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.
 
 
Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  "IN 
EVERY WAY"
 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I was 
just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree with in 
your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we can agree. The 
word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not completely 
satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing the will 
of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to the 
divine.
 
If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human 
mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; 
for then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  
Every human being born by procreation into this fallen worldis also 
fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.
 
And, while I understood what you were saying, I also hesitate to speak of 
the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully human and fully 
divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. Anyway, I knew what 
you meant and could thus look through it.
 
Thanks,
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - From: Dean Moore- Original Message 
- From: Taylor
 
So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, let me ask you: do you as 
a human have "divine thoughts"?
 
Billcd: Yes to a limited degree-but I cannot hold the perspective that 
Christ is limited in His divine thinking.I realize that the flesh would 
influence one thinking to my limited 'divine 'thoughts but with Christ who 
walked according to the Spirit I see no limitations. Nor do I admit there 
has to be such weakness in us as we also have the Spirit-We simply are not 
willing to pray and fast and abstain from things as one should to weaken 
this flesh and hence allow more diviness to control us.- Original 
Message - From: Dean Moore
 
cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine 
thoughts.- Original Message - From: Taylor
 
If I understand you correctly, Dean, you believe that Christ while walking 
this earth was fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you 
also believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO 
TOO.
 
Bill 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.
 

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

[David Miller]

Judy wrote:
> Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US
> in every way?  Why couldn't he have been
> like the first Adam before the fall, the one
> who was created?

If Jesus were only like the first Adam and not like the rest of us, then he 
could only redeem those born of his own loins.  In order to redeem mankind, 
including Adam and Even and all of their descendants, he would have to 
become one of us.

Judy wrote:
> Jesus was not exactly procreated like us since
> he had no human father so that must mess up
> your thesis at least a little.

Such does not bother the thesis of the humanity of Jesus one bit.  Only if 
you argue that Jesus did not inherit genetic material from Mary would it be 
a problem.  The Bible gives every indication that Jesus was related to Mary, 
related to David, related to Abraham, and related to Adam.

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.

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

[Dean Moore]

 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 10:40:20 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now

CD wrote  > I hold that the law is our school master to bring us to Christ. It teaches us we have done wrong but also defines what is right ...
 
 
 
"School master" is a very poor translation of the Greek word paidagogos (pedagogue). In the Greek world a pedagogue was a slave that protected children while taking them to their teacher/master. Hence he was not considered a teacher at all, nor a tutor, nor a master; he was but a slave protector of children.
 
Now go back to Galatians and see what you think the Jewish recipients of Paul's address were thinking when Paul told them that they were no longer under a "slave" and that their master/teacher was not the Law but Christ. 
 
Bill
Cd; I can agree with you to this extent-We are no longer under the law because the law is meant to be binding to those that break that law. If I go to my local town and cause no harm then the law has no hold upon me-but if I break a window while in town then the law has a claim on me. Christ frees us from the punishment of the law so we are in effect above the law but Paul also said that if we fall back under the law then full weight of that law will fall upon us.Much of the below agrees with you and some supports me.
 
 
Jamison,Fausset and Brown wrote:

Gal 3:25 - "But now that faith is come," &c. Moses the lawgiver cannot bring us into the heavenly Canaan though he can bring us to the border of it. At that point he is superseded by Joshua, the type of Jesus, who leads the true Israel into their inheritance. The law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases.
Adam Clark wrote:
Gal 3:25 - 
But, after that faith is come - When Christ was manifested in the flesh, and the Gospel was preached, we were no longer under the pedagogue; we came to Christ, learned of him, became wise unto salvation, had our fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life.
It is worthy of remark that, as ?? ??µ??, the Law, is used by St. Paul to signify, not only the law, properly so called, but the whole of the Mosaic economy, so ?? p?st??, the Faith, is used by him to express, not merely the act of believing in Christ, but the whole of the Gospel.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now


 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 8:00:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now

Dean, are you saying that Christ means to include "law" in that which is "believed?"
cd: Yes. As the I hold that the law is our school master to bring us to Christ. It teaches us we have done wrong but also defines what is right to which Christ even gave a deeper understanding of that gift. So I maintain that the gift was not only not removed by Christ but added too as to make the gift more desirable. So I hold the prospective that the Law is 'Good and Holy' and one of God gifts which -in his love-He will never take from us.
 
If so,  what is the practical advantage to 'unmerited grace" and the continuing fact of forgiveness in the sacrificial death of Christ? 
 
cd: The Law allowed for the 'unmerited grace'-without the law there is no need for grace. John please define what you mean by "continuing fact of forgiveness"?Thanks bro.  
 
jd
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




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, d

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[Dean Moore]

 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/16/2006 11:02:21 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

Hi Dean. 
 
Where DM believes this makes him an administrator of the will of God in the lives of others,  I see no such thing.   The removal of this brother was for a season.  Paul advises his return to the Church in the second letter.   And the action is not the function of an indivual (i.e. a SP or even a single bishop).  Rather , the body of Christ in Corinth makes this decision.  If one sees finality in the words " ..  deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,"  one is perverting the message of good news and the concerns of a God of love -  one who is our Father.   Do you think for a moment, that the only sin existing in this early church is the sin of fornication!   What of all the others , who function as carnal and babes in Christ -- still bound to the flesh?   What of these members of the Corinthian Church?  
cd: John I regard the sin of fornication/adultery as a sin of not only towards God's commandments but also against ones own body-and in marriage an offence is also giving to the spouse of the other offender. This and Sodomy is the only abominations that I am aware of at this moment as both fit under adultery-correct me if I am wrong.Yes there were other sins in the early Cor.Church and God used Paul to deal with these sins also(such as using the Lord's supper to over indulge-some of those died and others were sick). But there were also wrongs that were not of sin nature which merely needing correcting.
 
One of my biggest regrets, in my first year of ministry, was the exclusion of a brother who had a serious drinking problem.  It is truly heart breaking, even as I write at this moment, to think that I was ever stupid enough to think that such a cutting off might save that brother. And it didn't, of course.  The church is a part of life [in Christ] itself !!  To remove one from this body in a final sense is to cut him off from even the opportunity of change.   I am ashamed of myself for this past actionand, oh, by the way, such a thought is most definitely a revelation from the living God.  
 
jd 
cd: I can agree that one should be patient with those that are trying but be aware a little leaven leavens the whole lump.Did you know that the early church partook of the Lords supper daily and if one refused then that person was excommunicated because it was believed that Satan would use that person to cause harm to the church. In my first year of Christianity-in my weakness I Drank two or three beers and felt guilty about it and took it to my pastor and was asked to leave the church-this shocked me into abstaining from alcohol for over 10 years. I now drink wine mostly while taking the Lords supper-I say mostly because 4 oz daily is good for the body-Two birds with one stone:-)
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Date: 1/15/2006 10:54:10 PM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now > > > > JD wrote: > > > When we insist on such an evidence for the Indwelling, > > > artificial time limits are put into effect and we become > > > the administrator of continuing fellowship. . > > > > So, is there something wrong with that? Paul wrote: > > > > 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 > > (1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such > > fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one > should > > ha
 ve his father's wife. > > (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath > > done this deed might be taken away from among you. > > (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged > > already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this > > deed, > > (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, > and > > my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, > > (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, > that > > the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. > > (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth > > the whole lump? > > (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye > are > > unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: > > (8) Therefore let us keep the feast,
 not with old leaven, neither with > the > > leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of > sincerity > > and truth. > > (9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: > > (10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the > > covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go > out > > of the world. > > (11) But now I have written unto

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

[Taylor]

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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:52 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:35:51 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
It is humanity which Christ came to save, Judy. 
He did that by assuming human likeness.
 
What scripture do you base the above on 
Bill? The same one from 
Hebrews?
 
He was raised as well a human, Judy, and sits 
at his Father's side: a human being. 
 
So now you claim that a transformed body 
without blood that is able to walk through 
walls is in the likeness of our human 
bodies Bill?
 
We will be resurrected human, as well 
-- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's 
but with resurrected bodies; bodies 
all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
 
Really?  This is "another gospel" 
entirely - to claim that God just loves old nasty fallen
and mean humanity so much that He can't 
do without each and every one in the same 
heaven he cast the devil they are in cahoots with out of?
 
Do you cut out all the scriptures 
that teach us the earthy is earthy so we must be 
born into a New Creation and have a 
complete overhaul to be fit for 
heaven:
 
Our minds must be renewed  (Rom 
12:2)
Our souls need to be saved by the 
engrafted word (James 1:21)
Our bodies must be transformed at the 
last trump (1 Cor 15:52)
 
Chsh,
 
That's what I say ... Judyt
 
Bill

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

  so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create 
  us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
  what schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The 
  bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to 
  become "one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming 
  together would be united -- and not just physically, I might add; 
  it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. 
  The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word 
  when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the 
  nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 
  4:24) so there is no way that this would be the same concept 
  Bill.  
  Sure the Godhead are 
  One and united - in 
  Spirit.
   
  And so, since you suggested that if 
  Christ be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was 
  just wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why 
  instead of schism aren't you united? 
   
  In marriage between 
  humans it is "one flesh" Bill
   
  There would only be a schism between 
  the two natures of Christ if there wer

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  I understand.  It is mixture; joining 
  the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
   
  No, it is not a mixture, Judy; it is a union. 
  
   
  Hate to have to break it to you like this 
  Bill but there are some things Jesus will not be unified with
  because the Father is holy and so is He; 
  so someone is going to have to do some adjusting here.
   
  There is no confusion.
   
  I am not confused ... No.
   
   And that is your problem: you have a Jesus 
  that is partly this and partly that, but can't be what he came to save. 
  
   
  The only difference between my Jesus and 
  yours Bill is that mine is pure and holy and yours is not 
  because you are determined to 
  make Him conform 
  to our (fallen human) 
  image. 
   
  Yours is a mixture, Judy, 
   
  No Bill; mine is pure and holy - the exact 
  imagine of God the Father.  My Jesus, unlike yours, could 
  say in truth "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" - So let God be true and every man a 
  liar.
   
  a demigod, a hybrid, an alloy, Hermes morphing 
  into Aphrodite -- I don't know. 
   
  Neither do I Bill.  When you have 
  mixture you don't know what you've got do you??
   
  But it is not 
  Jesus Christ the Son of God, son of Mary.  Bill
   
  I know because Jesus Christ, Son of God, 
  son of Mary was the pure and holy Son of God who took 
  upon Himself the FORM of man so that He could bring to us salvation's plan 
  which sadly many wrest 
  to their own destruction..
  
 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  so there is no way that this 
  would be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
  in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
  Yes they did created the first 
  Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
  
  Adam forfeited when 
  he chose to go with Eve into 
  disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
   
  Thereafter all men (including 
  us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
  the first Adam rather than the 
  likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
   
  The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
  become
  conformed to the image of the 
  second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
  and His willingness to lay down 
  His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
  place.
   
  Laying aside the fact that you are making 
  much too much of Seth having been born in the image 
  of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what 
  would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
  was no longer created in God's image, 
  but in Adam's), 
   
  At the beginnign they were 
  created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is 
  starting
  over even though it didn't take 
  too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 
ppl)
  to be destroyed.  I don't 
  believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
  devils.
   
  Judy, I fail to understand why that should 
  even prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
  his humanness with his divinity. 

   
  I understand.  It is 
  mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
  hates.
   
  The only thing which could have severed that 
  union was the one thing which he did not do: 
  sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo 
  that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
  in the relationship between humanity and God. 
  
   
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to 
  be like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like 
  the
  first Adam before the fall, the 
  one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated 
  like
  us since he had no human father 
  so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
   
  And were he not like us in every way, he 
  could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
  he would have done in a flesh unlike our own 
  would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
  and we would therefore still be in sin.  
  Bill
   
  Not so; all he had to do was 
  meet God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
  test that A&E failed and he 
  did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  so there is no way that 
  this would be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create 
  us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
   

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

[David Miller]

Likeness might mean like but not exactly like, but it also might mean so 
much like it as to be indistinguishable.  When we say that Jesus is the 
image of Father, or that he is like the Father, so much so that when you 
have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, it might be inappropriate to say 
that Jesus is like the Father, but not exactly like him.  Do you see it 
differently, Judy?

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT 
DIVINE


Only a similitude or likeness even "in every way" is not the exact same 
thing JD.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:12:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, 
or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for 
then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).

Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  Every 
human being born by procreation into this fallen world
is also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.


Judy argues "like us" in total disregard of the additional phrase  "IN EVERY 
WAY"


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



On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I was just wanting to better understand what you were wanting me to agree 
with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also have 
divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable that we can 
agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am not 
completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with doing 
the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully intuned to 
the divine.

If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not have a human mind, 
or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had to disagree; for 
then he would not have been like us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).

Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not mean exactly the "same as"  Every 
human being born by procreation into this fallen world
is also fallen.  There is none righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.

And, while I understood what you were saying, I also hesitate to speak of 
the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is fully human and fully 
divine, then he is not partly one and partly the other. Anyway, I knew what 
you meant and could thus look through it.

Thanks,

Bill


- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore
- Original Message - 
From: Taylor

So that I know for sure what you mean to convey, let me ask you: do you as a 
human have "divine thoughts"?

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

cd: Yes we agree if you view the Human part to also have divine thoughts.
- Original Message - 
From: Taylor

If I understand you correctly, Dean, you believe that Christ while walking 
this earth was fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you 
also believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO TOO.

Bill 

--
"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] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit 
  God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
   
  "What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I 
  don't understand the question. 
   
  Oh, weren't 
  we discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the unity of the 
  Godhead? 
  The same is true with God. The bible 
  teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; 
  
  hence there is a oneness or unity 
  within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union
   
  I am responding that God is a Spirit 
  and so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls 
  flat.
  So what would be the purpose of 
  illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
  it?
   
  My hunch however is that it will be because 
  God so loved the world ...  
   
  Now where does the above fit into 
   this picture - says Judy scratching her head
   
  From: Taylor 
  
so 
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  

 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

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

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
what schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The 
bible says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become 
"one" flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would 
be united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the 
marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible 
teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying 
this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a 
coming together of a plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) 
so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  

Sure the Godhead are One 
and united - in 
Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if 
Christ be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was 
just wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead 
of schism aren't you united? 
 
In marriage between 
humans it is "one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between 
the two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the 
two. 
The person of Christ had no disunity; 
hence no schism.  Bill
 
There would have been 
disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was 
in fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic would be the right term.  Also "Flesh and 
blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would 
be the 
purpose??
 
 

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
  what schism?
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[David Miller]

John, my question to you was:
"Was Paul wrong to instruct the Corinthian church to become the 
administrator of a loss of fellowship for someone in their midst who 
continued in fornication?"

Notice that I pointed to the CHURCH as being the administrator of the loss 
of fellowship.  Now you have turned the issue into me believing that I am 
the administrator of God in the lives of others.  I believe no such thing.

I have no doubt that you cut off a drunkard and you probably did in the 
flesh, with the wrong spirit and wrong attitude.  You should not take your 
experience and project it upon me as if I walk the same way.  I simply walk 
in what Paul taught in 1 Cor. 5.  It seems to me that you reject me because 
you reject 1 Cor. 5.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life


Hi Dean.

Where DM believes this makes him an administrator of the will of God in the 
lives of others,  I see no such thing.   The removal of this brother was for 
a season.  Paul advises his return to the Church in the second letter.   And 
the action is not the function of an indivual (i.e. a SP or even a single 
bishop).  Rather , the body of Christ in Corinth makes this decision.  If 
one sees finality in the words " ..  deliver such an one unto Satan for the 
destruction of the flesh,"  one is perverting the message of good news and 
the concerns of a God of love -  one who is our Father.   Do you think for a 
moment, that the only sin existing in this early church is the sin of 
fornication!   What of all the others , who function as carnal and babes in 
Christ -- still bound to the flesh?   What of these members of the 
Corinthian Church?

One of my biggest regrets, in my first year of ministry, was the exclusion 
of a brother who had a serious drinking problem.  It is truly heart 
breaking, even as I write at this moment, to think that I was ever stupid 
enough to think that such a cutting off might save that brother. And it 
didn't, of course.  The church is a part of life [in Christ] itself !!  To 
remove one from this body in a final sense is to cut him off from even the 
opportunity of change.   I am ashamed of myself for this past 
actionand, oh, by the way, such a thought is 
most definitely a revelation from the living God.

jd


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

>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: David Miller
> > To:
> > Date: 1/15/2006 10:54:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now
> >
> > JD wrote:
> > > When we insist on such an evidence for the Indwelling,
> > > artificial time limits are put into effect and we become
> > > the administrator of continuing fellowship. .
> >
> > So, is there something wrong with that? Paul wrote:
> >
> > 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
> > (1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and 
> > such
> > fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one
> should
> > ha ve his father's wife.
> > (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
> > done this deed might be taken away from among you.
> > (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
> > already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this
> > deed,
> > (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,
> and
> > my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> > (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
> that
> > the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
> > (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven 
> > leaveneth
> > the whole lump?
> > (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye
> are
> > unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
> > (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
> the
> > leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of
> sincerity
> > and truth.
> > (9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> > (10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
> > covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go
> out
> > of the world.
> > (11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man 
> > that
> is
> > called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
> railer,
> > or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> > (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not 
> > ye
> > judge them that are within?
> > (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from 
> > among
> > yourselves that wicked person.
> >
> > Was Paul wr ong to instruct the Corinthian church to become the
> administr

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

[David Miller]

Dean wrote:
> Should have left B. Hinn out of It.

Did you notice how he called him another inspired teacher/evangelist?  I 
would never describe him that way, and I don't personally know anyone who 
would.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"

> [Original Message]
> From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/16/2006 5:36:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and "biblical language"
>
> 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.

cd: Now you have gone and done it Lance :-) Should have left B. Hinn out of
It.
>
> - 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 nat

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

[Taylor]

Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like 
US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, 
...
 
Because the first Adam before the fall did not need 
to be saved Judy. We do.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first 
Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) 
are born into this world 
by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the 
likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down 
His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much 
too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what 
would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's image, 
but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were 
created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
over even though it didn't take 
too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't 
believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even 
prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 
 
I understand.  It is 
mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that 
union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo 
that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and God. 

 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be 
like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, the 
one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated 
like
us since he had no human father 
so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
 
And were he not like us in every way, he 
could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own 
would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
and we would therefore still be in sin.  
Bill
 
Not so; all he had to do was meet 
God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
test that A&E failed and he 
did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the 
first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when 
he chose to go with Eve 
into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including 
us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than 
the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay 
down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
.

   
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  9:31 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
what schism?
 
Oh, I thought y

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

[Taylor]

I understand.  It is mixture; 
joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
 
No, it is not a mixture, Judy; it is a union. There 
is no confusion. And that is your problem: you have a Jesus that is partly 
this and partly that, but can't be what he came to save. Yours is a mixture, 
Judy, a demigod, a hybrid, an alloy, Hermes morphing into Aphrodite -- I 
don't know. But it is not Jesus Christ the Son of God, son of Mary.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first 
Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) 
are born into this world 
by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the 
likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down 
His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much 
too much of Seth having been born in the image 
of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what 
would be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
was no longer created in God's image, 
but in Adam's), 
 
At the beginnign they were 
created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
over even though it didn't take 
too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
to be destroyed.  I don't 
believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
devils.
 
Judy, I fail to understand why that should even 
prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
his humanness with his divinity. 
 
I understand.  It is 
mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God 
hates.
 
The only thing which could have severed that 
union was the one thing which he did not do: 
sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo 
that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
in the relationship between humanity and God. 

 
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be 
like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
first Adam before the fall, the 
one who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated 
like
us since he had no human father 
so that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
 
And were he not like us in every way, he 
could not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
he would have done in a flesh unlike our own 
would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
and we would therefore still be in sin.  
Bill
 
Not so; all he had to do was meet 
God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
test that A&E failed and he 
did that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the 
first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when 
he chose to go with Eve 
into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including 
us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than 
the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay 
down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our 
place.
.

   
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  9:31 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  so there is no way that this would 
  be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
  "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
  Yes they did created the first Adam 
  in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
  Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
  eating the wrong fruit.  
   
  Thereafter all men (including us) 
  are born into this world by 
  procreation in the likeness of 
  the first Adam rather than the 
  likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
   
  The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
  conformed to the image of the 
  second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
  and His willingness to lay down His 
  human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
   
  Laying aside the fact that you are making much 
  too much of Seth having been born in the image 
  of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would 
  be wrong, then, with killing someone who 
  was no longer created in God's image, but 
  in Adam's), 
   
  At the beginnign they were created 
  in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting
  over even though it didn't take too 
  many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl)
  to be destroyed.  I don't 
  believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of 
  devils.
   
  Judy, I fail to understand why that should even 
  prevent Christ from being united in his person, 
  his humanness with his divinity. 
   
  I understand.  It is mixture; 
  joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates.
   
  The only thing which could have severed that 
  union was the one thing which he did not do: 
  sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo 
  that which had indeed produced schizophrenia 
  in the relationship between humanity and God. 
  
   
  Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be 
  like US in every way?  Why couldn't he have been like the
  first Adam before the fall, the one 
  who was created?  Jesus was not exactly procreated like
  us since he had no human father so 
  that must mess up your thesis at least a little.
   
  And were he not like us in every way, he could 
  not have produced this reconciliation; for what 
  he would have done in a flesh unlike our own 
  would have had no bearing upon human flesh, 
  and we would therefore still be in sin.  
  Bill
   
  Not so; all he had to do was meet 
  God's conditions which apparently involved passing the
  test that A&E failed and he did 
  that in the wilderness... right after his baptism.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  so there is no way that this 
  would be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
  in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
  Yes they did created the first 
  Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
  
  Adam forfeited when 
  he chose to go with Eve into 
  disobedience by eating the wrong fruit.  
   
  Thereafter all men (including 
  us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of 
  the first Adam rather than the 
  likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
   
  The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
  become
  conformed to the image of the 
  second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
  and His willingness to lay down 
  His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
  .
  
 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
  says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
  flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be 
  united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage 
  "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that 
  the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence 
  there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming 
  together of a plurality in union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) 
  so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
  Sure the Godhead are One and united
  in Spirit.
   
  And so, 

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

[Taylor]

It is humanity which Christ came to save, Judy. He 
did that by assuming human likeness. He was raised as well a human, Judy, and 
sits at his Father's side: a human being. We will be resurrected human, as well 
-- no longer with flesh and blood tainted body's but with resurrected 
bodies; bodies all-the-more human, Judy -- not un-human.
 
Chsh,
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:15 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:41 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit 
God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
 
"What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I 
don't understand the question. 
 
Oh, weren't we 
discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the unity of the 
Godhead? 
The same is true with God. The bible 
teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; 

hence there is a oneness or unity within 
the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
union
 
I am responding that God is a Spirit and 
so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls flat.
So what would be the purpose of 
illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
it?
 
My hunch however is that it will be because God 
so loved the world ...  
 
Now where does the above fit into 
 this picture - says Judy scratching her head
 
From: Taylor 

  so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us 
  in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
  says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
  flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be 
  united -- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage 
  "union" after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that 
  the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence 
  there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming 
  together of a plurality in union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) 
  so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
  
  Sure the Godhead are One 
  and united - in 
  Spirit.
   
  And so, since you suggested that if 
  Christ be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just 
  wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of 
  schism aren't you united? 
   
  In marriage between humans 
  it is "one flesh" Bill
   
  There would only be a schism between the 
  two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
  
  The person of Christ had no disunity; 
  hence no schism.  Bill
   
  There would have been 
  disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in 
  fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic would be the right term.  Also "Flesh and 
  blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would 
  be the 
  purpose??
   
   
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and 
what schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  And while you're at it, will you 
  explain your schism with your husband, too? 
   
  (If this needs clarification, just 
  ask)
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 

From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 
2006 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: 
[TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS 
NOTDIVINE


 
 

 

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@ma

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

[Taylor]

so there is no way that this would be 
the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first Adam 
in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) are 
born into this world by 
procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the 
likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
conformed to the image of the second 
Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down His 
human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
 
Laying aside the fact that you are making much too 
much of Seth having been born in the image of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for 
me what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who was no longer 
created in God's image, but in Adam's), Judy, I fail to understand why that 
should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, his humanness with 
his divinity. The only thing which could have severed that union was the one 
thing which he did not do: sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that 
which had indeed produced schizophrenia in the relationship between 
humanity and God. And were he not like us in every way, he could not have 
produced this reconciliation; for what he would have done in a flesh unlike our 
own would have had no bearing upon human flesh, and we would therefore still be 
in sin.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:59 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
so there is no way that this 
would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
 
Yes they did created the first 
Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 

Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
eating the wrong fruit.  
 
Thereafter all men (including us) 
are born into this world 
by procreation in the likeness of 
the first Adam rather than the 
likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
 
The only possible way to 
regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to 
become
conformed to the image of the 
second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
and His willingness to lay down 
His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
.

   
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united 
-- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" 
after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is 
"one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a 
oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a 
plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so 
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the 
Godhead are One and united
in Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ 
be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just 
wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism 
aren't you united? 
 
In marriage between humans it 
is "one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between the 
two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 

The person of Christ had no disunity; hence 
no schism.  Bill
 
There would have been 
disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in 
fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic
would be the right 
term.  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so 
what would be the purpose??
 
 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's 
  Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
   
  "What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I 
  don't understand the question. 
   
  Oh, weren't we 
  discussing your concept or marriage as a picture of the unity of the 
  Godhead? 
  The same is true with God. The bible 
  teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; 
  
  hence there is a oneness or unity within 
  the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union
   
  I am responding that God is a Spirit and 
  so the one flesh/marriage Godhead symbology kind of falls flat.
  So what would be the purpose of 
  illustrating God's Kingdom with something that can never inherit 
  it?
   
  My hunch however is that it will be because God 
  so loved the world ...  
   
  Now where does the above fit into 
   this picture - says Judy scratching her head
   
  From: Taylor 
  
so there 
is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

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

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united 
-- and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" 
after all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is 
"one" and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a 
oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a 
plurality in union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so 
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  

Sure the Godhead are One and 
united - in 
Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ 
be fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just 
wondering about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism 
aren't you united? 
 
In marriage between humans it 
is "one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between the 
two natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 

The person of Christ had no disunity; hence 
no schism.  Bill
 
There would have been 
disunity "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in 
fact wholly God ATST; schizophrenic would be the right term.  Also "Flesh and 
blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would 
be the purpose??
 
 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
And while you're at it, will you 
explain your schism with your husband, too? 
 
(If this needs clarification, just 
ask)
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 
  2006 5:24 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 

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

Dean,
I think this is where "theology" gets 
itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of 
for so long.
How ironic that his mentor Bill 
would write something like this.  I think Lance just 
repeated it to qualify something.  
So their Jesus must have a schism in his personality (or 
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 
T

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

[Judy Taylor]

Where was he when you wrote about my response that 
confused 
Dean with Lance:
 

Perhaps that is why it was so 
civil. 
 
and when I wrote that your comment was 
"nasty and uncalled for" you replied:
 
Yeah, but is it 
true?
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:52:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Where IS that interim moderator now?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 16, 2006 11:33
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance 
and "biblical language"

 
Possibly "your truth" Bill which is totally alien 
to what I would call it - makes me wonder
what kind of christianity you adhere 
to.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:30:38 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Yeah, but is it true?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
This is a nasty comment and totally uncalled 
for Bill
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:01:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

    
  No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes 
  Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members
  of the trinity all have a body a soul and a 
  spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his 
  books
  (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) 
  that there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian 
  
  at Regent University by the name of 
  Roger Williams confronted him about this 
  and he did repent 
  but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that 
  had been sold
  already.
   
  cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to 
  say "No Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not 
  mine.
   
  Perhaps that is why 
  it was so civil.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: 
[TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"


 
 

 

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 8:37:32 AM 
  
  Subject: Re: Re: Fw: 
  [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
  
  No Dean, Benny learned this from the 
  Dakes Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three 
  members
  of the trinity all have a body a soul and 
  a spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his 
  books
  (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) 
  that there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian 
  
  at Regent University by the name of 
  Roger Williams confronted him about 
  this and he did repent 
  but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that 
  had been sold
  already.
  cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to 
  say "No Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not 
  mine.
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Please check your sources on this, 
Judy. I believe he claimed to be speaking under 
'inspiration'. 

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Benny Hinn was quoting another source 
  and from what I understand he
  repented of this error. so you'll 
  need to find a more up to date one than this.
  A good illustration of the value of 
  repentance for both lost and for those being
  saved..
   
  Benny Hinn, another 'inspired' teacher/evangelist, once 
  said that each of the Father, Son and Spirit was a trinity 
  and thus, nine Gods. He also finds himself clever in the 
  questions he puts forward to his hearers.
   
  - Original Message - From: "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  Sent: 
  January 15, 2006 23:10Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance 
  and "biblical language"
   
   

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

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  so there is no way that this would 
  be the same concept Bill.  
   
  Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
  "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 
   
  Yes they did created the first Adam 
  in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" 
  Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by 
  eating the wrong fruit.  
   
  Thereafter all men (including us) 
  are born into this world by 
  procreation in the likeness of 
  the first Adam rather than the 
  likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
   
  The only possible way to 
  regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become
  conformed to the image of the 
  second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming 
  and His willingness to lay down His 
  human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place.
  .
  
 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
  says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
  flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- 
  and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after 
  all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" 
  and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or 
  unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the 
  Godhead are One and united
  in Spirit.
   
  And so, since you suggested that if Christ be 
  fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering 
  about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you 
  united? 
   
  In marriage between humans it 
  is "one flesh" Bill
   
  There would only be a schism between the two 
  natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
  
  The person of Christ had no disunity; hence 
  no schism.  Bill
   
  There would have been disunity 
  "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly 
  God ATST; schizophrenic
  would be the right term.  
  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be 
  the purpose??
   
   
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  And while you're at it, will you explain 
  your schism with your husband, too? 
   
  (If this needs clarification, just 
  ask)
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE


 
 

 

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 
  
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  Dean,
  I think this is where "theology" gets 
  itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for 
  so long.
  How ironic that his mentor Bill 
  would write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated 
  it to qualify something.  
  So their Jesus 
  must have a schism in his personality (or nature).  What 
  about his saying to Philip "If you have 
  seen me you have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't 
  speaking of his physical body here; so does God 
  The Father also have a schismatic 
  personality.
   
  cd: Judy can you define your usage of 
  'schismatic'.
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

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: 
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 trans

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

[Taylor]

Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit 
God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the purpose??
 
 
"What would be the purpose" of what, Judy; I don't 
understand the question. My hunch however is that it will be because God so 
loved the world ...
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:57 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  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). 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

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

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The bible 
  says that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" 
  flesh, in other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- 
  and not just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after 
  all. The same is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" 
  and it uses the same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or 
  unity within the nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
  union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so 
  there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the 
  Godhead are One and united
  in Spirit.
   
  And so, since you suggested that if Christ be 
  fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering 
  about the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you 
  united? 
   
  In marriage between humans it 
  is "one flesh" Bill
   
  There would only be a schism between the two 
  natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
  
  The person of Christ had no disunity; hence 
  no schism.  Bill
   
  There would have been disunity 
  "big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly 
  God ATST; schizophrenic
  would be the right term.  
  Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be 
  the purpose??
   
   
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  And while you're at it, will you explain 
  your schism with your husband, too? 
   
  (If this needs clarification, just 
  ask)
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE


 
 

 

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 
  
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  Dean,
  I think this is where "theology" gets 
  itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for 
  so long.
  How ironic that his mentor Bill 
  would write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated 
  it to qualify something.  
  So their Jesus 
  must have a schism in his personality (or nature).  What 
  about his saying to Philip "If you have 
  seen me you have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't 
  speaking of his physical body here; so does God 
  The Father also have a schismatic 
  personality.
   
  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 no

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

[Taylor]

so there is no way that this would be 
the same concept Bill.  
 
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in 
"their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says 
that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in 
other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not 
just physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same 
is true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the 
same word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the 
nature of God, a coming together of a plurality in 
union. 
 
God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so 
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the 
Godhead are One and united
in Spirit.
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ be 
fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering about 
the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you united? 

 
In marriage between humans it is 
"one flesh" Bill
 
There would only be a schism between the two 
natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no 
schism.  Bill
 
There would have been disunity 
"big time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly 
God ATST; schizophrenic
would be the right term.  
Also "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be 
the purpose??
 
 

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
And while you're at it, will you explain 
your schism with your husband, too? 
 
(If this needs clarification, just 
ask)
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 
  5:24 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 

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

Dean,
I think this is where "theology" gets 
itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so 
long.
How ironic that his mentor Bill would 
write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated it to 
qualify something.  
So their Jesus 
must have a schism in his personality (or nature).  What about 
his saying to Philip "If you have 
seen me you 
have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't speaking of his 
physical body here; so does God 
The Father also have a schismatic 
personality.
 
cd: Judy can you define your usage of 
'schismatic'.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  Well, yes and no, DH. I am 
  included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's 
  humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, 
  neither am I divine. 
  
 
cd: Lance at this point- How do you define 
"Divine"?
   -- 
  This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
  content by Plains.Net, and 
  is believed to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

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

[Judy Taylor]

 
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: 
  Sent: 
  January 15, 2006 23:10Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and 
  "biblical language"
   
   
  > The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume 
  Three.  What do you > do> with texts that speak 
  about the Seven Spirits of God?>> David 
  Miller.>> - Original Message - > 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: 
  [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language">>> 
  I do not agree.  "Trinity" is as much a translation of the 
  concept of> "divine essence" as is "godhead"  but for 
  theological and contextual> reasons.  Call it 
  philosophy if you will.  The inclusion of "trinity" is 
  a> sound choice if it , in fact,  arises from a point 
  of truth.   Equivalency> is a word that figures 
  into my discussion.  I am sure you unders tand the> 
  implication.>> jd>> -- 
  Original message -- > From: "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says 
  that you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in 
  other words the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not just 
  physically, I might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is 
  true with God. The bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same 
  word when saying this; hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of 
  God, a coming together of a plurality in union. 
   
  God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there 
  is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.  Sure the Godhead are 
  One and united
  in Spirit.
   
  And so, since you suggested that if Christ be 
  fully God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering about 
  the schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you united? 
  
   
  In marriage between humans it is 
  "one flesh" Bill
   
  There would only be a schism between the two 
  natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. 
  The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no 
  schism.  Bill
   
  There would have been disunity "big 
  time" if he had a human nature - just like us and was in fact wholly God ATST; 
  schizophrenic
  would be the right term.  Also 
  "Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's Kingdom" Bill so what would be the 
  purpose??
   
   
  
From: Judy Taylor 

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  And while you're at it, will you explain your 
  schism with your husband, too? 
   
  (If this needs clarification, just 
  ask)
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE


 
 

 

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
  and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  Dean,
  I think this is where "theology" gets itself 
  tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so 
  long.
  How ironic that his mentor Bill would 
  write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated it to 
  qualify something.  
  So their Jesus 
  must have a schism in his personality (or nature).  What about 
  his saying to Philip "If you have 
  seen me you 
  have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't speaking of his physical 
  body here; so does God 
  The Father also have a schismatic 
  personality.
   
  cd: Judy can you define your usage of 
  'schismatic'.
   
  On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

Well, yes and no, DH. I am 
included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's 
humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, 
neither am I divine. 

   
  cd: Lance at this point- How do you define 
  "Divine"?
 -- This 
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
to be clean. 
   -- This message has been scanned for 
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean. 
   

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

[Taylor]

Well then you answer him, Miller :>)   I took him to be asking if I think I
will ever be divine; i.e., a God myself. I do not. If you think otherwise,
then enlighten me too.


- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
DIVINE


> Dave Hansen makes an excellent point here.  I hope you will be able to
> respond, Bill.  I have many passages in the back of my mind that would
> support Dave Hansen on this point.
>
> David Miller.
> - Original Message -
> From: Dave Hansen
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
NOT
> DIVINE
>
> He is God and we are not.
>
> DAVEH:  In a previous post, you had answered No. when I asked you if you
> believe we have divine roots.  I realize that we are not God, but yet I
> believe there is a relationship we can have with God that encourages us to
> become like him.  I assume you do not recognize that relationshipis
that
> correct?  So, how do you perceive becoming one of the sons of God.do
you
> believe you fit into that category, Bill?  And if so, what does it mean to
> you?
>
> Taylor wrote:
> DH  >  So.what do you perceive to be the limitations that prevent us
> from becoming like God?
>
> He is God and we are not.
>
> Bill
> - Original Message -
> From: Dave Hansen
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
> DAVEH  As you know, the LDS believe that mortals can become like God.  I
> assume you agree with the following.
>
> We can become perfect (in a complete sense) like God.
>
> We can know the difference between good and evil.
>
> We can become one with him, as he (Jesus) is one with his Father.
>
> We will eventually be resurrected like him.
>
> So.what do you perceive to be the limitations that prevent us from
> becoming like God?
>
> Taylor wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, Dean, you believe that Christ while walking
> this earth was fully God. I DO TOO. And if I understand you correctly, you
> also believe that Christ while on this earth was fully human. I DO TOO.
>
> Bill
>
>
> --
> ~~~
> 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.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

--
"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] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

[Taylor]

OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
schism?
 
Oh, I thought you were married. The bible says that 
you and your husband (if you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words 
the two of you in coming together would be united -- and not just physically, I 
might add; it is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true with God. The 
bible teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the same word when saying this; 
hence there is a oneness or unity within the nature of God, a coming together of 
a plurality in union. 
 
And so, since you suggested that if Christ be fully 
God and fully human there must be a schism, I was just wondering about the 
schism you have with your man. Why instead of schism aren't you united? 

 
There would only be a schism between the two 
natures of Christ if there were disunity between the two. The person of 
Christ had no disunity; hence no schism.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:33 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what 
  schism?
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
And while you're at it, will you explain your 
schism with your husband, too? 
 
(If this needs clarification, just 
ask)
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM 
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love 
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOTDIVINE

Dean,
I think this is where "theology" gets itself 
tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so 
long.
How ironic that his mentor Bill would 
write something like this.  I think Lance just repeated it to 
qualify something.  
So their Jesus must 
have a schism in his personality (or nature).  What about his 
saying to Philip "If you have 
seen me you 
have seen the Father"  We know he wasn't speaking of his physical 
body here; so does God 
The Father also have a schismatic 
personality.
 
cd: Judy can you define your usage of 
'schismatic'.
 
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  Well, yes and no, DH. I am 
  included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity 
  is included in that relationship. But as the 
  humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. 
  
  
 
cd: Lance at this point- How do you define 
"Divine"?
   -- This 
  message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed 
  to be clean. 
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean. 

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

[Taylor]

 
Yeah, but is it true?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:59 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance 
  and "biblical language"
  
  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: 
Sent: 
January 15, 2006 23:10Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and 
"biblical language"
 
 
> The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume 
Three.  What do you > do> with texts that speak 
about the Seven Spirits of God?>> David 
Miller.>> - Original Message - > From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: 
[TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language">>> I 
do not agree.  "Trinity" is as much a translation of the 
concept of> "divine essence" as is "godhead"  but for 
theological and contextual> reasons.  Call it philosophy 
if you will.  The inclusion of "trinity" is a> sound 
choice if it , in fact,  arises from a point of 
truth.   Equivalency> is a word that figures into 
my discussion.  I am sure you unders tand the> 
implication.>> jd>> -- 
Original message -- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a 
transliteration. It>> is>> a word of 
philosophers, a word constructed by theologians, and it is 
a>> philosophicall

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[knpraise]

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



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

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

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 

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

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
 

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

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

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

[Judy Taylor]

This is a nasty comment and totally uncalled for 
Bill
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:01:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

    
  No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes 
  Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members
  of the trinity all have a body a soul and a spirit 
  causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his books
  (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that there 
  are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian 
  at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent 
  
  but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that had been 
  sold
  already.
   
  cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to say "No 
  Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not 
  mine.
   
  Perhaps that is why it was 
  so civil.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:21 
AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance 
and "biblical language"


 
 

 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/16/2006 8:37:32 AM 
  Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  Lance and "biblical language"
  
  No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes 
  Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members
  of the trinity all have a body a soul and a 
  spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his 
  books
  (I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that 
  there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian 
  at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent 
  
  but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that 
  had been sold
  already.
  cd: Judy you wrote "NO Dean" I believe you meant to 
  say "No Lance" as you are replying to his statement and not 
  mine.
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Please check your sources on this, Judy. I 
believe he claimed to be speaking under 
'inspiration'. 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  Benny Hinn was quoting another source and 
  from what I understand he
  repented of this error. so you'll need to 
  find a more up to date one than this.
  A good illustration of the value of 
  repentance for both lost and for those being
  saved..
   
  Benny Hinn, another 'inspired' teacher/evangelist, once said that 
  each of the Father, Son and Spirit was a trinity and thus, nine 
  Gods. He also finds himself clever in the questions he puts 
  forward to his hearers.
   
  - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  Sent: 
  January 15, 2006 23:10Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and 
  "biblical language"
   
   
  > The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume 
  Three.  What do you > do> with texts that speak 
  about the Seven Spirits of God?>> David 
  Miller.>> - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: 
  [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language">>> I do 
  not agree.  "Trinity" is as much a translation of the concept 
  of> "divine essence" as is "godhead"  but for theological 
  and contextual> reasons.  Call it philosophy if you 
  will.  The inclusion of "trinity" is a> sound choice if it 
  , in fact,  arises from a point of truth.   
  Equivalency> is a word that figures into my discussion.  I 
  am sure you unders tand the> implication.>> 
  jd>> -- Original message -- 
  > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a transliteration. 
  It>> is>> a word of philosophers, a word 
  constructed by theologians, and it is a>> philosophically 
  loaded word. The various words of the Greek language that>> 
  have been translated "Godhead" have at their root the word "theos," 
  and>> therefore, "Godhead" is an appropriate translation 
  whereas "Trinity" is>> not.>> The root for "three" 
  is not found in the Greek language for this 
  word. David Miller 
  - Original Message - >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
  Sent: Saturd

Re: [TruthTalk] Cutting off and new life

[knpraise]

Hi Dean. 
 
Where DM believes this makes him an administrator of the will of God in the lives of others,  I see no such thing.   The removal of this brother was for a season.  Paul advises his return to the Church in the second letter.   And the action is not the function of an indivual (i.e. a SP or even a single bishop).  Rather , the body of Christ in Corinth makes this decision.  If one sees finality in the words " ..  deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,"  one is perverting the message of good news and the concerns of a God of love -  one who is our Father.   Do you think for a moment, that the only sin existing in this early church is the sin of fornication!   What of all the others , who function as carnal and babes in Christ -- still bound to the flesh?   What of these members of the Corinthian Church?  
 
One of my biggest regrets, in my first year of ministry, was the exclusion of a brother who had a serious drinking problem.  It is truly heart breaking, even as I write at this moment, to think that I was ever stupid enough to think that such a cutting off might save that brother. And it didn't, of course.  The church is a part of life [in Christ] itself !!  To remove one from this body in a final sense is to cut him off from even the opportunity of change.   I am ashamed of myself for this past actionand, oh, by the way, such a thought is most definitely a revelation from the living God.  
 
jd 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Date: 1/15/2006 10:54:10 PM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now > > > > JD wrote: > > > When we insist on such an evidence for the Indwelling, > > > artificial time limits are put into effect and we become > > > the administrator of continuing fellowship. . > > > > So, is there something wrong with that? Paul wrote: > > > > 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 > > (1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such > > fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one > should > > ha
ve his father's wife. > > (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath > > done this deed might be taken away from among you. > > (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged > > already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this > > deed, > > (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, > and > > my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, > > (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, > that > > the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. > > (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth > > the whole lump? > > (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye > are > > unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: > > (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, 
not with old leaven, neither with > the > > leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of > sincerity > > and truth. > > (9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: > > (10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the > > covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go > out > > of the world. > > (11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that > is > > called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a > railer, > > or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. > > (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye > > judge them that are within? > > (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among > > yourselves that wicked person. > > > > Was Paul wr
ong to instruct the Corinthian church to become the > administrator > > of a loss of fellowship for someone in their midst who continued in > > fornication? > > > > David Miller. > cd: JD This is a strong contrast from the modern Church who invites all to > come and fellowship even sodomites. This is why I perceive that the house > we are to invite the practicing sinner too is Salvation in Christ Jesus so > that it will be filled and not to our place of fellowship until repentance > is giving with the power of testimony-saying that- the only way to make > this invitation is to" go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to > every living creature".Note that the fornicator spoken of in the Cor. > Church later repented and was allow back into fellowship with uncommon love. > > > > > > > -- > "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 > [E

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

[Judy Taylor]

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

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taylor]

Been there, done that, Judy. I'm not interested in 
doing it again.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:14 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and 
  trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
  
   
   
  On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:16:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
I was just wanting to better understand 
what you were wanting me to agree with in your statement: we agree if you view the Human part to also 
have divine thoughts. Having read your response I am comfortable 
that we can agree. The word "preoccupied" has a ring to it with which I am 
not completely satisfied, but I believe the man Jesus was preoccupied with 
doing the will of his heavenly Father; hence his thought-life was fully 
intuned to the divine.
 
If you had responded by saying that the man Jesus did not 
have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human soul, then I would have had 
to disagree; for then he would not have been like 
us in every way (cf. Heb 2.17).
 
Like us is "similitude" Bill - it does not 
mean exactly the "same as"  Every human being born by procreation into 
this fallen world
is also fallen.  There is none 
righteous and none that does good  EXCEPT 
ONE.
 
And, while I understood what you were saying, I also 
hesitate to speak of the person of Christ in terms of "parts": if he is 
fully human and fully divine, then he is not partly one and partly the 
other. Anyway, I knew what you meant and could thus look through 
it.
 
Thanks,
 
Bill
 
 

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

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

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

[Taylor]

 
No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes Bible.  
Finis Dake wrote that the three members
of the trinity all have a body a soul and a spirit 
causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his books
(I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that there 
are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian 
at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent 

but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that had been 
sold
already.
 
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: 
Sent: 
January 15, 2006 23:10Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and 
"biblical language"
 
 
> The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume 
Three.  What do you > do> with texts that speak about 
the Seven Spirits of God?>> David Miller.>> 
- Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: 
[TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language">>> I do 
not agree.  "Trinity" is as much a translation of the concept 
of> "divine essence" as is "godhead"  but for theological 
and contextual> reasons.  Call it philosophy if you 
will.  The inclusion of "trinity" is a> sound choice if it , 
in fact,  arises from a point of truth.   
Equivalency> is a word that figures into my discussion.  I 
am sure you unders tand the> implication.>> 
jd>> -- Original message -- 
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a transliteration. 
It>> is>> a word of philosophers, a word constructed 
by theologians, and it is a>> philosophically loaded word. The 
various words of the Greek language that>> have been 
translated "Godhead" have at their root the word "theos," 
and>> therefore, "Godhead" is an appropriate translation 
whereas "Trinity" is>> not.>> The root for "three" 
is not found in the Greek language for this 
word. David Miller - 
Original Message - >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:08 PM>> Subject: Re: Fw: 
[TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical 
language">> Your response has nothing 
to do with my comments, near as I can see.>> My point is this: 
every English word in our bible is "added " to the>> original 
text. so you like godhead" and I like "trinity." They are 
both>> translations 

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

[Taylor]

CD wrote  > I hold that the law is our 
school master to bring us to Christ. It teaches us we have done wrong but also 
defines what is right ...
 
 
 
"School master" is a very poor translation 
of the Greek word paidagogos (pedagogue). In the Greek world a 
pedagogue was a slave that protected children while taking them to their 
teacher/master. Hence he was not considered a teacher at all, nor 
a tutor, nor a master; he was but a slave protector of 
children.
 
Now go back to Galatians and see what you 
think the Jewish recipients of Paul's address were thinking when Paul told 
them that they were no longer under a "slave" and that their master/teacher 
was not the Law but Christ. 
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:50 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
  working for now
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 8:00:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done 
working for now

Dean, are you saying that Christ means to include "law" in that which 
is "believed?"
cd: Yes. As the I hold that the law is our school 
master to bring us to Christ. It teaches us we have done wrong but also 
defines what is right to which Christ even gave a deeper understanding of 
that gift. So I maintain that the gift was not only not removed by 
Christ but added too as to make the gift more desirable. So I hold the 
prospective that the Law is 'Good and Holy' and one of God gifts which -in 
his love-He will never take from us.
 
If so,  what is the practical advantage to 'unmerited grace" and 
the continuing fact of forgiveness in the sacrificial death of 
Christ? 
 
cd: The Law allowed for the 'unmerited grace'-without the law there is 
no need for grace. John please define what you mean by "continuing fact of 
forgiveness"?Thanks bro.  
 
jd
 
 
-- 
  Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/15/2006 8:28:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, 
done working for now

If this Victor person is correct and "UNBELIEF" 
is the predicament humanity is in then why was the Holy Spirit 

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

   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02
  Subject: OK, done working for now
  
  paragraph 
  in this lecture of Victor's:
   
  I've often said, too, 
  that the hardest part of any service of worship for the minister is 
  the children's story, because nearly all the children's stories here 
  are moralistic bromides. It's just moralistic bromide. And the Gospel 
  isn't heard because we assume that children can't understand the 
  Gospel. They can be taught not to steal, and they can be taught not to 
  swear, but they can't understand the Gospel. This is ridiculous, but 
  keep your eye on the Christian education wing of your church or 
  denomination, because that's where the Gospel goes 
  down.
   
  It strikes me 
  that street preaching and children's sermons go down the same wrong 
  path! 
   
  Paragraph from 
  next lecture:
   
  
  The 
  protestant reformers maintain that 

Re: [TruthTalk] Why more theology than science?

[David Miller]

Indeed, science is a subset of the theological, but theologians seem to have 
abandoned serious scientific research.  Hundreds of years ago, the 
scientists were clergy men well trained in theology.  Charles Darwin himself 
was an ordained minister.  It was actually a part of qualifying to be a 
scientist.  Virtually all of the institutions of higher learning were 
established by churches and clergy men.  What happened that has brought us 
to where we are now, where science seems to be in the mindset of all as 
being the pillar of truth?  The Scriptures say that the church is the pillar 
of truth.  Does that statement correspond to anyone's thinking these days? 
We think of churches as social clubs built around theology, not as strong 
institutions of education where one can discover the treasures of wisdom and 
truth.  Clearly, there has been a falling away among the churches and 
theologians.  In fact, I find more theologians campaigning for the theory of 
evolution to explain origins, and more sure of evolution as being the right 
solution, than I do scientists.  Nearly all of the pillars of evolution have 
expressed doubt and skepticism at one time or another that evolution is a 
satisfactory answer, but the theologians talk like it is an open and shut 
case.

There are a lot of reasons why this is the case.  When I read scientific 
literature, I find a great amount of reductionistic thinking, skepticism, a 
willingness to disprove and discard false ideas.  When I read theological 
literature, it is all about how to re-explain the same things over and over 
again.  Reductionism is even a dirty word.  Skepticism is discouraged.  In 
all, it seems to be all about tickling ears with some new way to describe an 
old idea.  Very disappointing, and even boring for me.

I wish the churches would rise up again to be the pillar of truth and wisdom 
that God has ordained for them to be.  I wish they would embrace education 
strongly and do a better job than the public school system.  I wish our 
understanding of the separation of church and state was such that it did not 
discriminate against religious institutions of learning.  I wish the 
churches did not discourage the tools of science which have helped it 
progress rapidly in the accumulation of knowledge; namely, reductionism and 
skepticism should not be dirty words.  Neither should the word "dualism" be 
shunned.  These aspects of theology hurt the progress of knowledge and 
wisdom.

You had asked about literature, perhaps in relationship to this.  I would 
never consider teaching a course on Theology and Science without including 
Thomas Kuhn's classic work (which your friend Victor did, btw) but also Karl 
Popper's, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" and J.R. Platt's classic 1964 
publication in Science, "Strong Inference."  I have brought these works up 
before, and you ridiculed me for even mentioning such "dated" publications. 
The thing is, these works do help convey how science is different from other 
disciplines of learning, and what makes science progress rapidly in 
knowledge and wisdom while other systems stagnate.  Not every scientist 
agrees that these men are right, but most of the colleagues I have been 
associated with do and most of what they say resonates with my understanding 
very well.  Their works are not the newest fad, but they make timeless good 
points nonetheless.  I think they truly help pinpoint why science has been 
successful over the last few hundred years in advancing knowledge.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:47 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Why more theology than science?

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 

--
"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.