Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question? Bill
Fw: [TruthTalk] Something to think about
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 19, 2006 23:48 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Something to think about "I did not make it; no, it is making me; it is the very truth of God, not the invention of any man." --Rich Mullins, in the song Creed. Sadly, Judy prefers religion to the gospel. Happily, the gospel includes Judy anyway. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:18 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Something to think about - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 19, 2006 12:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Something to think about I'm speaking of one aspect ONLY JD and that is the "exactly like us" part. This tells me that those who make and profess such doctrines have no understanding or spiritual discernment and do not walk in the fear of God.. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:45:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The God of the earth, the Mormon God of this earth, is some guy who made it on another planet and was given this planet as a reward! Where, in all that, Judy, do you see even a similarity between that view and the one that declares Christ to be both YHWH and Messian ??? If you truly believe this, you neither understand the Mormon God nor the Christian God. And, as I have said before -- your God is neither of the two. You stand alone with your thinking on this. Need I bring up BSF or your pastor again? Actually, Strong and Dakes probable [both] disagree with you. You stand alone. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then he's a Mormon Jesus ... who has a problem with that?? On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:19:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus is neither unambiguously human with our humanity nor unambiguously God with God's divinity. This would make Jesus some 'third thing'. (Arianism) Sometimes you will hear people say 'Jesus is human all right but, he's more than human. That which is more than human isn't human. That which is less than God isn't God. So, said the Arians, Jesus is more than human but less than God. JESUS IS WHOLLY GOD AND WHOLLY HUMAN SIMULTANEOUSLY. --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 04:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 06:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she
[TruthTalk] Thought
Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
So??? Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches to teach even as early as the 2nd Century he was outside knocking on the door. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. From: Judy Taylor Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David
Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
Now where didthat profound thought came from? What about faith in God by way of the Church Fathers? What is that? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:31:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy Taylor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 06:30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman So??? Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches to teach even as early as the 2nd Century he was outside knocking on the door. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. From: Judy Taylor Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
So Lance where do you get your anointing as "chief appraiser?" It's one that is not listed in all the NT On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:35:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy Taylor. From: Judy Taylor So??? Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches to teach even as early as the 2nd Century he was outside knocking on the door. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. From: Judy Taylor Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006
[TruthTalk] DAVID MILLER AN EVOLUTIONIST?
You critiqued the course outline by Victor Shepherd as to its inordinant 'theological' focus. Are you aware that the majority of practicing scientists who are themselves Christians hold to some form of evolution.? Do you?
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
You drew a one-for-one comparison between your (potential) treatment vis a vis teaching and, that of Jesus. I just noticed it, that's all, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 06:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman So Lance where do you get your anointing as "chief appraiser?" It's one that is not listed in all the NT On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:35:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, hereafter nicknamed 'Jesus', shall nonetheless be subject to the same appraisal as was Judy Taylor. From: Judy Taylor So??? Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches to teach even as early as the 2nd Century he was outside knocking on the door. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. From: Judy Taylor Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way.
Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
Did you at some point in time take a course in rebuttal which abbreviated everything to nya, nya, nay? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 06:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Thought Now where didthat profound thought came from? What about faith in God by way of the Church Fathers? What is that? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:31:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man. When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us the righteous man, accepted of God, the godly remnant with which Christ connected Himself; Psalm 2, the counsels of God respecting His Messiah, in spite of the efforts made by the kings and governors of the earth. God establishes Him as King in Zion, and summons all the kings to do homage to Him whom He proclaimed to be His Son on the earth. Afterwards we see that being rejected the remnant suffer, and this Psalm 2 is what Peter quotes to prove the rising up of the powers of the earth, Jewish and Gentile, against
Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
I corrected Judy's only disagreement with my understanding of her position, Dean. So may I ask that you please go through it and then answer my question? And Judy, may I ask you to go point by pointthrough my summary of your position andtell me where and how I have misrepresented it? Bill Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a "holy and pure" kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David."He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying:'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool" '?"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" Oh, and you know the question that you and the Pharisees can't answer: "If David then calls him 'Lord,' how is he his son?"Well,since Jesus is both God and man, he is both David's Lord (God) and his son (man). That's what Peter is saying in Acts 2.36: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, bothLORDand Christ (Son of David)." No where and at no time does Jesus deny that he is the Son of David; i.e., the Christ, the Seed of David according to the flesh. On this occasion, he confronts the Pharisees knowing that it was his divinity that would prevent them from answeringhis question, they having already rejected it. And so the reason the Phariseescould not getthequestion was because they, being children ofthe devil,were denying his divinity: that he was God. My question for you, Judy,is still: What's keeping you from answering it?What are you denying? Bill - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man By the way, Judy, the reason the Phariseescould not answer Jesus'question was because they were denying his divinity: that he was God. My question for you is, What's keeping you from answering it? Bill From: Taylor While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David."He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying:'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool" '?"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" Oh, and you know the question that you and the Pharisees can't answer: "If David then calls him 'Lord,' how is he his son?"Well,since Jesus is both God and man, he is both David's Lord (God) and his son (man). That's what Peter is saying in Acts 2.36: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both LORD and Christ (Son of David)." Bill - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I explained this the other day, Judy; in fact you may return to my post on Acts 3.36 if you like. This is a statement -- and strong affirmation on the part of David --in regards to Jesus' divine nature. We have been discussing his human nature. Where you confuse the two, I do not. Hence it is not a problem for me to believe that the deity of Jesus predated David, just like it predated Abraham,while laterhis humanity received their Seed. The one needs not cancel out the other, unless one confuses the two -- but then, of course, one is no longer speaking of Christ. Work on the following passage, Judy; it should help you with your unbelief: "For David says concerning him: 'I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.'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,he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man. When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think so. Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
I see what you see, Bill. Yes, it is nigh on impossible to hold the position that I yet do. I've posted some old Burns Allen. See if you don't think that Judy might be a TT counterpart to Gracie. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think so. Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Doesn't take much for you to dive into the character assassination again does it Bill? Why is this so close to the surface with you? It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave the judgment to the one who judges righteously. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man. When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us the righteous man, accepted of God, the godly remnant
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
No Bill and Lance, the attack is against the doctrines that do not conform you to godliness and holiness. I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?" On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:56:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see what you see, Bill. Yes, it is nigh on impossible to hold the position that I yet do. I've posted some old Burns Allen. See if you don't think that Judy might be a TT counterpart to Gracie. From: Taylor I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think so. Bill From: Lance Muir IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David Miller. From: Taylor Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable
[TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?
CALLING DAVID MILLER: ARISE THOU THAT SLEEPEST! You've not had a more important discussion (potentially) on TT, David. Why are you in semi-hybernation? You posted as temp mod a week or so ago on the most petty of matters yet, you fail to come forward, comprehensively, on such as this! WHY? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 08:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Doesn't take much for you to dive into the character assassination again does it Bill? Why is this so close to the surface with you? It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave the judgment to the one who judges righteously. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that
[TruthTalk] Something to think about
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: If God was concerned enough about sin to cursehis creation at the start then why would he send a Redeemer who is under the curse to take careof things? Does not even make common sense. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.(19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 3:19(19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. I don't connect Jesus having a "fallen nature" to ther cross David, in fact I believe it detrimental to the whole concept of a "clean, pure, and holy, sacrifice" Jesus had to come under the curse in order to redeem those who were under the curse. He did come under the curse for it is written "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" He took the curse for all humanity upon himself at Calvary. It is kind of like how Moses had to leave the house of Pharaoh in order to redeem the Israelites. He left the house of Pharoah because he murdered an Egyptian and that because he failed to wait on God. Similar to Abraham and Sarah and their Ishmael. If God would just wave his hand and deliver people without ever becoming man and coming under the curse, there would be legal problems. He would be denying himself and his system of justice. How does Jesus having a physical flesh body along with a divine nature deny God's justice? It does not readily compute with our common sense, but it is truth nonetheless. To me a "virgin birth" and God walking about in a physical body does not compute with ordinary natural common sense. The preaching of the cross sounds real foolish to the man of common sense, but it is the power and wisdom of God. I understand the preaching of the cross to relate to our overcoming sin in our lives by the power of the cross - that is - through the dunamis which comes from the resurrection of Christ our Savior. Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? (for Bill)
Judy wrote: Wm Standish Reed MD of the Christian Medical Foundation of Tampa Florida writes concerning the supernatural conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary - The female ovum itself has no blood, neither the male sperm; but it is when these come together in the fallopian tube that conception takes place, blood is made Not immediately! Judy wrote: ... and a new life begins. The blood type is determined at the moment of conception genetically, yes Judy wrote: and is thereafter protected by the placenta from any flow of the mother's blood into the fetus. Yes, but the barrier is not perfect. Judy wrote: The Bible is explicit that the Holy Spirit was the divine agent who caused Jesus conception in the womb of Mary... Yes, because without a surgical snip of the 23rd chromosome, Jesus would have been born female... Judy wrote: so the blood type of the Son of God was a separate and precious type. False! The basis for such an assumption here is if one supposes that the heavenly Father himself came in physical form and had sex with Mary to introduce foreign sperm into her, or if the Holy Spirit through artificial insemination introduced foreign sperm which was alien enough from the human race to produce blood of some unique type. It seems much more likely to me that the Holy Spirit simply did a little microsurgery on Mary's ovum to produce parthenogenetically a male child. 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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God? You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?
Lance wrote: CALLING DAVID MILLER: ARISE THOU THAT SLEEPEST! You've not had a more important discussion (potentially) on TT, David. Why are you in semi-hybernation? You posted as temp mod a week or so ago on the most petty of matters yet, you fail to come forward, comprehensively, on such as this! WHY? No time, Lance. Besides, Bill Taylor has been making excellent posts. I don't want to do anything to hinder what he has been doing. As for the importance of this issue, it is not even close to being more important than many other subjects that we have discussed. In my opinion, Judy's concepts align closely with past orthodoxy. In fact, one of my problems with it is that it is too close to Roman Catholicism's brand of orthodoxy! Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] DAVID MILLER AN EVOLUTIONIST?
Lance wrote: You critiqued the course outline by Victor Shepherd as to its inordinant 'theological' focus. Are you aware that the majority of practicing scientists who are themselves Christians hold to some form of evolution.? Do you? I am aware of that. I am a creationist, and probably primarily for that reason am not currently a practicing scientist. They don't give out Ph.D.'s to anyone you know, and my creationist views caused my Ph.D. committee to split right down the middle, with one professor saying that my answer to that particular question on my Ph.D. written exams was the best he had ever read, and another professor saying that it was the worst answer on the entire exam. Strangely, the most vocal advocates of evolution as an explanation for origins that I have ever read were from theologians. They believe in evolution more strongly than most scientists. They just don't realize it. Most scientists simply operate from the currently accepted paradigm of evolution, as per the Kuhnian concept considered in Victor's course outline. I think evolutionary theory accounts for much post-creation biological events, but I do not believe that it adequately explains the origin of life, nor does it explain the diversity of life from a single celled original organism to what we observe today. I believe that the earth itself is very old, but that the creation of life was done thousands of years ago (not millions of years) as per the outline given to us in Genesis 1. I believe that Genesis 2 is an inside look of the blueprint of God, the wisdom of God, the architect's plan that gives us the why's and wherefore's. David M. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Lance wrote: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches. Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this. Judy is most welcome to share such in our church. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Judy has made it clear - whether she admits it or not -- that I (and Bill and Gary and Lance and ) am not ajoint participant with her in the gospel. Would she allowed to teach her thougths in a church pastored by yours truly? In a word -- the confession that "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is the same truth as "God came in the flesh." The Apostle John makes this confession a critical one - a landmark confession, if you will. Such a confession prohibits the teaching of another gospel ... and this question goes directly to the defining of the "gospel." She would have full fellowship in the assembly - but not as a teacher or one who teachers. She would not be prohibited from sharing her faith on this point, either . unless the sharing became a point of divisiveness within that body or if she continued to teach the point when asked to cease an sharing at all. The deciding factor, here, would be theeffect all this would have on the other participants. But with Judy, this is not the only difference. There are few similarities between her theology and that of anyone I know. I do not see David's contribution in the same [negative] light. How he gets to point B is often the only point of contention -- as well as whether I am stupid or not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches. Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this. Judy is most welcome to share such in our church. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscr ibed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
I don't mean to sound insulting, John, but what you write below sounds like legalism to me. I don't know how it is that you cannot see that. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman Judy has made it clear - whether she admits it or not -- that I (and Bill and Gary and Lance and ) am not a joint participant with her in the gospel. Would she allowed to teach her thougths in a church pastored by yours truly? In a word -- the confession that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is the same truth as God came in the flesh.The Apostle John makes this confession a critical one - a landmark confession, if you will. Such a confession prohibits the teaching of another gospel ... and this question goes directly to the defining of the gospel. She would have full fellowship in the assembly - but not as a teacher or one who teachers. She would not be prohibited from sharing her faith on this point, either . unless the sharing became a point of divisiveness within that body or if she continued to teach the point when asked to cease an sharing at all. The deciding factor, here, would be the effect all this would have on the other participants. But with Judy, this is not the only difference. There are few similarities between her theology and that of anyone I know. I do not see David's contribution in the same [negative] light. How he gets to point B is often the only point of contention -- as well as whether I am stupid or not. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches. Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this. Judy is most welcome to share such in our church. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscr ibed. -- 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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?" You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking moreabout the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressedwith later history andthe fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp)persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claimingthat the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be so David; I am much more interested in following the Lord and being a part of thefutureChurch than I am in trying to figure out what went on in the past (other than scripture) ie "forgetting what lies behind ... I press on "
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
I think the problem, here, is that yoou consider me to be someone who has no boundaries. Not true, as it turns out. I would argue with your conclusion as regards me. A true legalist would put Judy on the outside of the Assembly and refuse to let her anywhere near that body of believers. Let us not forget that your definition of "legalist" and mine are two very different things. Yours makes no disctinction between firmly held beleifs and salvation by works - my definition is only about that circumstance. jd : -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't mean to sound insulting, John, but what you write below sounds like legalism to me. I don't know how it is that you cannot see that. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman Judy has made it clear - whether she admits it or not -- that I (and Bill and Gary and Lance and ) am not a joint participant with her in the gospel. Would she allowed to teach her thougths in a church pastored by yours truly? In a word -- the confession that "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is the same truth as "God came in the flesh." The Apostle John makes this confession a critical one - a landmark confession, if you will. Such a confession prohibits the teaching of another gospel ... and this question goes directly to the defining of the "gospel." She would have full fellowship in the assembly - but not as a teacher or one who teachers. She would not be prohibited from sharing her faith on this point, either . unless the sharing became a point of divisiveness within that body or if she continued to teach the point when asked to cease an sharing at all. The deciding factor, here, would be the effect all this would have on the other participants. But with Judy, this is not the only difference. There are few similarities between her theology and that of anyone I know. I do not see David's contribution in the same [negative] light. How he gets to point B is often the only point of contention -- as well as whether I am stupid or not. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance wrote:FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JDand G would never allow you, given your'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches. Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this. Judy is most welcome to share such in our church. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscr ibed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Hi Judy. Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father. I think over generalization is a big problem here. By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that is common to men. Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the fall. Consider the following quote from John Calvin: From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE. == It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption. == Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would the writings of you or others on TruthTalk? Are they not expressions of what other Christians perceive truth to be? Why should the fact that Calvin or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage. Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they have already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God? You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be so David; I am much more interested in following the Lord and being a part of the future Church than I am in trying to figure out what went on in the past (other than scripture) ie forgetting what lies behind
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Well said, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 12:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God? You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not?
Yikes. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 12:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CALLING DAVID MILLER! You SAID that God had shown you good things about Bill Taylor did you not? Lance wrote: CALLING DAVID MILLER: ARISE THOU THAT SLEEPEST! You've not had a more important discussion (potentially) on TT, David. Why are you in semi-hybernation? You posted as temp mod a week or so ago on the most petty of matters yet, you fail to come forward, comprehensively, on such as this! WHY? No time, Lance. Besides, Bill Taylor has been making excellent posts. I don't want to do anything to hinder what he has been doing. As for the importance of this issue, it is not even close to being more important than many other subjects that we have discussed. In my opinion, Judy's concepts align closely with past orthodoxy. In fact, one of my problems with it is that it is too close to Roman Catholicism's brand of orthodoxy! Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Yikes again. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 12:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman Lance wrote: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches. Your confidence is misplaced in regards to me on this. Judy is most welcome to share such in our church. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Well said again, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 20, 2006 16:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Hi Judy. Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father. I think over generalization is a big problem here. By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that is common to men. Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the fall. Consider the following quote from John Calvin: From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE. == It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption. == Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would the writings of you or others on TruthTalk? Are they not expressions of what other Christians perceive truth to be? Why should the fact that Calvin or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage. Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they have already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God? You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Good points, here. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Judy. Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father. I think over generalization is a big problem here. By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that is common to men. Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the fall. Consider the following quote from John Calvin: From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE. == It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of th e seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our & gt; integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption. == Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would the writings of you or others on TruthTalk? Are they not expressions of what other Christians perceive truth to be? Why should the fact that Calvin or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage. Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they have already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours. David Miller.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history & gt; would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?" You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first chu rch fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be so David; I am much more interested in
Re: [TruthTalk] Debate, human nature obedience , law
Typically, we see the debate "for" and "against" the Law as we compare two verses -- Mat 5:17 and Romans 10:4. Proof-texts for each of the two sides of this argument. I think part of the problem (as with others) is tied to the fact that all of us, all of us, are literalists when comes to SOME scriptures.Which scriptures one takes as "meaning what it says" depends on a lot of issues.Those with literal applications become our major and minor premise, if you will, with the subsequent conclusion being "forced" upon us, as a logical conclusion needs to be. If one starts with Matt 5:17 and does not see "fulfillment " in the life , death, resurrection and ascension to the right-hand of God -- then Matt 5:17 will become the prevailing and inescapable conclusion for that disciple. All other thoughts being defined in view of that reality. Ditto for Romans 10:4. I am not sure as to how we escape this predicament !! Having said that, Romans 10:4 is a criticalpassage of thought...but more because of what Paul says earlier in the Roman letter. Chapters 2 -5 are critical to my way of thinking. The law is good. It definesright and wrong to be "sin." It presents judgments from which we need to be saved -- thus it(the Law) presents us with the need for Christ. But righteousness does not come via the Law.And, so, Paul declares that our justification is by faith (the faith of Christ, I think) and not by works ofLaw."I believe that "obedience to law" is the very same thing as "works of law." Obedience never "saved." That is why, even hundred of years after Sinai, man wasin need of a savior. Obedience should never (IMO) be thought of as The Path to God. Without a Savior, obedience is critical to fallen man BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE FOR MAN TO FALL BACK ON !! But obedience fails because of the disastrousconsequences of disobedience. If obedience is removed from the equation, so too is disobedience. And if that is true, we have moved into a time when sin is not computed and grace is without merit !! Christ hasdied once and for all time (from Adam to Omega ) and reconciliation is complete in that there are no longer any barriers to Godother than our own idiotsy< o:p> jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
- see my comments below -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: I think the problem, here, is that yoou consider me to be someone who has no boundaries. Actually, just the OPPOSITE. Legalists have boundaries. Yes, but I wasn't talking about legalism, was I ?? John wrote: Not true, as it turns out. thatI have "no boundaries." Yes, this was my point. :-) That I have no boundaries? John wrote: I would argue with your conclusion as regards me. A true legalist would put Judy on the outside of the Assembly and refuse to let her anywhere near that body of believers. Let us not forget that your definition of "legalist" and mine a re two very different things. Yours makes no disctinction between firmly held beleifs and salvation by works - my definition is only about that circumstance. You and I may define legalism differently, but what you don't seem to recognize is that your definition is very much like that of the Pharisees. You're right about that !! I don't seem to recognize that. But I do see your ACTIONS as being very much in line withthose of the Pharisees. So much for ad hom v ad hom. Shall we stay on subject or do you really prefer the mud? They did not put people outside the body of Israel for their beliefs. The Sadduccees were not put out for not believing in spirits, angels, the resurrection, eternal life, etc. They were simply categorized in the same way that you would categorize Judy. One important difference, though, is they did not treat them as second class citizens, forbidding them to teach, as you would Judy. In other words, (you probably hate me saying this) it seems to me that you are more legalistic than the Pharisees were. Now please remember, I do not consider legalism a dirty word. I just see that you are far more strict than the Pharisees were and yet you don't seem to be able to see it. LOL. David, you will dis-allow this, but absolutely no one who knows me, not even my enemies , consider me a legalist. Your reality on this matter is of the same nature as that of a comic book. Seriously. I am not a works salvationist and such is a legalist to me..to the exclusion of any other definition. Why can't you just let people like Judy teach all they like to their own hearts content? Is not the truth strong enough to resonate with people that they will side with it when you teach? Cause I am just a mean and nasty fellow.And I rebel at all those passages in the bible that tell me to let anyone teach anything to anyone else, whether in or out of the Assembly of Saints. Paint me to be the heretic for insisting on the words of the Apostle when he says "youare of God when you proclaim that Jesus Christ camein the flesh -- you are not of God when you deny it." I should have the courage to disagree with the Apostle, but I am just plain .. aahhh .. chicken. 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] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Simply incredible !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesn't take much for you to dive into the character assassination again does it Bill? Why is this so close to the surface with you? It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave the judgment to the one who judges righteously. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond. As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well. Take care, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this. Heb 2:1-18 - This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory. God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established. Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ. We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will. The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets. The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man. When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us the righteous man, accepted of God, the godly remnant with which Christ connected Himself; Psalm 2, the counsels of God respecting His Messiah, in spite of the efforts made by the kings and governors of the earth. God establishes Him as King in Zion, and summons all the kings to do homage to Him
Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
By Jove, I believe you have nailed !! it goes in my journal !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: [TruthTalk] Uncleanness come via the woman
Nonsense. You have a terrible view of the Larger Church and one that is not in tune with reality. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So??? Most would not allow Jesus himself into their churches to teach even as early as the 2nd Century he was outside knocking on the door. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:18:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW Judy, I'm confident that DM, BT, JD and G would never allow you, given your 'teaching' on TT to teach in their respective churches.No Judy, I'm not worried. Most would have sufficient discernment to see this. From: Judy Taylor Are you worried Lance? Don't you think God can take care of His Word? Should we replicate the heresy hunting of the Patriarchs and try to keep things a bit more pure? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you now or, have you recently, TAUGHT THIS IN ANY CHURCH? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:39:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill says that the incarnate Christ was holy because He was God on earth. Judy says He was not God on earth and His holiness came from the fact that He had no earthly faither. JD when are you going to get a hold of yourself and stop putting words in my mouth? The prophecy that the "virgin" would bear a child and his name would be Emmanuel go together. Why?? If sin is no big deal and rcc baptism can wash it away in infants so easily then why did Fod's Son have to beborn of a virgin? Apparently her "generational curse" theoryteaches that this curse is continued only through the father. This is no theory JD; it is spiritual reality. After all it was BY ONE MAN that sin entered this world and death by (or because of) sin. She ignores Job 25: 4 which says " How then can a man be just before God? Or, how can he be clean who is born of woman?" Do you know of any man who wasn't born of a woman JD? Job is just stating the obvious along with the fact that ALL men are born unclean because of sin. "Uncleanness" comes via the Mom just as surely as the father. Houston, we have a problem !! jd We sure have and I think you and Houston had better seek the Lord for some wisdom. He set the standard. He holds the man accountable and He kept His ONLY begotten son from the taint of sin by having him born of a virgin woman. Imagine that??? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I most certainly don't Dean; those are Bill's words and Bill's concepts. Not mine. What I believe is that he was not born by procreation like the rest of us since he had no human father. Mary may have contributed an ovum butthe male determines achild's gender and his spiritual inheritance also comes by way of the father (ie the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children) and these are some of the reasons why I can not accept the "orthodox" claim that he was exactly the same as us in every way. On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Judy is what Bill say in the below true-do you view Christ as being made of a special kindof flesh? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/18/2006 10:25:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Certainly I think Jesus was born of God, Dean. And I will be glad to address that aspect of his person. But before going there I would like to clearly state that you seem to be making a different argument than Judy's. Andif you are, thenmy question would not apply in the same way to you as it does to her. And so, I would like you tobe sure you are truly affirming the same things as she, before you speak on her behalf. From my understanding of Judy's position, shedenies that Jesus was born a flesh-and-blood descendant of David through physical birth to Mary. She believes that God made a special kind of flesh for Jesus and put it in Mary's womb, and that that fleshwas unrelated to fallen humankind, being only "similar" to that of us. That is, she believes Jesus' flesh was like Adam's before he fell. Hence because of her beliefs, Judy cannot affirm the teaching thatJesus is a physical descendant of Adam, and that heis the physicalSeed of Abraham and the physical Seed of David, allaccording to the flesh. You, on the other hand, write that you are not denying the biblical teaching that Jesus was the Seed of David according to the flesh and that he wasborn of David's flesh and blood. You appear to be affirming the truth that Jesus' humanity came from the fruit of David's"genitals" (Friberg)according to the flesh. In short, you seem to believe that Jesus really was David's "offspring." Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Thought
And[Judy's] response is just one more avoidancetechnique Sigh!! -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now where didthat profound thought came from? What about faith in God by way of the Church Fathers? What is that? On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:31:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either faith in Christ is faith in God or, it is idolatry.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again
Man, I think I have misspoken !! Judy attributes the following to me.Understand, I have not seen the post from Lance , in which these words apparently originated - so , of course , without any context at all, I decide that the following is appropriate ! I do hope Lance understands. I have to laugh at myself , here. For once, I kind of wished I had simple shut up ! Here is my response to Judy false accusation (that I wrote these words, not knowing that they they were Lance's.) : John writes: See, The Prophetthis is a reference to DM. One shouldnever single someone out if, within a matter of a minute or two,that one becomes manifestly stupid" thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense.Clearly, this is not going to be good. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings.Insert foot.I don't even know what that means.Take foot out, take off shoe What?? You must not read whatthe buddies you fellowship write or else you areafraid 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.Do I listen to Judy? Ohh noo! Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks.Re-insert shoeless foot If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. all the way to the stinking knee cap !!! 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 And here, I have clearly NOT learned the lesson taught to me by my Mother -- "never talk with mouth full !!!" jd I am an idiot !! -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 whatthe buddies you fellowship write or else you areafraid 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 withdoctrine that can not be validated by God's Word. If I remember correctly your thingis "what is unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed Actually -it was "at Calvary" ... But it was notin the person of the Christneither of you seem toknow. 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 savingfrom the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Judy From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] The first Adam after the fall did indeed need savingfrom 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
