[TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended. Others take exception to some of that which you say/do along with the manner of _expression_ and, we are described as 'not getting it'. You and yours appear comfortable in giving offence (other than that given by the preaching of the GENUINE JESUS) but not in receiving it, even when warranted. It'd appear that in saying that 'I (you) don't understand' that you actually don't. There is a certain sadness is witnessing such as yourselves. David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than the 'Z' word, IMO.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy 'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'? Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David. Lance PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understandingof the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
'not a sin to...' Says who, David? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 21:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech cd wrote: DavidM what is the difference between your words to Lance concerning public preaching and your stance concerning preachers at B.Hinn? I can hardly believe you are asking me this question. It is not a sin to attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God. It is a sin for the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual fornication. CD wrote: It seems to me you are doing the same thing as Lance was doing to Christine. There are some differences. I'm not reading newspaper accounts and concluding from them false ideas about what the protestors of Benny Hinn are doing. I react from what Paul Mitchell described about it. Nevertheless, the biggest problem is the context. Homosexual behavior is a sin, but seeking a healing from God at a Benny Hinn meeting is not. Even if it is misguided, it is not a sin. CD wrote: Did you know that Kevin- whom you preached with in Florida- and Ruben are leaders who organize preaching at Hinn events? No, I did not know that. Ruben and I have worked events for a lot of years now. He has apparently had the wisdom to keep this from me. If he ever did let such be known, he probably knows that I would rebuke him for it. CD wrote: Did you wittiness anything wrong with Kevin's preaching in Florida? Dean, he was witnessing to people partying, getting drunk, and looking for sin. Of course, I did not witness anything wrong with his ministry. The people who go to a Benny Hinn service are not looking to commit sin. I can't understand why you don't see the difference. CD wrote: Do you think that he is of a jealous and envious nature? No. I already told you that my comments concerned other preachers who have told me of what they have done. CD wrote: How about Ruben and his nature? No. CD wrote: How about the stance you took on our preaching at the temple in SLC how is that different from the stance taken against you daughter? I have always supported the preaching at the temple in SLC, so there is a lot of difference, Dean. I don't understand why you always make out like I'm against you and street preachers. It is very strange. CD wrote: Maybe you know how we feel now? Now I know how you feel about what? I don't understand. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
Really Lance? Then you don't have a wedding garment because your old flesh is not going anyplace but into the ground. Your outer man is perishing as we speak On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:41:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense
'feminine approach'?? 'emasculates society'?? One would, at the very least, have to grant you your gila monster-like tenacity when you latch onto a way of seeing, David. As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females. I actually believe that the particular hatred you express herein may stem from some disorder originating in your youth concerning your 'male identity'. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: January 29, 2006 21:19 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense There are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and suppresses free speech. The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
No Judy!! ATY ought to prefix all of your speculations. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ Really Lance? Then you don't have a wedding garment because your old flesh is not going anyplace but into the ground. Your outer man is perishing as we speak On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:41:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
[TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or
not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are
attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the
religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is
not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they all
had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their
bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the
children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not
saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed
were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of
one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of
anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'-- This
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed
to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is
not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they all
had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their
bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the
children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not
saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be
clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Oh, yeah, blame it on the Word.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be
clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
One smiles, not, I trust in derision, Judy. Look
Judy, DM has a 'Geek gospel' but, it is certainly not the case that all 'Geeks'
are saved. So then, just to put your fertile imagination to rest, Judy,
..NO!
'who His Own Word say He is'...MEANING:As I, Judy
Taylor (and, as I David Miller) infallibly 'read' the Scriptures...when will you
ppl (Lance, Bill, John et al) come to understand that the Scriptures require no
interpretation!! Put aside childish things (Greek/Hebrew/theology/critical
thinking etc) and, join DM myself. Hereafter, boys, ask us (DM I)
and thereby save yourselves a 'ton' of time. When will you children
learn?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 30, 2006 07:03
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the orthodox fathers. It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you don't have ananswer? The text says "for God was WITH him". On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered
by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about
what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and
in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the
"iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ,
the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam
is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of
Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body
as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red
rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos (from
which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of
David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net, and
is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to
be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
[Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 9:15:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech cd wrote: DavidM what is the difference between your words to Lance concerning public preaching and your stance concerning preachers at B.Hinn? I can hardly believe you are asking me this question. It is not a sin to attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God. It is a sin for the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual fornication. - cd: To engage in other spirits is a sin David-Blowing on the audience to knock them down? Most reported something knocked them down-Holy Spirit? No- if so I would recognize his work . I am aware of no good works in the bible where good men fell backwards-they always fell forwards while evil men fell backwards in God's presence. -- CD wrote: It seems to me you are doing the same thing as Lance was doing to Christine. There are some differences. I'm not reading newspaper accounts and concluding from them false ideas about what the protestors of Benny Hinn are doing. I react from what Paul Mitchell described about it. Nevertheless, the biggest problem is the context. Homosexual behavior is a sin, but seeking a healing from God at a Benny Hinn meeting is not. Even if it is misguided, it is not a sin. - cd: I disagree David-why seek Hinn for the healing and not Christ.If they say I am in the mountains do not go... for I am nigh thee. If you even admit misguides you are aware of something being wrong-When a Christian has doubts he had better let it alone.Does God use misguided people for great works?Seems to me He cleans them up and fills them with wisdom. CD wrote: Did you know that Kevin- whom you preached with in Florida- and Ruben are leaders who organize preaching at Hinn events? No, I did not know that. Ruben and I have worked events for a lot of years now. He has apparently had the wisdom to keep this from me. If he ever did let such be known, he probably knows that I would rebuke him for it. cd: How about Kevin. Did you know that he preached at Hinn events when you went out with him in Florida ? Did you rebuke him for it?I have a better idea -why not cut to the chase and just rebuke Hinn instead of good men? CD wrote: Did you wittiness anything wrong with Kevin's preaching in Florida? Dean, he was witnessing to people partying, getting drunk, and looking for sin. Of course, I did not witness anything wrong with his ministry. The people who go to a Benny Hinn service are not looking to commit sin. I can't understand why you don't see the difference. --- cd: Because I believe they are being mislead into sin David-strange fires. If you have seem no wrong in Kevin in those extreme situations-what makes you think something would be wrong with the Spirit leading him to Hinn to preach? Be wise and don't rebuke the brethren for doing what the Spirit directs. -- CD wrote: Do you think that he is of a jealous and envious nature? No. I already told you that my comments concerned other preachers who have told me of what they have done. CD wrote: How about Ruben and his nature? No. CD wrote: How about the stance you took on our preaching at the temple in SLC how is that different from the stance taken against you daughter? I have always supported the preaching at the temple in SLC, so there is a lot of difference, Dean. I don't understand why you always make out like I'm against you and street preachers. It is very strange. - cd: Try it from my prospective David- I invite members on this site who have spoken out on street preaching to go to New Orleans and see first hand what we do-and the next ting I know you are condemning the works of street preachers. What position do you put me in doing so? Having to defend? Have you not noticed after all these years our discussion become heated when I feel that the brethren need defended or protected. How about teaching against Calvinism to warn of danger-I had to defend against you until the water got muddy?I agree this is very strange-why not chose your topic with more wisdom? I am not angry only expressing truth David. By the way you have spoken against the preaching at SLC-that is why the brethren didn't want you to come with us and why you got angry and left pal-talk in the middle of the discussion concerning Mormons-same as slamming the door and walking out.How old are you anyway that you would not remember this event from two years ago? --- CD wrote: Maybe you know how we feel now? Now I know how you feel about
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
What subject is that? I don't see anything written here by G so I am not sure what subject you are on. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:35:07 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? From: Judy Taylor I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the
flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:26
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered
by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about
what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and
in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying
that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the
"iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam
is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of
Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body
as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red
rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ,
the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed
of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also
Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out
the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos
(from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring')
of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and
his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of
many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the orthodox fathers. It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you don't have ananswer? The text says "for God was WITH him". On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
Perhaps the subject line could lend some assistance. Do you deny that Christ came in the genetic material of David's loins, Judy; i.e., the flesh, which John addresses? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ What subject is that? I don't see anything written here by G so I am not sure what subject you are on. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:35:07 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? From: Judy Taylor I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Not a harsh word among them..."ONE FEW OF YOU SEEM TO KNOW PERSONALLY, IT APPEARS (TO ME ...AND TO DM OCCASIONALLY) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 07:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin?Thanks bro. - Original Message - From: Taylor His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill - Original Message --- If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of
Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the
flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity
and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying
that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the
"iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element,
Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh
body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed
of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also
Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out
the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to
him for righteousness. His sperma who
thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John
8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual
seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not
walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so
please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos
(from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring')
of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man --
he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic"
material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to
Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to
seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is
Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29,
2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Either Jesus is the Christ of God through the blood line of David or He is nothing at all. You "spiritualize" all references to the genealogy of Christ, making the Old Testament record of no purpose when it comes to the positioning of the Messiah.
It is a shame that you make Him to be something less than what He and the scriptures claim !!!
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the "iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
- Original Message -
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza ('Root' or 'Life-source')and the Genos (from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the Offspring of David..'-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
There are so many aspects to this argument ... offered by Judy. But, for my money, the point driven home by Bill concerning the blood-line of the Messiah is more without debate than the others (me included.) Judy makes fun of Bill's gospel ("your flesh and blood gospel ...") and, at the same time, plays the role of heretic, denying that Jesus is a descendentof David (and the other!!!).Her church leadership and those at BSF would escort her to the door if they knew she wasteaching such error.A real shame.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel
However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence.
"For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a)
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
While you are busy "spiritualizing" the story of Jesus, you overlook (or worse) what Paul is actually saying. You quote Gal 3:29 which says "And if you belong to Christ, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING, heirs according to promise" and ignore the words of 3:16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to seeds" as if referring to many, but rather to ONE, "and to your seed," that is Christ."
If Jesus Christ is not [actually] a descendant of Abraham, we have no access to the blessings of the Father FOR ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING ARE IN (eis) CHRIST.
Again, you reference 3:29 and ignore 3:26-27 which speak of our immersion INTO (eis) Christ. We are the offspring of Abraham ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN (eis) CHRIST. It isheretical to argue otherwise.
The very foundation of the Christian Blessing in centered in the fact of the lineage of Christ. Our existence as disciples is not juxtaposed to the positioning of the Christ, as you would have us believe (making Christ, in fact, unnecessary). Rather, our relationship with God the Father as adoptive sons is secured and exists IN (eis) Christ. His position, His lineage, His blood-line is, therefore, a critical circumstance in the biblical account.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza ('Root' or 'Life-source')and the Genos (from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the Offspring of David..'-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I hasten to add a word of thanks to Bill for making this a clearly stated fact of scripture.
jd
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While you are busy "spiritualizing" the story of Jesus, you overlook (or worse) what Paul is actually saying. You quote Gal 3:29 which says "And if you belong to Christ, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING, heirs according to promise" and ignore the words of 3:16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to seeds" as if referring to many, but rather to ONE, "and to your seed," that is Christ."
If Jesus Christ is not [actually] a descendant of Abraham, we have no access to the blessings of the Father FOR ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING ARE IN (eis) CHRIST.
Again, you reference 3:29 and ignore 3:26-27 which speak of our immersion INTO (eis) Christ. We are the offspring of Abraham ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN (eis) CHRIST. It isheretical to argue otherwise.
The very foundation of the Christian Blessing in centered in the fact of the lineage of Christ. Our existence as disciples is not juxtaposed to the positioning of the Christ, as you would have us believe (making Christ, in fact, unnecessary). Rather, our relationship with God the Father as adoptive sons is secured and exists IN (eis) Christ. His position, His lineage, His blood-line is, therefore, a critical circumstance in the biblical account.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza ('Root' or 'Life-source')and the Genos (from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the Offspring of David..'-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
If we can be adopted as sons into the household of God
- why can't God the Word be
adopted into humanity as the "son of man?" You
are locked into a position you can not
prove either way JD. How so, when the flesh
profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:28:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Either Jesus is the Christ of God through the blood line of David or He
is nothing at all.
You "spiritualize" all references to the genealogy of Christ,
making the Old Testament
record of no purpose when it comes to the positioning of the
Messiah. It is a shame
that you make Him to be something less than what He and the scriptures
claim !!!
jd
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the
womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to
the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in
iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you
saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited
the "iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make
it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted
to him for righteousness. His sperma
who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in
John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or
"spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that
Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that
Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006
5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your
faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the
second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try
to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it
was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the
shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so
to speak. The seed of Abraham are
the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not
bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is
getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
What I deny JD is the sperma connection and this is
because of the curse of death on all mankind.
He came into this world holy - He is the Lord of
Life. Why are you so hot to make him into your image?
My church leadership and BSF would do no such
thing. The days of hunting down and killing those who
do not agree with the "religious elite" are long gone
JD - Oh except for the radical right on TT
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:42:27 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are so many aspects to this argument ... offered by
Judy. But, for my money, the point driven home by Bill concerning the
blood-line of the Messiah is more without debate than the others (me
included.) Judy makes fun of Bill's gospel ("your flesh and
blood gospel ...") and, at the same time, plays the role of heretic,
denying that Jesus is a descendentof David (and the
other!!!).Her church leadership and those at BSF would escort her
to the door if they knew she wasteaching such error.A
real shame.
jd
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You major on the minors Bill because this is of
paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel
However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to
declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence.
"For ye see your calling brethren, how that not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are
despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor
1:26-30)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that
they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and
find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we
live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a)
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us
to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according
to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ...
(Acts 2.29-30)
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:12:34 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While you are busy "spiritualizing" the story of Jesus, you overlook (or
worse) what Paul is actually saying. You quote Gal 3:29 which
says "And if you belong to Christ, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING,
heirs according to promise" and ignore the words of 3:16 "Now the
promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to
seeds" as if referring to many, but rather to ONE, "and to your seed,"
that is Christ."
No big deal JD; I understand that Abraham's seed is
Christ.
If Jesus Christ is not [actually] a descendant of Abraham, we have
no access to the blessings of the Father FOR ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING ARE IN (eis)
CHRIST.
You don't get in Christor spiritual by being a
descendant of Abraham .. You get there by faith.
By abiding in Him and allowing His Words to abide in
you because His Words are spirit and they
are life - the flesh profits nothing
Again, you reference 3:29 and ignore 3:26-27 which speak of our immersion
INTO (eis) Christ. We are
the offspring of Abraham ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN (eis)
CHRIST. It isheretical to argue otherwise.
We are Abraham's offspring by faith
The very foundation of the Christian Blessing in centered in the fact of
the lineage of Christ. Our existence as disciples is not
juxtaposed to the positioning of the Christ, as you would have us believe
(making Christ, in fact, unnecessary). Rather, our relationship
with God the Father as adoptive sons is secured and exists IN (eis)
Christ. His position, His lineage, His blood-line is,
therefore, a critical circumstance in the biblical
account.jd
Making Him unnecessary?? I don't know what is
going on in your head JD but itdefinitely has nothing to
do with anything I am speaking of.. and a carnal
bloodline has nothing to do with anything. The blood of
the eternal covenant is where it is at.
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith
rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam
is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him
for righteousness. His sperma who thought
they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus
burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of
Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body
as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red
rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite
wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos (from
which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of
David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006
9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
spirit of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net, and
is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Completely bogus, Judy. For starters, you are now arguing that Jesus is the adopted Son of Man. Months ago, I charged that your doctrine would lead to the notion that Jesus is an adopted Son. I was referring to HisEternal Sonship -- little did I know that my prediction would be true as applied to the fact of His Sonship as the son of Man. In making this argument, you are admitting that Christ is not the actual Son of Man, only the adopted son !!! Yours is the impossible position, Judy, and evidence of that fact is clear when we realize that you have NO ONE to point to as a partner in your theology. Your are, in fact, all alone in this doctrine. Look at what you are teaching: Jesus'flesh is human flesh but not "human" as we know it (not like ours). Jesus was not God in the flesh. His actual blood-lineage is not Jewish in reality, but "of God" -- while, at the same time not being God !! You take this thought "the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life?" and insist that God cannot reconcile flesh and spirit in the living Christ when the Bible says otherwise: Paul says it this way - " ... and by Him (Christ) to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. You , who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH through death . " (Col 1:20-22). In this passage, "flesh" has accomplished a great deal of good, but, of course, you cannot simply read this passage and say "Amen." No, you have to add the fantasy that "flesh " as used here, must be something other than what we know as fllesh because "the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life?" You have NO SCRIPTURE on this - just JudyLogic. And when I say that you have NO SCRIPTURE , I mean to say that the biblical writers nowhere take this statement the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life? and apply it to Christ when they speak of His spirit and His flesh. Only Judy makes this attachment. That Jesus Christ came IN THE FLESH is a critical admission on the part of the disciple -- and that is a conclusion drawn by the Apostle John. Paul and John are misapplying the term "flesh" if they speak of the "flesh of Christ" without telling their readers what they really mean. No one who reads their letters would have any reason to believe that "flesh" does not mean "flesh." There is only ONE KIND OF FLESH, Judy, regardless of your J-Logic on this point. It is not Bill Taylor who is the heretic, here. No, indeed!! It is Paul and John. bsp; It is they who claim that Jesus came and accomplished "in the flesh" without bothering to tell their readers there is more than one kind of "flesh." Blood (as in Jewishgenealogy) doesn't mean blood. Flesh(as in theflesh of Christ) doesn't mean flesh. Son of God doesn'tmean He isDeity. Son of Man doesn't meanhe is Man. And how do we know all this? Judy Taylor !! She is the one (and the only one) who makes the necessary connections in scripture and presents us the "truth" of Christ. Asinine !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we can be adopted as sons into the household of God - why can't God the Word be adopted into humanity as the "son of man?" You are locked into a position you can not prove either way JD. How so, when the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:28:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Either Jesus is the Christ of God through the blood line of David or He is nothing at all. You "spiritualize" all references to the genealogy of Christ, making the Old Testament record of no purpose when it comes to the positioning of the Messiah. It is a shame that you make Him to be something less than what He and the scriptures claim !!! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit Why is the flesh connection so important to you Bill? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same? From: Judy Taylor He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was not (see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the "iniquities of the fathers" also?? I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL
Re: [TruthTalk] The challenge !! (jd)
You use the "holiness" of Jesus to defeat His genealogy, His Messiahship, His Sonship as God or Man, His coming in the flesh. It is a wonder there is anything left about the Christ for you to believe !!
To deny the "sperma" connection is to argue that He is not REALLY a descendant of David. THAT is what you argue and that is so very wrong.
Your church leadership and BSF DO NOT believe your presentation. Now, if you want to pursue that discussion, I am all for it. Let's go there !!
Tell you what I will do - I will write out what is being said on the site by those who oppose your theology without mentioning you.. just the theological statement. You take it to your pastor and the leaders at BSF and see whether they agree or not. Or, if you prefer, why not [you] write out your view and present it to your pastor and BSF leadership and see what they think?
Best to go with my first proposition - that way you run no risk of being treated as a false prophetess -- who knows, maybe you will accept thier appraisal of the submitted document? Just give the word and we will fashion a statement that you can present to your leadership.
jd
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I deny JD is the sperma connection and this is because of the curse of death on all mankind.
He came into this world holy - He is the Lord of Life. Why are you so hot to make him into your image?
My church leadership and BSF would do no such thing. The days of hunting down and killing those who
do not agree with the "religious elite" are long gone JD - Oh except for the radical right on TT
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:42:27 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are so many aspects to this argument ... offered by Judy. But, for my money, the point driven home by Bill concerning the blood-line of the Messiah is more without debate than the others (me included.) Judy makes fun of Bill's gospel ("your flesh and blood gospel ...") and, at the same time, plays the role of heretic, denying that Jesus is a descendentof David (and the other!!!).Her church leadership and those at BSF would escort her to the door if they knew she wasteaching such error.A real shame.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel
However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence.
"For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a)
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense
Rev.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 12:23:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense cd: Actually David has a point-I am attacked by females more often then males simply for preaching Jesus Christ. How anyone can make that wrong is amazing to me-butI guess people ignor what they want and believe the rest. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 6:54:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense 'feminine approach'?? 'emasculates society'?? One would, at the very least, have to grant you your gila monster-like tenacity when you latch onto a way of seeing, David. As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females. I actually believe that the particular hatred you express herein may stem from some disorder originating in your youth concerning your 'male identity'. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: January 29, 2006 21:19 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense There are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and suppresses free speech. The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:23:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. cd: The victory was still in the cross Bill not the life. We gained knowledge by His life-We gained life by His death. Knowledge without life is meaningless. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
RE: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
cd: Good point Judy. Reminds me of Christ's first miracle that was mentioned-making of the wine. His mother told the people to do what he tells you to do-she must have good reason to believe Jesus could accomplish miracles-makes one wonder how many she had seen before this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 6:57:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 7:41:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:56:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? He is like us in every respect. According to you, this means that he is not like us, only similar to us. When we speak of human beings, we can only speak of "being like" another. There is no other way of saying it !! Either I am like you or I am you. There are no other choices. And when the man says "like you in every respect" you deny the biblical witness . cd: Well John He didn't sin like us? Does that show a difference? Yes or No?
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 7:21:32 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ I don't know what G nudged, since his writings are mostly incomprehensible I skip most of them mainly because I don't have the time to spend trying and figure them out. Since Dean has recently had a G-epiphany maybe he will help ... cd: It must come and go Judy because he lost me again on this one-I think DaveH replies caused doubt and the gift left:-) On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:15:10 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Read on, Judy. As per G's nudging, I did. And may I ask you why you are so bent on changing the subject? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ Bill writes: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. You are wrong about this Bill and you are holding to false doctrine in this area. Noone is denying any physical lineage of Christ, just the one you portray. Jesus is not the second Adam for the reason you proffer above. He came to introduce a "new creation" - not put band aids on the old. Actually your gospel is the spirit of anti-christ - which in actuality is another (flesh Christ) standingin place of the real. You don't know what kind of flesh he had. Yes Mary and Joseph are both in David's lineage but Joseph is not his biological father who supplies the sperm and determines the sex and blood type of the child. Jesus at 12yrs of age was saying that he had to be about his Father's business and he wasn't referring to Joseph. He also called the temple his Father's house rather than the carpenter shop he was raised in. In Matt 1:18 we are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18); so Bill why not ask God to reveal it to you rather than construct a different Jesus and another gospel? Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16 I would underline Root if I were you and then go and read Romans 11:16-18 ... If the root be holy?? The Lord said to my Lord?? Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 11:08:17 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Ours is not a ministry of law. We are not about the preaching of Law. unless, of course, you confuse "law" the rule of the Spirit of Christ. Law and Spirit are two very different things.But, of course, you know this. jd cd: John maybe someone should have told Christ this news as He didn't seem to know it.:-) Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. J.Wesley: Mat 19:17 - Why callest thou me good - Whom thou supposest to be only a man. There is none good - Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments - From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your mind certainly works differently than my mind on this one, Gary. If you do not have any reasonable expection that the lawless should obey the law, then there is no reason for preaching. There is no reason to declare the law to the lawless. And you put the prosecution of laws on shaky ground. Why waste the money needed to prosecute if they will never obey the law. Maybe we should just terminate them, eh? If they are not going to obey the law, why even offer them grace and mercy? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech myth (that 'reasonable expectation' is fa lse essentially the essence of legalizm self-confirmed partic while your stated preaching/mission is directed specifically against lawbreakers lawlessness lawbreaking) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:24:51 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have a reasonable expectation that [everybody] should obey the law. -- "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?
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:07:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill cd: Don't know where I lost all this respect for the items mentioned above-but the scripture does show a difference between to first man Adam and the second man Adam. Can you point out those differences to help us clear the air so to speak.Thanks Bill?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:12:34 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While you are busy "spiritualizing" the story of Jesus, you overlook (or worse) what Paul is actually saying. You quote Gal 3:29 which says "And if you belong to Christ, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING, heirs according to promise" and ignore the words of 3:16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to seeds" as if referring to many, but rather to ONE, "and to your seed," that is Christ."
No big deal JD; I understand that Abraham's seed is Christ.
You do not believe that Christ's blood-line is through (the fallen) David, through (the fallen) Abraham, through (the fallen) Seth, through (the fallen) Adam to God. You do not believe there is a physical linkage to Abraham (and the others), only a theoretical one. And it is a huge deal. You deny the element in the gospels that accounts for reconciliation of all things !!
If Jesus Christ is not [actually] a descendant of Abraham, we have no access to the blessings of the Father FOR ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING ARE IN (eis) CHRIST.
You don't get in Christor spiritual by being a descendant of Abraham .. You get there by faith.
By abiding in Him and allowing His Words to abide in you because His Words are spirit and they
are life - the flesh profits nothing
I have no idea how the above has anything to do with what I wrote in the above !! We are decendants of Abraham, part of the seed that is numbered as of the stars, when and only when we findourselves "into" Christ. And, that is true only because Christ IS the seed of Abraham. This is so very important that the Apostle Matthew BEGINS with the connection between Christ and David through Abraham.
Again, you reference 3:29 and ignore 3:26-27 which speak of our immersion INTO (eis) Christ. We are
the offspring of Abraham ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN (eis) CHRIST. It isheretical to argue otherwise.
We are Abraham's offspring by faith
It is not as simple as that, Judy, and you know it. We are Abraham's seed because we are within (eis) Christ. Such is the definition of our fatih. And, again, this works only because Christ really is a descendant of Abraham !!
The very foundation of the Christian Blessing in centered in the fact of the lineage of Christ. Our existence as disciples is not juxtaposed to the positioning of the Christ, as you would have us believe (making Christ, in fact, unnecessary). Rather, our relationship with God the Father as adoptive sons is secured and exists IN (eis) Christ. His position, His lineage, His blood-line is, therefore, a critical circumstance in the biblical account.jd
Making Him unnecessary?? I don't know what is going on in your head JD but itdefinitely has nothing to
do with anything I am speaking of.. and a carnal bloodline has nothing to do with anything. The blood of
the eternal covenant is where it is at.
The the blood-line is not carnal, as you say, there is no actual linkage to Abraham. You juxtapose our position to Christ, when in fact, our position "to Christ" is "into Christ." Christ is the vehicle of all considerations that effect our actual salvation.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza ('Root' or 'Life-source')and the Genos (from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean, do you believe that the death of Christ can be separated in reality from the life lived and the resurreection/ascention experienced? I say "no." I do not believe that you and Bill actually believe differently on this matter. Give it somethought. jd - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:23:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. cd: The victory was still in the cross Bill not the life. We gained knowledge by His life-We gained life by His death. Knowledge without life is meaningless. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk]
Please unsubscribe me. Terry -- 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?
Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:56:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? He is like us in every respect. According to you, this means that he is not like us, only similar to us. When we speak of human beings, we can only speak of "being like" another. There is no other way of saying it !! Either I am like you or I am you. There are no other choices. And when the man says "like you in every respect" you deny the biblical witness . cd: Well John He didn't sin like us? Does that show a difference? Yes or No?
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
How so, Dean? jd - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 7:41:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
A good question. dean, can you give us an swer , as well. What makes the first man Adam different from the second man, Adam? jd From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:07:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill cd: Don't know where I lost all this respect for the items mentioned above-but the scripture does show a difference between to first man Adam and the second man Adam. Can you point out those differences to help us clear the air so to speak.Thanks Bill?
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 2:20:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech You make it sound so simple, Dean. Which commandments. The 613 ? Those commandments that continue the practice of Judaism? How would any of His listeners see it differently? And they already know that they fail in this effort. It might begood to consider the cross in this mater. the law is about to be fulfilled and in this fulfillment, we have the end of the law. What happens on one side of the cross is not necessarily carried over to the other side of the cross. cd: John the teaching of Christ didn't only exist on the early side of the cross-they were for all men to live By. Early side of cross: Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Mat 19:19 Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Latterside off cross: 1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. John what are you teaching bro? --- - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 11:08:17 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Ours is not a ministry of law. We are not about the preaching of Law. unless, of course, you confuse "law" the rule of the Spirit of Christ. Law and Spirit are two very different things.But, of course, you know this. jd cd: John maybe someone should have told Christ this news as He didn't seem to know it.:-) Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. J.Wesley: Mat 19:17 - Why callest thou me good - Whom thou supposest to be only a man. There is none good - Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments - From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your mind certainly works differently than my mind on this one, Gary. If you do not have any reasonable expection that the lawless should obey the law, then there is no reason for preaching. There is no reason to declare the law to the lawless. And you put the prosecution of laws on shaky ground. Why waste the money needed to prosecute if they will never obey the law. Maybe we should just terminate them, eh? If they are not going to obey the law, why even offer them grace and mercy? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech myth (that 'reasonable expectation' is fa lse essentially the essence of legalizm self-confirmed partic while your stated preaching/mission is directed specifically against lawbreakers lawlessness lawbreaking) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:24:51 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have a reasonable expectation that [everybody] should obey the law. -- "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?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 1:56:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean, do you believe that the death of Christ can be separated in reality from the life lived and the resurreection/ascention experienced? --- cd: No I don't John-but the fact remains that he was sent here to die. That act was the breaking of Satan. Youseem to focus on the fact that he was born of weak flesh-which could not have kept God's laws-as a way of stating we are weak as Christians-when we are not. Accord to my belief you don't even believe one can keep from sin yet the Bible clearly states that to sin is to follow Satan. 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. I will be praying for you John. - jd - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:23:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. cd: The victory was still in the cross Bill not the life. We gained knowledge by His life-We gained life by His death. Knowledge without life is meaningless. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 2:23:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? How so, Dean? jd cd: Not sure yet John. By the way here is another commandment passage that shows that they will stand fast forever and ever. Are you teaching otherwise? Psa 111:7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. Psa 111:8 They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 7:41:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd: I hope toafter Bill's reply John. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 2:25:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? A good question. dean, can you give us an swer , as well. What makes the first man Adam different from the second man, Adam? jd From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:07:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill cd: Don't know where I lost all this respect for the items mentioned above-but the scripture does show a difference between to first man Adam and the second man Adam. Can you point out those differences to help us clear the air so to speak.Thanks Bill?
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
cd: JohnI am not even going to address this as I hope you understand better at some point in time. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:41:04 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. In this valley (where I live) - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understandingof the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isnt intended to protect peoples right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least thats how we see it in Canada. Of course, its no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a private moral choice. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, theres still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are rules about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often cant express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like Jesus can heal you, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. Its also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe theres a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Something else, Dean. It has occurred to me that you and Judy believe in two Adams , neither of which is Christ. You have Adam before the "fall" a totally different kind of being than the Adam after the falll. Such is nowhere discussed in scripture. If I asked for a scripture that speaks to the creaturely Adam as changed in terms of human nature and physical being, you couldn't do - so I will not ask. What bothers me is that that this failure does not bother you while, at the same time, preaching against "adding to or taking from the meaning (words) " of the revealation of God. Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. cd:I thinkI can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord.. cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:35:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Completely bogus, Judy. For starters, you are now arguing that Jesus is the adopted Son of Man. Months ago, I charged that your doctrine would lead to the notion that Jesus is an adopted Son. I was referring to HisEternal Sonship -- little did I know that my prediction would be true as applied to the fact of His Sonship as the son of Man. He is both Son of God and Son of man JD. There is no such thing as an "eternal Sonship" evident in scripture It is a construct ofthe rcc and orthodox church fathers - so don't be patting yourself on the back as some kind of seer. In making this argument, you are admitting that Christ is not the actual Son of Man, only the adopted son !!! Yours is the impossible position, Judy, and evidence of that fact is clear when we realize that you have NO ONE to point to as a partner in your theology. Your are, in fact, all alone in this doctrine. Well JD, since numbers are always correct - should I go and try to scout out some ppl to agree?? Just go with the crowd - right? Look at what you are teaching: Jesus'flesh is human flesh but not "human" as we know it (not like ours). Jesus was not God in the flesh. His actual blood-lineage is not Jewish in reality, but "of God" -- while, at the same time not being God !! You need to get by yourself and offload a boatload of man's theology before asking the Holy Spirit to lead you in this area JD ... Only mans attempts to systematize and categorize what God has offered causes us to come up with something akin to Calvinisma complicated, diverse, and irrational doctrinal mess. You take this thought "the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life?" and insist that God cannot reconcile flesh and spirit in the living Christ I have not insisted anything of the kind JD. Jesus Christ had a flesh body in which dwelt the fullness of the Spirit. I'm just saying that his flesh was not like your flesh. His was holy and yours is unholy. when the Bible says otherwise: Paul says it this way - " ... and by Him (Christ) to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. You , who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH through death . " (Col 1:20-22). Just like Dean was saying - The victory is in the cross In this passage, "flesh" has accomplished a great deal of good, but, of course, you cannot simply read this passage and say "Amen." No, you have to add the fantasy that "flesh " as used here, must be something other than what we know as fllesh because "the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life?" You have NO SCRIPTURE on this - just JudyLogic. No just the Word of God JD - it says what it says. You will have to cut it out or explain it away somehow. And when I say that you have NO SCRIPTURE , I mean to say that the biblical writers nowhere take this statement the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit is what gives life? and apply it to Christ when they speak of His spirit and His flesh. Only Judy makes this attachment. Oh really? He was around as a spiritual presence long before taking on a body of flesh (1 Peter 1:11) The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17) He gave Himself on the cross and shed his blood 'through the eternal spirit' (Heb 9:14) It's all about His Spirit JD - where have you been? So what is the unforgiveable sin? Saying heretical things about the flesh of Jesus? No. It is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31) That Jesus Christ came IN THE FLESH is a critical admission on the part of the disciple -- and that is a conclusion drawn by the Apostle John. Paul and John are misapplying the term "flesh" if they speak of the "flesh of Christ" without telling their readers what they really mean. No one who reads their letters would have any reason to believe that "flesh" does not mean "flesh." There is only ONE KIND OF FLESH, Judy, regardless of your J-Logic on this point. It is not Bill Taylor who is the heretic, here. Really JD? And what about 1 Cor 15:39? Did you cut this one out of your Bible: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory"
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/30/2006 2:13:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd cd: John the below is whatI am attempting to convey to you but Darby says it better with more clarity. I will highlight some areas but you should take the time to read the entire page-it's not that long. . This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our epistle sets before us He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same position before God. But the idea goes a little farther. It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them brethren. If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren. This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;" but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God an your God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He had been heard from the horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of a Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of the assembly. He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the link itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to the Father, until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had died; until then He remained alone, whatever might be the revelations that He made to them and in fact, He declared the name of His Father to those whom He had given Him. Still He had actually taken the human position, and He Himself was in this relation ship with God. He kept them in the Father's name, they were not yet united to Him in this position; but He was as man in the relationship with God in which they also should be, when brought in by redemption into association with Himself. That which He does in the latter part of the Gospel by John is to place His disciples in the explanations He gave of the condition in which He left them in the position which He in fact had held in relationship with His Father on earth, and in testimony to the world, the glory of His Person as representing and revealing His Father being necessarily dis tinct. And, in
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito
Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense
Lance wrote: As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females.Excuse me, but as a female within my father's family unit, I can tell you that there is no suppression of free speech. My father is extremely tolerant, and his accepting attitude has always given me the freedom to express myself. I would advise list members to speak on subjects which they know. I know my father, and you are off the mark. -Christine Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'feminine approach'?? 'emasculates society'?? One would, at the very least, have to grant you your gila monster-like tenacity when you latch onto a way of seeing, David. As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females. I actually believe that the particular hatred you express herein may stem from some disorder originating in your youth concerning your 'male identity'. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: January 29, 2006 21:19Subject: [TruthTalk] Tolerance OffenseThere are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and suppresses free speech.The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them.David Miller. What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I'm not caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you are not hearing Bill properly. He did answer your question. Many heresies sprang up and those who wrote in the first few centuries after the Biblical writers addressed these heresies. You personally don't understand this because you are not well read in the church fathers. Also, the Biblical writers were not negligent about the relationship of Jesus and the incarnation. There is at least as much about that as there is about his Divinity. That is why Christianity divided so much over exactly who Jesus was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying to claim that the other side is lying about what the coin actually looks like. Hold a coin up right now, Judy. Describe its face to yourself. Then have your husband describe the tail side. Do this while you both are looking at the same coin. Do you both describe it the same way? No. Why? You are both looking at different sides. That's what you and Bill are doing in this conversation. Please TRY to hear what Bill is saying. He is using Bible. Deal with that. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the orthodox fathers. It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you don't have an answer? The text says for God was WITH him. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his humanity and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbid making Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection -- not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified? Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean: sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said for he was fully man and fully God. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weak in our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the likeness of that flesh but the law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weak in our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the likeness of that flesh but the law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
David Miller wrote: It is not a sin to attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God. It is a sin for the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual fornication. Lance wrote: 'not a sin to...' Says who, David? The Bible, Lance. BIBLE, BIBLE, BIBLE. 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?
Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself --and thisbecause neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject.Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While yousometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christwas borna genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it.You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element ofconfusion inyour claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was notborn of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve. As I see it, the problemyou are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity. And so, I do believe that Christ's human naturewas common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and thisbecause he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. But it took humanflesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his fleshto have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean,our kinfolk;nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight.But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin?Thanks bro. - Original Message - From: Taylor His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill - Original Message --- If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you are not hearing Bill properly. I don't agree David. Bill wrote: It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, it isthe spirit of rebellion. None of the above is so. Jesus is not the second Adam for any of the reasons above What's more he did not come to resurrect the old creation. He came to institute a new one. I have never denied that Christ came in the flesh so the above accusationis that ofa lying spirit. Also I am weary ofconstant accusations of heresy. He did answer your question. Many heresies sprang up and those who wrote in the first few centuries after the Biblical writers addressed these heresies. You personally don't understand this because you are not well read in the church fathers. So did Paul, he warned that wolves would spring up in sheep's clothing even from the people he was addressing and that they would get a following. No I have not read the writings of the church fathers extensively but I have read enough to know that they conflict not only with the word of God but with each other - IMO they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I am not promoting gnosticism or any other ism. Everything I write can be cross checked in God's Word for those who want to take the time and trouble. Also, the Biblical writers were not negligent about the relationship of Jesus and the incarnation. There is at least as much about that as there is about his Divinity. That is why Christianity divided so much over exactly who Jesus was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. I can't accept that he was both in the way that Bill, JD, and others describe. He could not have a fallen Adamic nature and be a fitting sacrifice for sin. How can one born in iniquity atone for same? Why is this so difficult to grasp? Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying to claim that the other side is lying about what the coin actually looks like. Hold a coin up right now, Judy. Describe its face to yourself. Then have your husband describe the tail side. Do this while you both are looking at the same coin. Do you both describe it the same way? No. Why? You are both looking at different sides. That's what you and Bill are doing in this conversation. They are totally different coins David. One flesh the other spirit. They always lust one against the other. Please TRY to hear what Bill is saying. He is using Bible. Deal with that. I am using Bible also David which fact is totally ignored. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:30 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Your sweetness once more overflows Bill just like the orthodox fathers.It's a valid question - why not be honest and say you don't have an answer?The text says "for God was WITH him". On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:34:14 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? Because he was not addressing heretics. BillFrom: Judy Taylor On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity" and I believe the rcc teaches the sameespecially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust alldoctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbid making Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection -- not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean: sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:25:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself --and thisbecause neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject.Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While yousometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christwas borna genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it.You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element ofconfusion inyour claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was notborn of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve. Bill Jesus IS the second Adam - how is it you can not read the plain words of scripture? "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor 15:45-49) Oophs~! I may have quit too soon, he goes on to write "Now this I say brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" As I see it, the problemyou are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity. Corruption is never in solidarity with incorruption .. see above. You are not understanding the ways of God. And so, I do believe that Christ's human naturewas common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and thisbecause he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. If humans are unable to sanctify themselves Bill - Why does God constantly tell them to do just that under the law and also in the New Covenant? But it took humanflesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his fleshto have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean,our kinfolk;nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight.But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity. Bill Covenant means that the flesh dies Bill - His was layed down on a sinner's cross at Calvary for us; ours is to be a living sacrifice that is layed on the altar daily. I think you people are obsessed with humanity - a word that I have yet to find in either OT or NT. From: Dean Moore cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin?Thanks bro. - Original Message - From: Taylor His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill - Original Message --- If Jesus was not of
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I have explained this numerous times, Judy. Reread my post of
a few days ago pertaining to the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of the Atonement
for starters. By the way, thanks for being honest. This should clarify any
confusion Dean may have had about being in agreement with you in regards to
Christ being a geneticdescendent of David et al.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:42
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb
of Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to
the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity
and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying
that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited
the "iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it
something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to
him for righteousness. His sperma who
thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John
8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual
seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not
walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so
please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more
becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006
5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your
faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make
it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted
to him for righteousness. His sperma
who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in
John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or
"spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that
Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the Genos
(from which we get'gene' and 'genome,'hence 'Offspring')
of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man --
he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic"
material. Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to
Abraham and his Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And
to seeds,' as
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as
you are Bill.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:02:41 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have explained this numerous times, Judy. Reread my post
of a few days ago pertaining to the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of the
Atonement for starters. By the way, thanks for being honest. This should
clarify any confusion Dean may have had about being in agreement with you in
regards to Christ being a geneticdescendent of David et al.
Bill
---From: Judy Taylor
No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the
womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit
Why is the flesh connection so important to you
Bill?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to
the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?
From: Judy Taylor
He does not have a human father Bill; he was
fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is
that
of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant
about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was
not
(see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in
iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you
saying that
Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited
the "iniquities of the fathers" also??
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus'
"flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second
Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make
it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted
to him for righteousness. His sperma
who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in
John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to
speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or
"spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that
Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's
day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual
element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that
Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and
David?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006
5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your
faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks
saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is
whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not.
Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements
oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the
second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try
to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it
was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the
shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so
to speak. The seed of Abraham are
the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians
3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a
flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not
bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is
getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"I am
theRhiza ('Root' or
'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man
-- he isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic"
material. Likewise,
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actually believe that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways? It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described. In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito And you need to get a theology that agrees with scripture without the use of JudyLogic. I speak of the Gk text and you deny it without any grammatical reasons -- without ANY reasons whatsoever. I quote a scripture and you tell us , "Oh, that scripture doesn't apply because the writer had a differenct problem in mind." No way of making my point when you hornor your own oipinion above that of scripture and the greek text. By the way -- did you ignore my challenge? The fact of the matter isthis --- your theology would not be allowed in the church you attend or the BSF you brag of attending. You can shut me up on this one, ral easy.I will write what I believe. You submit it to your pastor and the BSF leadership. Put up or shut up, Judy. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. No Bill - I didn't write it as a challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is that Jesus came to do good and to heal all who were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him. Looks to me like Paul could just as easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case or is that too difficult in Greek? I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill Then why doesn't Paul say that in the book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk that way amongst men. cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd:I thinkI can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. jd wrote this text.not Bill. The scritpure you asked for is in the paragraph. Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. . -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Something else, Dean. It has occurred to me that you and Judy believe in two Adams , neither of which is Christ. You have Adam before the "fall" a totally different kind of being than the Adam after the falll. Such is nowhere discussed in scripture. If I asked for a scripture that speaks to the creaturely Adam as changed in terms of human nature and physical being, you couldn't do - so I will not ask. What bothers me is that that this failure does not bother you while, at the same time, preaching against "adding to or taking from the meaning (words) " of the revealation of God. Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. cd:I thinkI can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord.. cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd:I thinkI can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. jd wrote this text.not Bill. The scritpure you asked for is in the paragraph. Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. . -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Something else, Dean. It has occurred to me that you and Judy believe in two Adams , neither of which is Christ. You have Adam before the "fall" a totally different kind of being than the Adam after the falll. Such is nowhere discussed in scripture. If I asked for a scripture that speaks to the creaturely Adam as changed in terms of human nature and physical being, you couldn't do - so I will not ask. What bothers me is that that this failure does not bother you while, at the same time, preaching against "adding to or taking from the meaning (words) " of the revealation of God. Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. cd:I thinkI can if you would be so kind as to point out that passage for me Bill. -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord.. cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actually believe that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical. He came in our likeness JD - not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is unbiblical. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways? What I am saying is that God will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone has to adjust it won't beHim. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described. So? Are you telling me that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the pre-flood folk the ones who died - all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to them? In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito And you need to get a theology that agrees with scripture without the use of JudyLogic. I speak of the Gk text and you deny it without any grammatical reasons -- without ANY reasons whatsoever. I quote a scripture and you tell us , "Oh, that scripture doesn't apply because the writer had a differenct problem in mind." No way of making my point when you hornor your own oipinion above that of scripture and the greek text. My beliefs are based on scripture JD, excuse me if I don't see them through a grid of men's teachings. By the way -- did you ignore my challenge? The fact of the matter isthis --- your theology would not be allowed in the church you attend or the BSF you brag of attending. You can shut me up on this one, ral easy.I will write what I believe. You submit it to your pastor and the BSF leadership. Put up or shut up, Judy. What new craziness is this JD? I am not going to anyone with this mess; I did not ignore anything. I answered your so called challenge - you just don't read very thoroughly. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
humanity - a word that I have yet to find in either OT or NT. Judy, I use the word "humanity" in the way the Bible uses anthropos (i.e., "man") to speak of "mankind" as a collectivewhole.Hence as anthropos was a culturally acceptable way of speaking about humankind two thousand years ago, so is "humanity" an acceptable way of doing the same today. To me it is the when-in-Rome thing in action. And so, you don't need to let it bother you --and if you like, you maythink "man" or "mankind" when you read it. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:25:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself --and thisbecause neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject.Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While yousometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christwas borna genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it.You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element ofconfusion inyour claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was notborn of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve. Bill Jesus IS the second Adam - how is it you can not read the plain words of scripture? "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor 15:45-49) Oophs~! I may have quit too soon, he goes on to write "Now this I say brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" As I see it, the problemyou are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity. Corruption is never in solidarity with incorruption .. see above. You are not understanding the ways of God. And so, I do believe that Christ's human naturewas common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and thisbecause he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. If humans are unable to sanctify themselves Bill - Why does God constantly tell them to do just that under the law and also in the New Covenant? But it took humanflesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his fleshto have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean,our kinfolk;nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight.But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity. Bill Covenant means that the flesh dies Bill - His was layed down on a sinner's cross at Calvary for us; ours is to be a living sacrifice that is layed on the altar daily. I think you people are obsessed with humanity - a word that I have yet to find in either OT or NT. From: Dean Moore cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
DAVEH: H.I wonder if there are any new TT subscribers today? And if so, I wonder what they might be thinking after reading some of our posts! :-[ Judy Taylor wrote: I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. It's not my hang up, Judy, but yours. I am simply thrusting home the meaningLuke's words in regards to Christ's humanity. osphuos [UBS] reproductive organs (descendant Ac 2.30). [Friberg] (2) Hebraistically, genitals, reproductive organs; idiomatically lit. come out from the genitals, i.e. be a descendant (AC 2.30; HE 7.5). [LN] (b) genitals (1) offspring (2) be born of - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:02:41 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have explained this numerous times, Judy. Reread my post of a few days ago pertaining to the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of the Atonement for starters. By the way, thanks for being honest. This should clarify any confusion Dean may have had about being in agreement with you in regards to Christ being a geneticdescendent of David et al. Bill ---From: Judy Taylor No; my belief is that Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit Why is the flesh connection so important to you Bill? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same? From: Judy Taylor He does not have a human father Bill; he was fathered by the Holy Spirit and the family he was born into is that of Abraham/David. Why are you so adamant about what you can not possibly know. He was born holy. David was not (see Psalm 51:5) "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" So Bill are you saying that Jesus was born from natural seed and inherited the "iniquities of the fathers" also?? I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:19:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once more becauseit is getting quite wearisome I have no problem whatsoever with the Seed having a spiritual element, Judy, but that is not the issue, is it? Do you deny that Jesus' "flesh body"is of the genetic material of Abraham and David? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:03 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved?? Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy which is the religion you hold to. The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His sperma who thought they all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33;
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean does not say that Jesus was or is the second Adam, Judy. He says instead that"Jesus was of the second [Adam]," which is what I was questioning. But in case I have not made myself clearnumerous timesin the past, I will do so now: Christ Jesus is the second Adam. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:25:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself --and thisbecause neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject.Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While yousometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christwas borna genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it.You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element ofconfusion inyour claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was notborn of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve. Bill Jesus IS the second Adam - how is it you can not read the plain words of scripture? "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor 15:45-49) Oophs~! I may have quit too soon, he goes on to write "Now this I say brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" As I see it, the problemyou are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity. Corruption is never in solidarity with incorruption .. see above. You are not understanding the ways of God. And so, I do believe that Christ's human naturewas common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and thisbecause he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. If humans are unable to sanctify themselves Bill - Why does God constantly tell them to do just that under the law and also in the New Covenant? But it took humanflesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his fleshto have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean,our kinfolk;nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight.But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity. Bill Covenant means that the flesh dies Bill - His was layed down on a sinner's cross at Calvary for us; ours is to be a living sacrifice that is layed on the altar daily. I think you people are obsessed with humanity - a word that I have yet to find in either OT or NT. From: Dean Moore cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weakshow me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin?Thanks bro. - Original Message - From:
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I invite you to read again Peter's sermon in Acts 2. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. No Bill - I didn't write it as a challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is that Jesus came to do good and to heal all who were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him. Looks to me like Paul could just as easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case or is that too difficult in Greek? I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill Then why doesn't Paul say that in the book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk that way amongst men. cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
myth(Joseph's wife'sparents are alsoJCs human grandparents) On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:42:54 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus was fathered in the womb of Mary ..[but] He does not have a human father
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
myth (JC was human before his death) On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:53:37 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes Darby like a dictionary: "[JC]only called them His brethren[after] He had finished the work which enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. "
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
who said this(?) : 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:21:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (JC was human before his death) On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:53:37 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes Darby like a dictionary: "[JC]only called them His brethren[after] He had finished the work which enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. "
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
CD wrote The scripture does show a difference between to first man Adam and the second man Adam. Can you point out those differences to help us clear the air so to speak.Thanks Hi Dean, I can begin to do that tonight, Dean, and if you want more I can go into greater detail later. Romans 5 is, of course, the primary source for answering your question, along with passages in the epistles to the Corinthians. The differences between the two Adam's are best understood in the context of their similarities. In Romans 5, Paul employs the Hebrew idea of "the one and the many" to express thefact that both Adams are representative of the entire human race. I will include a literal translation of Romans 5.15-19 below. Please notice the insertion of the definite article --"the" -- in my translation of the Greek text, as it does not always appear in our English translations. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous. Here we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance ofgrace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which isalso "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men." Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:07:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. Bill cd: Don't know where I lost all this respect for the items mentioned above-but the scripture does show a difference between to first man Adam and the second man Adam. Can you point out those differences to help us clear the air so to speak.Thanks Bill? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
ifyou're thinkin' of askin' JCs Momma,pray shedoesn't ask himto handle it for her On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:15:54 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..I wonder what[ppl] might be thinking after reading .. I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean, did you answer this post that Judy has decided to argue? I was hoping for your answer. Judy -- You are the one who used "adoption" in reference to Christ being the Son of Man. I believe you wrote that yesterday. I dealt with the idea of "likeness" in a previous post, either last evening or today. Apparently you chose not to answer it. Suffice it to say that I am either like you or I am you. There is no other way of talking about it.You leave off "in every respect" and in so doing, twist the biblical accountto your purpose. We all know what you believe. You have chosen to ignore my challenge -- which means the obvious to me. Et al -- the result of this discussion has been very beneficial. It has given me a much stronger sense for what is critical in this discussion, namely the blood-lineage of Christ, the importance of the confession that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, a deeper appreciation for the meaning of "Son of Man." I better understand why Matthew began his gospel with the genealogy and why he singled out David and Abraham.And, I must say that I appreciate Col 1:19-23and Gal 3 even more than before. The Col passage for what it tells us about the mission of Christ; the Gal passage for making it clear just exactly where our blesssings lie (within Christ). Anyway -- thanks to those who offered a contribution. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actually believe that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical. He came in our likeness JD - not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is unbiblical. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways? What I am saying is that God will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone has to adjust it won't beHim. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described. So? Are you telling me that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the pre-flood folk the ones who died - all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to them? In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation. If Hewas obligatedto be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jd John the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written ito And you need to get a theology that agrees with scripture without the use of JudyLogic. I speak of the Gk text and you deny it without any grammatical reasons -- without ANY reasons whatsoever. I quote a scripture and you tell us , "Oh, that scripture doesn't apply because the writer had a differenct problem in mind." No way of making my point when you hornor your own oipinion above that of scripture and the greek text. My beliefs are based on scripture JD, excuse me if I don't see them through a grid of men's teachings. By the way -- did you ignore my challenge? The fact of the matter isthis --- your theology would not be allowed in the church you attend or the BSF you brag of attending. You can shut me up on this one, ral easy.I will write what I believe.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Yet without sin says it all JD but you will not accept the obvious We are born in sin and the iniquities of our fathers He is born without sin He is holy because his father isthe Holy Spirit On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:27:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dean, did you answer this post that Judy has decided to argue? I was hoping for your answer. Judy -- You are the one who used "adoption" in reference to Christ being the Son of Man. I believe you wrote that yesterday. I dealt with the idea of "likeness" in a previous post, either last evening or today. Apparently you chose not to answer it. Suffice it to say that I am either like you or I am you. There is no other way of talking about it.You leave off "in every respect" and in so doing, twist the biblical accountto your purpose. We all know what you believe. You have chosen to ignore my challenge -- which means the obvious to me. Et al -- the result of this discussion has been very beneficial. It has given me a much stronger sense for what is critical in this discussion, namely the blood-lineage of Christ, the importance of the confession that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, a deeper appreciation for the meaning of "Son of Man." I better understand why Matthew began his gospel with the genealogy and why he singled out David and Abraham.And, I must say that I appreciate Col 1:19-23and Gal 3 even more than before. The Col passage for what it tells us about the mission of Christ; the Gal passage for making it clear just exactly where our blesssings lie (within Christ). Anyway -- thanks to those who offered a contribution. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD writes: Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time. No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actually believe that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical. He came in our likeness JD - not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is unbiblical. If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin. Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways? What I am saying is that God will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone has to adjust it won't beHim. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !! Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities. Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described. So? Are you telling me that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the pre-flood folk the ones who died - all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to them? In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
g, did you get my check? jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ifyou're thinkin' of askin' JCs Momma,pray shedoesn't ask himto handle it for her On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:15:54 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..I wonder what[ppl] might be thinking after reading .. I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cORRECTION
Correction immediately below. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean, I hope that you are NOTcoming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh. This is a very serious matter. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I invite you to read again Peter's sermon in Acts 2. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. No Bill - I didn't write it as a challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is that Jesus came to do good and to heal all who were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him. Looks to me like Paul could just as easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case or is that too difficult in Greek? I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill Then why doesn't Paul say that in the book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk that way amongst men. cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
:-) -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: H.I wonder if there are any new TT subscribers today? And if so, I wonder what they might be thinking after reading some of our posts! :-[ Judy Taylor wrote: I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean, I hope that you are coming to a decision that Jesus in the flesh was not God in the flesh. This is a very serious matter. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I invite you to read again Peter's sermon in Acts 2. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not surprise me. I did answer the question. Paul was not addressing a challenge against Jesus' humanity. That heresy sprang up later. John addresses it. No Bill - I didn't write it as a challenge. Paul is just making a statement of fact which is that Jesus came to do good and to heal all who were oppressed of the devil for God was WITH him. Looks to me like Paul could just as easily have writted "for he is God" if that were the case or is that too difficult in Greek? I certainly do believe that God was with him, Judy; in fact, I also believe he was God. Bill Then why doesn't Paul say that in the book of Acts? We know that the risen Christ is "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" but he didn't walk that way amongst men. cd: Bill if there is anything that came out of thisdiscussion it is making me rethink the Jesus as God idea. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
