date:20060123




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

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



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

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation

Who other than Israelites?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question 
  Regarding Covenants  Salvation
  DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people 
  (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of 
  (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make 
  with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?

jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to 
   share their thoughts with me about the relationship between 
  personal  covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a 
  personal covenant  associated with salvation?   
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Quote of the Day

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

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: Linda Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 22, 2006 16:55
Subject: [TruthTalk] Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day:

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

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

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

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation

Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 23, 2006 00:16
Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation

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

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

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

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

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

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

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language

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

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 22, 2006 17:25
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language

cd:

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

I see it differently.

CD wrote:

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

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

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

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

CD wrote:

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

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

of God.

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

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

the wrong end of the cash flow.

CD wrote:

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

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

at the Promise Keepers events are basically the same thing.

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

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

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

D

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

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

cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as 
Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and 
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower than a 
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at 
least I have a field to be alone in:-)

Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree 
emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this 
topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts 
on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were 
compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that 
concern.

The major difference between a belief in 
Jesus as having a human nature other than ours --some sort of a pre-fallen 
nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, 
is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have 
been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to 
keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put 
sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that 
battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress 
mentality: just keep sin out of his members andhe will have proven it can 
be done. Well, that is notonly 
nothelpful to us --as we've already missed out on that opportunity 
-- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in 
the way thatwe experience it.And if he only proved us wrong 
but did not defeat sin from within ourplight, 
thenall he can really do is become our offering for sin 
(not that he is not that, too). Thus hemay be our perpetual bull or goat, 
but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we 
never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting place 
than his. 

The best then that your view can offer is a 
substitutionarytheory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not 
also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes 
it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you 
will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been 
defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your 
view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; 
and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know 
you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts.On the contrary, see 2 
Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that 
we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from 
eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's 
genitals according to the flesh --that is,replete with 
David's nature,which is "Sin" with a capital S-- in order that he 
might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might 
experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink 
at.

Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James 
4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature (your 
kind of Jesus) could actually be tempted in every way like his 
brothers:

  And [Jesus] said, "It 
  iswhat comes out of a man, that defiles him.For

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




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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  
  
  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a 
sinner-

First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. 
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin 
nature. 

A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the 
same"
So far as humanity is concerned - There is none 
righteous, no not one.
Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always 
has been righteous.
The same nature - yesterday, today, and 
forever

Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other 
- 
but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned 
- the second only 
has potential for sin.. it is temptable. 

Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) 

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

they have violated that command. jd

AE were created innocent; they did not know 
sin until they decided to
disobey - that's all it took. This may 
conflict with your doctrine but that's
just how it is.








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

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





  


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

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

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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:22
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?

  (*, below,= 'therefore, JC wasn't a human being' which is 
  rational, but not biblical;a sylogisticlie rather than) 
  myth

  On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

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

[TruthTalk] *Why Protest Benny Hinn?*****

cd:David Miller-Because I haven't preached at Hinns money fleecing
operations it seems that I am disqualified from answering for those whom
preach at Hinn money fleecing operations-but I will endeavor to get someone
here that has to better answer your questions as to why they believe God
had lead for them to do so.

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/22/2006 5:25:24 PM
 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]  Lance and biblical language

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

 I see it differently.

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

 If the elders of the church do not pray the prayer of faith, and the
person 
 finds that he is still sick, then there is nothing wrong with him going
to 
 someone who has faith or who has gifts of healings.  Read 1 Cor. 12 and
you 
 will find that gifts of healings, miracles, and faith are not limited to 
 elders of the church.

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

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

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

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

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

 David Miller. 

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

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

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

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

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









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/22/2006 9:09:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Are you saying that Christ sinned and served Satan John? Notice 1John started by warning of deception-He did this because he knew there would be deception in this area-as reveled to him by the Holy Ghost.

Dean, let's be honest, here. Are you asking me this question above because you are confused as to whether or not I believe that Christ sinned and served Satan? 
Sorry, Dean -- I am not going to answer that question, trusting that you already know the answer.
cd: I am asking the question bro because if Christ was sentto the sinning lost man's state that is where he would located-serving Satan 

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

cd: AE were in a state of innocence before eating the fruit-the sinful nature came from heeding the words of the Devil and the act of breaking God's commandment by eating the forbidden fruit.John I am not trying to anger you with these replies-I hope to only show truth bro.

jd








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

Hallelujah!!
Thank you Dean. Maybe now we can make some headway; you are right on the mark.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:57:01 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd: John I read your letter but if you want a reply could you please condense your points-In the form it is inI don't know where to start with this much info. Thanks. But I do see a lack of clarity on the fallen state before salvation and the Christ -like state after salvation. We were sinners not are sinners-there is a difference your belief does not allow for. Christ did not go unto the sinning man's state He drew the sinning man to His state and He did this without sinning himself-the Sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish (sin)in the Old Covenant which Christ fulfilled in the new-if not the sacrifice would be rejected by the priests and God.Consider these word of John and hopefully notice the state of Christians and the state of the lost man serving Satan-Are you saying that Christ sinned and served Satan John? Notice 1John started by warning of deception-He did this because he knew there would be deception in this area-as reveled to him by the Holy Ghost.


1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 
1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 
1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 




- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 12:23:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

I know this is too long -- but please take the time. I was having one of the moments in the Lord. If doesn't work for you, then it was just for me. I can live with that !!

jd





died; until then He remained alone,

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









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/22/2006 9:29:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-

First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. 
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin nature. 

Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other - but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned - the second only has potential for sin.. it is temptable. 
cd: Then is this the same as comparing the lost man to the Christ-like man-The fallen man is in sin-the Christ-life man is temptable but not in sin?

Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would they have violated that command. 

jd









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









cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in .

Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how
crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan
which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he
walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit?

cd: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's decedents. 

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. 


Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place &
amp; lt; FONT color=#ff size=3in you. 
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 

cd: Hebrews 2:18:For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 

We have on record that he was tempted in the wilderness in the same three areas AE
were in the garden; where they flunked, he passed that test. Then he was tempted in the
garden of Gethsemane not to obey the Father and he overcame there. All the rest is pure
speculation.

cd: To be Holy (including tender hearted)and see sin -in the temple-in the hypocrisy of the Pharacees-In the rejection from His own people because they liked sin more Judy is to suffer-I do the same thing while out on the streets with unbelief and sin.

Clark wrote:

Heb 2:18 - For in that he himself hath suffered - The maxim on which this verse is founded is the following: A state of suffering disposes persons to be compassionate, and those who endure most afflictions are they who feel most for others. The apostle argues that, among other causes, it was necessary that Jesus Christ should partake of human nature, exposed to trials,

RE: [TruthTalk] beginning









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

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




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

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] beginning




cd: Everything that God wants us to know Lance.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/23/2006 4:52:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] beginning

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

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




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

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/22/2006 12:32:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-)

Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that concern.

The major difference between a belief in Jesus as having a human nature other than ours --some sort of a pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out.

cd: Bill this is my point in it's entirety-Christ never came down to the fallen man,s state. He came in the flesh and experience the sufferings of the flesh but not the results of sin-from theplace of a sinner-till sin was imputed on him at the cross so his state was not as a sinner in his walk while on earth till it ended at the cross.You are clearly showing two different states here that is my point.


As Christians, we are called to put sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress mentality: just keep sin out of his members andhe will have proven it can be done. Well, that is notonly nothelpful to us --as we've already missed out on that opportunity -- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the way thatwe experience it.And if he only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin from within ourplight, thenall he can really do is become our offering for sin (not that he is not that, too). Thus hemay be our perpetual bull or goat, but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we never get to walk in his steps, as o
urs is altogether a different starting place than his. 

cd: Bill we do have a sinless starting place with Christ-upon salvation we are cleansed-completely of all sin-white as snow-a new creature-The opportunity is there now not missed.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 
cd: Bill. Christis our example.
Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 
The best then that your view can offer is a substitutionarytheory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts.On the contrary, see 2 Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh --that is,replete with David
's nature,which is "Sin" with a capital S-- in order that he might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink at.

cd: Bill to be Justified is to be righteous-one is cleansed and make right by the law-ie righteous. The old time winked at sin was in the OT- but when Christ came and explained the complete area of what sin is- God said He would no longer wink at sin.Nor did He wink at the sin laid upon Christ at the cross-Christ paid the full price for that sin.(Wink as used: Close an eye to it momentary. One of the reasons why multi-wives was allowed)
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Webster Dictionary:Justification: In theology, to pardon and clear form guilt; to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the

[TruthTalk] Everything God WANTS us to know




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

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

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

What is your basis for this assumption, John?

Consider the following passage:

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

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

From my perspective, Adam  Eve did NOT have a sinful nature as part of 
their constituency.  It was the defiling nature of sin, and the selfish 
nature of a genetic evolutionary force, which has produced the sin nature 
that we observe in man today.

David Miller. 

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

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

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

Judy wrote:
 A sin nature and a fallen nature are one and
 the same So far as humanity is concerned -
 There is none righteous, no not one.

There is none righteous, no not one refers to sinful actions, not to a 
sinful nature residing in the flesh.  The passage does not include the man 
Jesus, but this does not settle the question of whether or not his flesh was 
like ours in the affections and appetites that drives a person toward sinful 
behavior.

Judy wrote:
 AE were created innocent; they did not know
 sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took.

Amen.

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?




By your same reasoning AE were not human beings 
either then; they were not born
by procreation and neither was the second Adam. 
Why don't you just let God be God and
His Word be true and every man a liar??

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:06:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A point made some time ago to Judy. She didn't 
  understand it then and, she'll not understand it now.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 22, 2006 23:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
God's Nature?

(*, below,= 'therefore, JC wasn't a human 
being' which is rational, but not biblical;a sylogisticlie 
rather than) myth

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation

DaveH wrote:
 Do you feel that there is a personal covenant 
 associated with salvation?

Yes.

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

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

[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?




From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy wrote: A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and 
the same" So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no 
not one.

"There is none righteous, no not one" refers to sinful actions, not to a 
sinful nature residing in the flesh. The passage does not include the 
man Jesus, but this does not settle the question of whether or not his flesh 
was like ours in the affections and appetites that drives a person toward 
sinful behavior.

Where do you find this definition in scripture 
David? It all has to do with the
heart condition rather than biology. The acts of 
the body are motivated by the
spirit or nature-the body does whatever it 
is told. When James and John
were calling down fire on the Samaritans Jesus told 
them "You don't know
what spirit you are of" showing that their mouths were 
not motivated by
fleshly affections and appetites. Jesus came to 
this planet in the fullness
of the Holy Spirit. Temptation is not sin. 
As you point out the angels did
not have to sin and neither did AE. They did 
not overcome when tempted
Jesus did.

Judy wrote: AE were created innocent; they did not 
know sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took.

Amen.

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?

DAVID:

Do you intend to answer my questions concerning your thesis?

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

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

JD wrote:

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

What is your basis for this assumption, John?

Consider the following passage:

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

iniquity was found in thee.

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

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

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

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language

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

I don't know about your extreme view of NO comparison, but I certainly 
don't find enough in the anecdotes that come my way to warrant me making too 
much of an effort to know this man.  At the same time, nobody I have known 
flocks to his meeting in such a way as to warrant my concern.  In other 
words, he is not a magnet of false theology or a false religious system like 
Joseph Smith or other such individuals.  The Bible says that the love of 
money is the root of all evil, and every critic I have read always focuses 
on the money.  If Benny Hinn were dirt poor, I don't think anybody would 
care about him.  His critics would go away.  I think that says a lot about 
the motivation of his critics.  Such an observation does not justify Hinn, 
it only impugns the critic.  I hope you can understand the difference.

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

Mark 9:38-40
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in 
thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth 
not us.
(39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a 
miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
(40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Such a passage indicates that there were some who did not do it Jesus's way, 
and Jesus himself rebuked those who would forbad such a person.  The 
perspective of Jesus was, he that is not against us is on our part.

David Miller 

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

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

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

Lance wrote:
 Do you intend to answer my questions concerning
 your thesis?

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

David Miller 

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

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

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




In your economy Lance; I don't think or speak in those 
terms. To me a "text" as you call it is
God's Word for which one either does or does not have 
understanding. Man shall not live by
every "text/doctrine" but by every word that proceeds 
from the mouth of God"

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:03:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  When one employs a text in order to address a 
  concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
God's Nature?



On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a 
  sinner-
  
  First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. 
  Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin 
  nature. 
  
  A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the 
  same"
  So far as humanity is concerned - There is none 
  righteous, no not one.
  Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always 
  has been righteous.
  The same nature - yesterday, today, and 
  forever
  
  Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other 
  - 
  but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned 
  - the second only 
  has potential for sin.. it is temptable. 
  
  Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin 
  nature) 
  or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would 
  
  they have violated that command. jd
  
  AE were created innocent; they did not know 
  sin until they decided to
  disobey - that's all it took. This may 
  conflict with your doctrine but that's
  just how it is.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

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

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

  
  

cd: To me this fits the state of 
Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not 
thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in 
.

Yes, a good analogy but 
we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; 
how
crazy does it sound to 
say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows 
Satan
which is the natural 
mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST 
he
walks in the fullness of 
the Holy Spirit?

cd: If Christ came in the fallen state 
He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well 
pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ 
was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we 
see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not 
Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. 
This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can 
be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of 
Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this 
nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of 
Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He 
toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son 
from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would 
send Christ to Abraham's decedents. 

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be 
Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest 
thou, Ye shall be made free? 
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, 
Verily, 
verily, 
I 
say 
unto 
you, 
Whosoever 
committeth 
sin 
is 
the 
servant 
of 
sin. 

Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. 


Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 

Joh 8:37 I know that ye

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language

Thanks for the insight..into David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 23, 2006 09:14
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language

Lance wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Miller

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

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

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

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

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


Ph.D. thesis, David.

Title, chapter headings, availability to be read?

That one!

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

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



Lance wrote:

Do you intend to answer my questions concerning
your thesis?


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

David Miller

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


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





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

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

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

In that case Judy, you are wrong!

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 23, 2006 09:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?

  In your economy Lance; I don't think or speak in 
  those terms. To me a "text" as you call it is
  God's Word for which one either does or does not have 
  understanding. Man shall not live by
  every "text/doctrine" but by every word that proceeds 
  from the mouth of God"

  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:03:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

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

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

  Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?

  On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a 
sinner-

First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. 
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of 
sin nature. 

A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and 
the same"
So far as humanity is concerned - There is none 
righteous, no not one.
Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and 
always has been righteous.
The same nature - yesterday, today, and 
forever

Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other 
- 
but I believe there is a difference. The first has 
sinned - the second only 
has potential for sin.. it is temptable. 

Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin 
nature) 
or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor 
would 
they have violated that command. jd

AE were created innocent; they did not 
know sin until they decided to
disobey - that's all it took. This may 
conflict with your doctrine but that's
just how it is.

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

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

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

  cd: To me this fits the state of 
  Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not 
  thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in 
  .

  Yes, a good analogy 
  but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; 
  how
  crazy does it sound to 
  say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows 
  Satan
  which is the natural 
  mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST 
  he
  walks in the fullness 
  of the Holy Spirit?

  cd: If Christ came in the fallen 
  state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was 
  well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? 
  Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the 
  below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but 
  not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's 
  Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the 
  two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to 
  Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to 
  God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this 
  nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented 
  Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because 
  you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my 
  one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's 
  decedents. 

  Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be 
  Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how 
  sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
  Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, 
  Verily, 
  verily, 
  I

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation





DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  Who other than Israelites?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
January 23, 2006 01:25
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation


DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for
instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant
with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an
individual. Does that make sense, John?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?
  
  jd
  --
Original message -- 
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to

 share their thoughts with me about the relationship between
personal 
 covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal
covenant 
 associated with salvation?

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation

DAVEH:  My comment about Abraham in a parallel post is an example of  
personal covenants.  Is this concept foreign to Protestants?


Lance Muir wrote:


Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH.


Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation


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





--
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] *Why Protest Benny Hinn?*****

A personal note: I do beleive God attends the service of worship of any who lift their hands or hearts toward God. Per an emotional witness, I have "seen" God's presense at Hinn's wervices. On the other hand - Benny is quite fraudulent in his personal claims as a faith healer. The old "slain in the spirit" thingy is used by Hinn, orchestrated if you will, and is simply a pretense. That some healing occurs his meetings - there is no doubt. That any of that healing is due to the fact that Benny is Benny is full of doubt. A huge part of the Pentecostal world thinks poorly of Benny Hinn and the type of minitry his represents.

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd:David Miller-Because I haven't preached at Hinns money fleecing operations it seems that I am disqualified from answering for those whom preach at Hinn money fleecing operations-but I will endeavor to get someone here that has to better answer your questions as to why they believe God had lead for them to do so.[Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 1/22/2006 5:25:24 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" cd:I think the Street Preachers understandB. Hinn quite well. I see it differently. CD wrote:
I have no problem with laying on hands to healthe sick-heck-I am even for this-but to travelgreat distances to believe Hinn has some specialinsite/power with God is error-it is suppose to bedone with the elders of the church. If the elders of the church do not pray the prayer of faith, and the person finds that he is still sick, then there is nothing wrong with him going to someone who has faith or who has gifts of healings. Read 1 Cor. 12 and you will find that gifts of healings, miracles, and faith are not limited to elders of the church. CD wrote:When the women touched Christ and was cured ofthe issue of blood-what (virtue) flowed from Christto the women Hinn does not have. I suspect thatthe only cure Hinn has to offer is to
cure one of covenaentmoney as he has most of it. You comparison of Christ andHinn in the above is a mistake. I only pointed out that even Jesus Christ could not heal many because of their unbelief. If such explains failure in prayer with Jesus Christ, how much more does it explain failure with us. Therefore, we ought not deter the faith of anyone just because they are seeking help through another minister. Such objections arise from jealousy and envy, not from the Spirit of God. The testimony of many people is that they have been healed by God through Hinn's ministry, which is why so many give money to him. When a person has an incurable disease, they often become extremely grateful to the person they view as responsible for facilitating that healing. I have had the poorest of the poor g
ive me the widow's mite so to speak. You don't know how difficult it is to receive such a gift, but the Spirit taught me long ago, nobody can give if nobody receives. Therefore, the answer is to pour the money back into helping them. I don't know what Hinn does with his money. He may very well be spending it unfaithfully, but if your criticism concerns him receiving lots of money, then your criticism is misdirected at the wrong end of the cash flow. CD wrote:By the way when did we become protesters? I understoodyou to be a preacher-we are likewise. Sometimes preachers do protest, and these Benny Hinn events are merely protests against Hinn. Just listen to what they are saying, or consider their signs. If they were preaching, they would heal the sick through the laying on of hand
s and the prayer of faith as the people came in. It seems to me that these street preachers who protest Hinn are in error, filled with a spirit of envy and backbiting. I suspect the street preachers protesting at the Promise Keepers events are basically the same thing. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know ho
w you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation




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


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



Who other than Israelites?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation
  DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people 
  (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of 
  (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make 
  with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?

jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who 
  would like to  share their thoughts with me about the 
  relationship between personal  covenants and salvation. Do you 
  feel that there is a personal covenant  associated with 
  salvation?

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation





DAVEH: You are losing me with that comment, Lance. Do you not believe
the Lord makes personal covenants with individuals?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  Well.with
Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant
things one more time. 
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
January 23, 2006 09:47
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation


DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  Who other than Israelites?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
January 23, 2006 01:25
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation


DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for
instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant
with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an
individual. Does that make sense, John?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?
  
  jd
  --
Original message -- 
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to

 share their thoughts with me about the relationship between
personal 
 covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal
covenant 
 associated with salvation? 
 
 

  


  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation

No

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: January 23, 2006 10:18
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question 
  Regarding Covenants  Salvation
  DAVEH: You are losing me with that comment, Lance. 
  Do you not believe the Lord makes personal covenants with 
  individuals?Lance Muir wrote: 

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

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 

  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 09:47
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation
  DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with 
  Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: 

Who other than Israelites?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Hansen 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: 
  January 23, 2006 01:25
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants  Salvation
  DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of 
  people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish 
  that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that 
  the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, 
  John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH?

jd
-- 
  Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who 
  would like to  share their thoughts with me about the 
  relationship between personal  covenants and salvation. Do 
  you feel that there is a personal covenant  associated 
  with salvation?   
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

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


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

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

I have said this several times before andI say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! 

I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" 
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in Barth !!

Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. 


jd




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




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

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

D


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


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


cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-)

Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that concern.

The major difference between a belief in Jesus as having a human nature other than ours --some sort of a pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress mentality: just keep sin out of his members andhe will have proven it can be done. Well, that is notonly nothelpful to us --as we've already missed out on that opportunity -- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the way thatwe experi
ence it.And if he only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin from within ourplight, thenall he can really do is become our offering for sin (not that he is not that, too). Thus hemay be our perpetual bull or goat, but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we never get to walk in his steps, as ours is

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






On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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




- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 

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

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

D


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


- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man


cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as 
Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours 
and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower 
than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? 
But at least I have a field to be alone in:-)

Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree 
emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time 
this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really 
good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and

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




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

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

Not for me JD; the problem is yours and 
Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from 
God's
Holy Word. The curse of the law is a present 
day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that 
but they are working in you and in your children as we speak.

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

Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very 
well. What about the first murder and the fact that within 
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the 
whole shooting match - except for one family.

I have said this several times before andI say it again: in 
all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual 
apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such 
exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the 
pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! 


It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be 
selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes to 
see.

I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of 
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" 
theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in 
the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper 
entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" 
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or 
.. well , you get the picture. Currently, 
it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in 
Barth !!

Who would want to "defend it" Much better to 
write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from 
yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.

Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion 
for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have 
not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand 
proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without 
success. jd

Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of 
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.




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

  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
  Man
  
  I think the stumbling block for those coming from a 
  viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable 
  sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any 
  way, and having afallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a 
  blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that 
  Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there 
  is more than the legal transaction happening. He is'bending human 
  nature back', purifying it,by his obedient life, his steadfast 
  refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature 
  to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, 
  which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the 
  legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the 
  fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I 
  remember TFT insistingthat wron g views of who Jesus was always end 
  up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or 
  both).
  
  D
  
  
  From: Lance Muir 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 
  1:19 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 
  Jesus , neither God nor Man
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
  Man

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

David Miller wrote:
 There is none righteous, no not one refers to
 sinful actions, not to a sinful nature residing in
 the flesh.  The passage does not include the man
 Jesus, but this does not settle the question of whether
 or not his flesh was like ours in the affections and
 appetites that drives a person toward sinful
 behavior.

Judy wrote:
 Where do you find this definition in scripture David?
 It all has to do with  the heart condition rather than biology.

There are many passages in Scripture which point to the principle of sin 
being found biologically in the flesh.  The first time I saw it was when 
studying Romans chapters 6, 7,  8.

The following passage summarizes how the flesh (the physical, biological 
body which we inhabit) serves the law of sin.

Romans 7:22-25
(22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
(23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my 
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my 
members.
(24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death?
(25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I 
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

When we study the biological basis for animals behavior, it becomes clear 
that behavior is selected for which is primarily selfish.  There are many 
concepts in Scripture which help us see that selfishness is sinful. 
Therefore, biology confirms what the Scriptures taught long ago.

Judy wrote:
 The acts of the body are motivated by the spirit
 or nature - the body does whatever it is told.

Not always true, Judy.  This is what defines a spiritual man from a carnal 
man.  When the flesh is reckoned dead, as it is in the spiritual man, then 
you are correct, that the body does whatever the spirit tells it to do. 
However, in the carnal man, the appetites of the flesh more forcefully 
determine the actions of the man.  For example, if a man is hungry, he will 
follow that impulse to feed the body.  The spiritual man does not respond 
solely because the body is hungry.  The spiritual man feeds himself when the 
timing is appropriate.  Hence, even Jesus speaks of not being hungry when he 
was with the woman at the well, though we know that his body would have 
desired food.  In like man, some are directed by their sexual drive toward 
behavior which is ungodly.  The spiritual man keeps the drive in its proper 
place, which is the marriage relationship.  There are many other appetites 
of the flesh that can cause a person not to walk in righteousness.  He may 
fear physical pain or discomfort and therefore not be open to preaching and 
teaching what the Holy Spirit would have him say.  A man may be tired and 
sleepy like the apostles were in the garden of Gethsemane, when they need to 
press through in prayer.  There are many ways in which the body motivates 
the person to do things that the spirit does not care about.  Hence is 
fulfilled the following saying:

Galatians 5:17
(17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the 
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the 
things that ye would.

Judy wrote:
 When James and John were calling down fire on the
 Samaritans Jesus told them You don't know what
 spirit you are of showing that their mouths were not
 motivated by fleshly affections and appetites.

I'm not so sure about your analysis here, but even if that were the case, 
such does not mean that all sins are sins of the spirit.  There are sins of 
the flesh and sins of the spirit.  The motivation for these may be quite 
different.  The motivation for Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus was not the 
flesh.  It was a spiritual deception.

Judy wrote:
 Jesus came to this planet in the fullness of the Holy
 Spirit.  Temptation is not sin.

I agree that temptation is not sin.  Nevertheless, the temptations of men 
generally arise from the temptations of the flesh.  Jesus experienced this 
kind of temptation of the flesh.  Therefore, he experienced the pull of the 
sin nature which resides in our flesh.  He was victorious and never sinned, 
but he experienced this defective nature of our flesh.

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] The fall - Where's the beef ??




You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word of 
God. Your have been
tutored by the theological arguments put together by 
men... so between your opinion
and spiritual reality there is a vast 
gulf.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:41:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, 
  comes fromyour fertile imagination.Should you choose to equate 
  that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's 
the beef ??



On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

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




- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 

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

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

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




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

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

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


Not for me JD; the problem is yours and 
Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from 
God's
Holy Word. The curse of the law is a 
present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to 
accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we 
speak.

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

Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible 
very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within 
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy 
the whole shooting match - except for one family.

I have said this several times before andI say it 
again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover 
an actual apologetic for the theology of the 
"fall."Does such exist? How could it 
not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. 
Where's the beef, I say ?? !! 

It's all through the Bible - Your reading must 
be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes 
to see.

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

or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or 
.. well , you get the picture. 
Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , 
even in Barth !!

Who would want to "defend it" Much better 
to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through 
Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different 
from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.

Understand,I havebeen in this theological 
persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in 
Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an 
understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for 
such an explanation without success. jd

Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of 
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.




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

  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: 'Lance Muir' 
  Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor 
  Man
  
  I think the stumbling block for those 
  coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been 
  an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were 
  blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not 
  unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I 
  understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a 
  sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal 
  transaction happening. He is'bending human nature back', 
  purifying it,by his obedient life,

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

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

In my biology program, we did not have a thesis for the Ph.D.  We had a 
dissertation.  I never completed this part of the Ph.D. program; hence, I 
never earned a Ph.D.  My Master's thesis concerned prey size selection and 
the foraging ecology of the mangrove water snake, nerodia fasciata 
compressicauda.  My study was published in the journal Copeia during the mid 
1980's.  I don't have an electronic copy of it.  The library at the 
University of South Florida had it on its shelves at one time.  I suppose 
you could get a copy through interlibrary loan, but I doubt the subject 
matter would interest you much.

I had published another study in Herpetologica sometime around that same 
time whereby I described for the first time how these estaurine water snakes 
obtained fresh water.  It is a less analytical article that might be more 
interesting to you, but I think even its subject matter is of little 
interest to most people on this forum.  I don't have the formal references 
for these studies available right now.

David Miller 

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

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

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

John, the concept of the fall and original sin is basic 101 theology. 
Unfortunately, many of the modern theologians ignore the subject completely, 
so it might appear to you to be only an assumption.  Not true.  There is 
much literature on this, so much so that I hardly know which to point you 
toward.  I just did a quick search and found the following Catholic article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

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

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

In modern times, the idea is attacked by the theory of evolution, which 
leads some theologians to think that death was not introduced into the world 
through Adam, but rather Adam was a major development in the evolutionary 
scale as man progresses towards immortality and perfection. If death was not 
introduced to mankind by Adam, then neither was sin.  If that is true, then 
there was no sin of Adam which condemned mankind into a fallen state with a 
propensity toward sin.

David Miller

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

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

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

I have said this several times before and I say it again:  in all of my 
reading, to date,  I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the 
theology of the fall.   Does such exist?  How could it not?   But so far, 
I can't even find the pickle.   Where's the beef, I say ?? !!

I hate to couch the  rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific 
and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to gimmick theology, 
but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most 
meaningful of ways in this regard.   A book or paper entitled A Theology of 
the 'Fall' or In Defense of the 'Fall'
or The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth,  or ..  well 
, you get the picture.   Currently, it appears to me that the Fall is an 
assumption ,  even in Barth  !!

Understand,  I have been in this theological persuasion for little more than 
a year.  There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read.  Actually, 
much is an understatement of grand proportions.   But I have looked for 
such an explanation without success.


jd




-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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


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

D




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




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


cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly 
God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and 
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a 
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at 
least I have a field to be alone in:-)

Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree

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

Thanks David.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Lance wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

propensity toward sin.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

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

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

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

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

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

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

D

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

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor

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

cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly
God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree

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


Things are really busy for me, right now. Don't get to write as much as I want. 

See my comments below. 

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



On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

Not for me JD; the problem is yours and Debbie's.

Not true, Judy. There is no truth to your "generaltional curse" thingy. If it were true, why are there no blood offerings under the Old Law for children before the age of accountablility. 

Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from God's
Holy Word. 

. It makes no difference how many times someone denies your trash talking responses - you just ignore their responses and continue with your deceitful responses. 

The curse of the law is a present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we speak.Make believe theology. My children are not under a curse of any kind. 

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

Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the whole shooting match - except for one family. Are you aware taht you haven't even tried to deal with my question ?? Adam and Eve are , in part, the story of beginnings and firs-time experiences. The fact of the matter is this -- you have not dealt with the "human nature" aspect of my discussion. Adam and Eve had the same nature as you and I. That nature was free from sin, of course(in the beginning) - but fully capable of committing sin!! You simply cannot deny this with any sense of reasonableness. 

I have said this several times before andI say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! 

It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes to see.

Judy, let me tell you this: I am every bit the student you are. If it there a theology of the fall, I need someone to make the presentation. You cannot because you do not know what I am even asking. But I bet Bill Taylor got the message. 



I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" 
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in Barth !!

Who would want to "defend it" Much better to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.so what 

Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. jd

Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak. You are drunk with it -- so you should know !! 




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




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

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

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


No. I am simply speaking of the human nature versus the fallen nature. 

James tells us how temptation works. Well, it works on us EXACTLY like it worked on Adam and Eve. If not , why not? 

That being true, the fruit appealed to his "lust," and he decided to entertain this temptation until it became irresistable. So what changed? The way sin works in tempatation? Nope. I do beleive in the effect of the "fall." 

And that "effect" is all that transpire as a result of the fall . Man's separation from God. The ending of a "perfected" world. The introduction of sin as a violation of the will of God. The end of the age of innocense and the beginning of Shame as a driving force with man[kind.] 

jd




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







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/22/2006 9:29:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-

First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. 
Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin nature. 

Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other - but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned - the second only has potential for sin.. it is temptable. 
cd: Then is this the same as comparing the lost man to the Christ-like man-The fallen man is in sin-the Christ-life man is temptable but not in sin?

Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would they have violated that command. 

jd









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









cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in .

Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how
crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan
which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he
walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit?

cd: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's decedents. 

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. 


Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place &
amp; amp; lt; FONT color=#ff size=3in you. 
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 

cd: Hebrews 2:18:For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 

We have on record that he was tempted in the wilderness in the same three areas AE
were in the garden; where they

Re: [TruthTalk] Everything God WANTS us to know


You have mine.

jd

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



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

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

As far as I know, temptation preceeds sin and sinning. And temptation appeals to personal desire (called "lust" by James). Human nature is sin nature. I do not mean to say that a sin nature sins !! Christ had this very nature - I believe you called it "sinful flesh" on several occasions in the past. Well, sinful nature or sinfulflesh means the same to me.

JD wrote: Regarding Adam and Eve - if they did not have a "sinful nature" before their decision to disobey the Lord, they would have never disobeyed Him !!What is your basis for this assumption, John?My answer to this question is found in my statement above.

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

Speculation will get you nowhere, David. Sin does not have a defiling nature outside a continued involvement with our personal lusts.
Yu define an evolutionary force in terms of a selfish nature ?? And what in the world is a genetic evolutionary force when it comes to sin.? AND how can we resist a selfish nature that is a product of a genetic evolutionary force?
James, as I read him, believed that sin had no force apart from the desires of man and is conceived of our desires.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: Regarding Adam and Eve - if they did not have a "sinful nature" before their decision to disobey the Lord, they would have never disobeyed Him !! What is your basis for this assumption, John? Consider the following passage: Ezekiel 28:15 (15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Do you think the angels that sinned also were created with a sin nature? From my perspective, Adam Eve did NOT have a sinful nature as part of their constituency. It was the defiling nature of sin, and the selfish nature of a genetic evolutionary force, which has produced the sin nature that we observe in man today. David Miller. -- "L
et 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?

2006-01-23 Thread ttxpress




myth (all ppl from 
the biblicalAEinc JC himself through his Momma from thier 
fashioned dirt,are fromfashioned dirt: homo 
sapiens)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:00:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  By your same reasoning AE were not 
  human ..either then
  ||
  
  
  

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation





DAVEH: As you probably know, I associate baptism with such a
covenant. How do you perceive it? (The covenant, that is.) And, do
you know if many Protestants believe in personal covenants relating to
salvation as well? (My guess is that they don't, and that you may be
the odd duck on this onebut, I'm just guessingI'll be
interested in hearing your perspective if you have time to share it.)

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
Do you feel that there is a personal covenant 
associated with salvation?

  
  
Yes.

David Miller



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] beginning





[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions
being The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles.


DAVEH: I understand you to mean that the pre-existence (where The
GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles were in existence) was not part
of the creation in/of the beginningis that correct,
Dean?

Dean Moore wrote:

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




cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible 

DAVEH: What do you perceive the beginning to be, Dean? I am
asking this in context of Gen 1:1..

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions
being The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles. Unlike B.Hinn who teaches that
the earth existed before man and had to be destroyed-prior to the
flood-Simular to David Miller's theory of the older earth.



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





-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: bennyhinn.htm