date:20060131


Very good post.

jd

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



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: [TruthTalk] A review of Victor Shepherd

[At least] Two kinds of knowing -- scientific and persoanl. At some point, our faith cannot be rationally explained. It must simply be accept in faith.

The only way one can truly know another -- actually, let's say it this way, the only way I can know you is for you to fully surrender to me. Shepherd calls it "defenseless personability." And the bible puts it this way --- You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free.

truth cannot be detached from the person of Christ. the only way for me to know Him is for Him to become defenseless and that is exactly what He did.

A word of caution, as I go over my notes of Shepherd's discussion - a word of caution as we wind down on this discussion of the God/Man Jesus. "Transcendence is not the value of the cross -- victory is" (Victor Shepherd)

In answer to the question , "What is God?" Shepherd answers "He is the inter-relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit."

The purpose of our fellowship is to present each man mature in Christ (Col 1:28.) It is in this maturity that God illuminates the Christian concerning those things freely given (I Co 2:6-16)

Revelation is the activity of God in reconciliation and illumination is the result of this activity [Shepherd} and when one goes to I Cor 2:6-16, he sees this very realtiy described. As maturity is apprehended, illumination becomes more profound..

Moral people always believe they are righteous !!! (V.S.)

'Only in the apprehension of the redemptive cure can we know of the seriousness and degree of our estrangement" (VS). A wonderful point. We only know how sick we really were when are we are fully cured !! Maturity, then, is the apprehension of the Cure (?) or should I say "the apprehending of the Cure."

I tried to be specific when quoting or referencing VS . Other comments, sadly, are mine.

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

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/30/2006 7:48:23 PM
 Subject: 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.
--

cd: I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying that
Christ did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we are
after salvation nor before salvation. As a born again believer I have flesh
and blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child of
Abraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to become
more Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become a
heathen.
-

 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.

cd: But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not saying
he wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down to the
lowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had no
claim on Him.
--

 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
---

cd: We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side of
the coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken -we saw that
your side was cleaner-with more beauty than what you described to us. 
-

 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] Free Speech

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/30/2006 7:55:04 PM
 Subject: 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.

cd: When the women with the issue of blood touched the robe of Christ-Her
faith lead her to the source and when she touched the source virtue flowed
from the source. It took both faith and the source of virtue to heal
her.Are you saying that B. Hinn holds this type of virtue David? Will God
allow the unclean to clean the Holy?Lev 11:34  Of all meat which may be
eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that
may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.   If one looks past the
Newspaper headlines and reads Dave Hunt article I sent last attachment then
truth will appear.I am not saying it is wrong to preach at Universities
that promote sin but in my belief both B.Hinn and the Universities are
wrong-and should be told so.

 David Miller.

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

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

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

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

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









- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 8:50:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

cd: Well put Judy. Christ did not come as our heathen state or He would also have been a heathen and unfit for sacrifice.But He did bring us to His state which we call Christianity-Christ like.I hope my spelling is correct on "heathen"-I am awfulll at spelling:-)



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


-

[TruthTalk] Jesus is the Father?









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 8:55:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


That does not surprise me.

cd: If one thinks and asks why to things Bill-he will see more.He is of the Godhead but there was a difference.



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









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 8:51:36 PM 
Subject: 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
cd: ??

- 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 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

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









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 10:33:43 PM 
Subject: 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
cd:I am saying it now if as there seems to be some confusion what I meant-Christ is the second Adam, Bill. But they were made/fashioned two different ways. The first Adam: Made a living soulThe second Adam: Made quickening spirit. Youguys are/have been say that they are the same in "every respect"They were made/fashioned differently Bill. May God bless you with this understanding.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 





- 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

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









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 11:23:33 PM 
Subject: 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. "
---
cd: Then you are saying that there is no difference between the lost and the saved. Tell me is the rich man that lifted His eyes up from hell also among the brethren G. ?

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David




cd: Don't let you thoughts drop to the gutters guys-take them into captivity-resist!




- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:00:40 AM 
Subject: 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?









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 11:41:08 PM 
Subject: 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.'
cd: JC- G:-)

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. "

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




From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't 
think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying thatChrist did not 
appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we areafter salvation 
not before salvation. As a born again believer I have fleshand blood I can 
choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child ofAbraham due to 
abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to becomemore Christ like. 
Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become aheathen.

Exactly ... A good example of his separation from 
sinners and the fallacy of all
the "buddy/brethren" talk before the cross (other than 
the disciples that is) can
be seen at the time of the passover in Jerusalem we are 
told that "many believed
in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did" 
but get this "But Jesus
DID NOT commit himself unto them, because he knew all 
men, and needed
not that any should testify of man; for he knew 
what was in man" (Jn 2:23-25)

But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not 
sayinghe wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down 
to thelowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan 
had noclaim on Him.

Sure does; what was in man wasn't in Him that's for 
sure ie: Jesus tells his
disciples "Hereafter I will not talk much with you 'for 
the prince of this world
cometh and hath nothing in me" (Jn 
14:30). Obviously he had something in
the rest of mankind but NOTHING IN HIM. No Adamic 
cursed nature to have
to overcome and no 'iniquities' of the fathers. Satan 
had absolutely no ground
in him.

We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side 
ofthe coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken -

Amen; the Romans 5 One for all and all for one formula 
is also off base. I
don't see Jesus praying for the whole world before he 
becomes one for all.
Do you Dean?? So it is not as automatic as your 
doctrine makes it appear.

 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not 
caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you arenot  
hearing Bill properly. He did answer your question. Many 
heresiessprang  up and those who wrote in the first few centuries 
after the Biblicalwriters  addressed these heresies. You 
personally don't understand this becauseyou  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 thereis  about his Divinity. That 
is why Christianity divided so much overexactly  who Jesus 
was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. 
Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying toclaim 
 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 haveyour  husband describe the tail side. 
Do this while you both are looking atthe  same coin. Do you 
both describe it the same way? No. Why? You areboth 
 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 usingBible.  Deal with that 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] Tolerance Offense




Hello Christine:

If you and your dad are NOT on the side of "neither 
male nor female" as per the Scriptures then, you (both) are on the side of 
"suppression". Also, that would place you (both) against the Lord on this issue. 
What is happening to you at the U of F is simply comparable to the practice 
within your family "unit" so, get over it. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 30, 2006 17:52
  Subject: 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.-ChristineLance 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 21:19
  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.
  
  
  What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! 
  Autos

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

You, David, like many, are FOR THE BIBLE, as you put it, when you massage it 
to your own ends. One the FEMALE free speech issue you are simply 
unbiblical. Deal with it, David (by extension Christine, Mrs. David etc.)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 30, 2006 19:55
Subject: 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.

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

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

Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by 
the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's 
statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. 
either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. 
either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, 
and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and 
if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my 
heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I 
impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems 
to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when 
the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is 
there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the 
comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have 
occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically 
speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

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









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is good." statement of Chris..

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




Amen Dean!!
That too. There is so much that indicates Jesus 
is not as orthodoxy paints Him. I want reality
I don't want him to be less than or more than God's 
Word reveals. I want to know the Truth that 
will make me/us free.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:03:07 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of 
understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is 
good." statement of Chris..

  
  From: 
  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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.

[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?




From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't 
think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying thatChrist did not 
appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we areafter salvation 
not before salvation. As a born again believer I have fleshand blood I can 
choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child ofAbraham due to 
abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to becomemore Christ like. 
Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become aheathen.

Exactly ... A good example of his separation from 
sinners and the fallacy of all
the "buddy/brethren" talk before the cross (other than 
the disciples that is) can
be seen at the time of the passover in Jerusalem we are 
told that "many believed
in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did" 
but get this "But Jesus
DID NOT commit himself unto them, because he knew all 
men, and needed
not that any should testify of man; for he knew 
what was in man" (Jn 2:23-25)

But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not 
sayinghe wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down 
to thelowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan 
had noclaim on Him.

Sure does; what was in man wasn't in Him that's for 
sure ie: Jesus tells his
disciples "Hereafter I will not talk much with you 'for 
the prince of this world
cometh and hath nothing in me" (Jn 
14:30). Obviously he had something in
the rest of mankind but NOTHING IN HIM. No Adamic 
cursed nature to have
to overcome and no 'iniquities' of the fathers. Satan 
had absolutely no ground
in him.

We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side 
ofthe coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken -

Amen; the Romans 5 One for all and all for one formula 
is also off base. I
don't see Jesus praying for the whole world before he 
becomes one for all.
Do you Dean?? So it is not as automatic as 
this doctrine makes it appear.

 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not 
caught up on reading, but I just have to say, Judy, that you arenot  
hearing Bill properly. He did answer your question. Many 
heresiessprang  up and those who wrote in the first few centuries 
after the Biblicalwriters  addressed these heresies. You 
personally don't understand this becauseyou  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 thereis  about his Divinity. That 
is why Christianity divided so much overexactly  who Jesus 
was: God or man. Well... he was BOTH! Duh. 
Everybody is just describing two sides of the same coin and trying toclaim 
 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 haveyour  husband describe the tail side. 
Do this while you both are looking atthe  same coin. Do you 
both describe it the same way? No. Why? You areboth 
 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 usingBible.  Deal with that David 
Miller.



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

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

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

It's not and what's more you can be "as you say"
assumed and still be unhealed. Every worldly person is
not headed for heaven Megohmrod or whoever you
are. Nothing is written in the flesh of your heart that you don't

accept and embrace ie: Love Him and do what he
says - which of course means repenting and turning
from darkness
and error - All of these formulas you have are just that. Formulas. God deals with ppl on a
personal basis and yes
he judges nations and groups also.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by
the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's
statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not.
either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did
not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was
not.

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect,
and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus,
and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh
of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why
am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other?
this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in
the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with
Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill
afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord
andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient
experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a
human being preparing me?

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

RE: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ




cd: Typical Augustinian response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could fall.



1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 
He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as to determine which state Christ appeared in.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM 
Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

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









- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:08:09 AM 
Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am saying thatChrist did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we areafter salvation not before salvation. As a born again believer I have fleshand blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child ofAbraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to becomemore Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become aheathen.

Exactly ... A good example of his separation from sinners and the fallacy of all
the "buddy/brethren" talk before the cross (other than the disciples that is) can
be seen at the time of the passover in Jerusalem we are told that "many believed
in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did" but get this "But Jesus
DID NOT commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed
not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (Jn 2:23-25)

But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not sayinghe wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He reduced himself down to thelowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had noclaim on Him.

Sure does; what was in man wasn't in Him that's for sure ie: Jesus tells his
disciples "Hereafter I will not talk much with you 'for the prince of this world
cometh and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14:30). Obviously he had something in
the rest of mankind but NOTHING IN HIM. No Adamic cursed nature to have
to overcome and no 'iniquities' of the fathers. Satan had absolutely no ground
in him.

We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side ofthe coin. When we looked at your side we find you are mistaken -

Amen; the Romans 5 One for all and all for one formula is also off base. I
don't see Jesus praying for the whole world before he becomes one for all.
Do you Dean?? So it is not as automatic as your doctrine makes it appear.

cd: No -Judy I also do not. I am beginning to suspect that someone has stolen our words so that these guys cannot hear what we are actually saying as they cannot get past the flesh and blood issue and deal with the two different states of man no matter how many times we say we know Christ was flesh and blood as we are. I see the same thing at WCU. Pray for them is allI know to do at this point and keep trying-maybe God will help these poor misleadguys.

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ




How very deceiving ...
No, Jesus is the covenant and we get in on it if 
invited ...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:19:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  cd: Typical Augustinian 
  response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God 
  because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could 
  fall.
  
  
  
  1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for 
  examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the 
  world are come. 
  1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth 
  take heed lest he fall. 
  He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as 
  to determine which state Christ appeared 
  in.
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM 
Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit 
of anti-christ


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of 
anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled 
by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. 
Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it 
is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or 
he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I 
was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in 
effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection 
of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten 
into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of 
teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues 
the other? this seems to methe more important question. 
why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I 
have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why 
am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by 
my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient 
experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a 
human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

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









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:27:38 AM 
Subject: 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. 
---
cd: I think I did answer this one-but if not let me know and I will try and do so-it is hard to keep up with so many- Lance needs to quite sending so much info-so let's blame Lance -it works for me:-)
---

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

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









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 11:45:22 PM 
Subject: 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
cd:So I ask you How is one able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit for men?

[TruthTalk] What is sin?

Dean, what is your definition of sin and would you please give me a few examples of "sin."

You say in this post that before your being "born again," you had no choice but to sin. So, are you saying that the person outside Christ HAS to commit adultery when faced with that temptation? That, when faced with the temptation, an unbeliever HAS to drive drunk?

What is your definition and and some examples, please.

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 1/30/2006 7:48:23 PM Subject: 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. -- cd: I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am sayin
g that Christ did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we are after salvation nor before salvation. As a born again believer I have flesh and blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child of Abraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to become more Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become a heathen. - 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. cd: But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not saying he wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He re
duced himself down to the lowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had no claim on Him. -- 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 --- cd: We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side of the coin. When we l
ooked at your side we find you are mistaken -we saw that your side was cleaner-with more beauty than what you described to us. - 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?

You are denying that Christ was God in the flesh !!

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is good." statement of Chris..

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


You are a false prohetess , Judy. This is an absolutely terrible decision for Dean. Such a decision puts him outside the very Christ he claims to serve. A terrible terrible thing to decide. 



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

Amen Dean!!
That too. There is so much that indicates Jesus is not as orthodoxy paints Him. I want reality
I don't want him to be less than or more than God's Word reveals. I want to know the Truth that 
will make me/us free.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:03:07 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is good." statement of Chris..


From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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.

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


Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 

In the KJ , the translation is "in all things" which is the same, OF COURSE, as "in all respects." I do not use the KJ in my studies. 

Christ did what no other man had done - He lived that covenant partnership perfected with the same human nature you and Judy and Adolph Hitler have. When it suits your purposes, you and Judy often argue " he wouldn't ask us to do something we couldn't do" while over looking the fact that with the Old Law, God asked His people to live it perfectly !! Christ told the unborn again woman, "Go they way and sin no more." go refigure.

Further, if you think I believe that you are sinless in your daily walk, right now, well, sorry but I do not believe that. 

There is only one kind of human flesh and Judy's constant misuse of I Cor 15 does not contradict that statement. 

jd


jd






- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 9:15:56 PM 
Subject: 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.


cd: John where is the words" in every respect" in the below Hebrews 2:14-18? As a lost heathen I was a captiveof Satan was Christ also a lost man held captiveby Satan? There is a difference. Can you hear the answer I am giving to your question?



Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 

.

-- 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..

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



Dean, you did not answer but, if you now denying that Christ was God in the flesh, don't bother. 

jd







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:27:38 AM 
Subject: 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. 
---
cd: I think I did answer this one-but if not let me know and I will try and do so-it is hard to keep up with so many- Lance needs to quite sending so much info-so let's blame Lance -it works for me:-)
---

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 ,

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


Of course God has invited every single human being

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



How very deceiving ...
No, Jesus is the covenant and we get in on it if invited ...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:19:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd: Typical Augustinian response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could fall.



1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 
He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as to determine which state Christ appeared in.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM 
Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One
cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go
into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him.
Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free
speech.

The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather
assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your
religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what
would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on
your organization and the people who run it.They want to regulate
what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do
next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own
viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?

The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only
allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and
talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and
protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say,
"let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with
them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was
said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who
embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.

If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there
and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to
create a bigger buffer between them and the church. Do you realize how
much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their
expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them
in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why
not the Street Preachers too?

David Miller.

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

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy

DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of
free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet
are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to
us that use theF word. when it offends
them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers'
antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why
LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul
when they perceive their rights to free speech
being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city
street. David Miller wrote:

Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF
word.

David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free
speech, do you.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech



The question is this: what are YOU teaching, Dean? You failed to answer my questions. Here they are , once again:



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. 

And why did God give the Commandments to a people who had no chance of obeying those laws - or do you argue that they were "born again?" 

In Acts 15, Peter sees the Law as a burden.  In that same chapter, when the leadership of the church (apostles and elders) had the chance to bind the law on all believers - should I say "bind the Commandments ?" -- they chose NOT to do this. 

but this discussion is not nearly as important, to me, as your decision to deny that Jesus came in the flesh (such being a statement of Christ's divinity.) That decision has brought home to me that in these discussion, we are not playing games. That Christ is or was God in the flesh means that man is not saving man and distinguishes the Christian faith from all the others. I worship Jesus Christ in the flesh just as the angels did (Heb 1:6) . Sorry that you do not. Actually, your decisionisquite upsetting to me. 

jd





jd









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

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity 
expresses itself in many ways.  The homosexual agenda and the feminine 
movement is part of it.  It is the spirit of Antichrist.  The concept is 
expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7.  Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:37
(37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of 
women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM
Subject: 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 the F 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 understanding of 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

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy


I did generalize too much. I know some who do not wave underwear and preach condemnation to the masses. Talk about generalizing !!

But what I have seen expressed on this site and (especially) on that other site is the very thing I had in mind when I wrote the post in question. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

John, the list of SP's that you got on is indeed profane. I tried to help them with a list, but they are so unruly and unable to keep the foul language off that I cancelled the list,taking a lot of criticism for doing so. In fact, I tried this twice over the years. 

Nevertheless, they wear their faults openly before all, and they are not necessarily worse than the white-walled Christians who appear proper on the outside. Furthermore, not all Street Preachers are as you describe. Some, like myself, deplore the foul language,and we constantly reprove thosepreachers who seem to think that they are in a men's locker room and are therefore free to behave in a profane manner. I believe in living in public and private the same life. No different behavior from me in the men's locker room, or in this Octagon that you have observed. 

In many ways, trying to generalize about Street Preachers is like trying to generalize about the homeless. It is such a diverse group, that it cannot be done fairly. I support street preachers, and now my church is supporting one as well. There are some that you can trust not to misrepresent the faith, and it is a shame that your church is not out there in the streets compelling people to follow Jesus Christ. Every church should have a few street ministers within it.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:40 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

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Lance wrote:
 Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but
 isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended.

You are mischaracterizing Judy.  Judy believes that Jesus is real.

Lance wrote:
 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.

I am never comfortable giving offense, and I never purposefully give 
offense.  I feel just like Jesus on this, blessed is he who shall not be 
offended in me.

Lance wrote:
 David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than
 the 'Z' word, IMO.

I disagree.  Zircon is used to illustrate the meaning that Judy reads into 
the meaning of likeness.  It is helpful in the discussion because then I 
can say, ok, but a Zircon is a counterfeit diamond and Jesus is not a 
counterfeit, or likeness sometimes means close imitation in one way but 
not another, but sometimes likeness is caused by a genetic relationship, 
such as in identical twins.

Even sinners know not to use the F word, and even  profane gentlemen know 
not to say it around women and children, but unfortunately in today's 
culture, even educated Christian women will purposefully be obscene and 
speak that which is not holy in order to make a point.  Shameful.  It was 
not a necessary choice of words.  It did not help make her point.  It only 
served to offend those of us who cast down every evil thought and 
imagination.

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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is 
matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' 
she is not an influence for good (teaching.)


It may be that you take exception to 'language' more than I.

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

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 31, 2006 12:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'



Lance wrote:

Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but
isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended.


You are mischaracterizing Judy.  Judy believes that Jesus is real.

Lance wrote:

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.


I am never comfortable giving offense, and I never purposefully give
offense.  I feel just like Jesus on this, blessed is he who shall not be
offended in me.

Lance wrote:

David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than
the 'Z' word, IMO.


I disagree.  Zircon is used to illustrate the meaning that Judy reads into
the meaning of likeness.  It is helpful in the discussion because then I
can say, ok, but a Zircon is a counterfeit diamond and Jesus is not a
counterfeit, or likeness sometimes means close imitation in one way but
not another, but sometimes likeness is caused by a genetic relationship,
such as in identical twins.

Even sinners know not to use the F word, and even  profane gentlemen 
know

not to say it around women and children, but unfortunately in today's
culture, even educated Christian women will purposefully be obscene and
speak that which is not holy in order to make a point.  Shameful.  It was
not a necessary choice of words.  It did not help make her point.  It only
served to offend those of us who cast down every evil thought and
imagination.

David Miller.

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


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





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

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

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

cd wrote:
 If it [flesh] was weak show me one biblical
 account where it was weak-and we will discuss
 that

Here are two:

Matthew 4:2-3
(2) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an 
hungred.
(3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, 
command that these stones be made bread.

Luke 22:42-46
(42) Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: 
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
(43) And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
(44) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it 
were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
(45) And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he 
found them sleeping for sorrow,
(46) And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into 
temptation.

Also, the following passage speaks of striving against sin and says we 
should consider him. The clear implication is that he also strove against 
sin, just like we do.

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

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Judy's theology, David, may be 'the spirit of the Antichrist'. I believe 
that it is.

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

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 31, 2006 12:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity
expresses itself in many ways.  The homosexual agenda and the feminine
movement is part of it.  It is the spirit of Antichrist.  The concept is
expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7.  Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:37
(37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of
women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM
Subject: 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 the F 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 understanding of 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

cd:
 I disagree David-why seek Hinn for the healing
 and not Christ.

They are not seeking Hinn instead of Christ.  They are seeking Christ.  God 
gives different gifts to different people.  Some have gifts of healings.  I 
have been to five of Kathryn Kuhlman's meetings, and I believe that she was 
a handmaiden of the Lord used in healing.  I have never been to a Benny Hinn 
meeting, so I know nothing about him.  I can tell you that I have been to a 
faith healing meeting before where I believed the man was a fraud.  He had 
three television cameras on him and the Curtis Hixon auditorium in Tampa 
filled with people when I went up on the stage during his meeting and told 
him that he was not of God.  If the Lord ever does lead me to a Benny Hinn 
meeting and I perceive him to be a fraud, you can expect to see me up on 
stage rebuking HIM, not standing out on the sidewalk rebuking the people 
going in.

cd:
 How about Kevin. Did you know that he preached
 at Hinn events when you went out with him in Florida?

No, I did not know that.

CD wrote:
 Did you rebuke him for it?

No.

CD wrote:
 I have a better idea -why not cut to the chase
 and just rebuke Hinn instead of good men?

If I ever meet the man and see works of his that deserve rebuke, and the 
Lord gives me the freedom to rebuke, I'm sure I will.  Until then, I will 
not speak to that which I do not know about.  I am aware of good reports 
coming from his ministry.  You apparently rely on the medium of glorified 
gossip for your information.  That is not wise.  I assume that you have 
never met this man who you condemn and speak evil of.

cd:
 Because I believe they are being mislead
 into sin David-strange fires.

Do you KNOW this or do you simply strongly suspect this?  Are you healing 
those who are coming, or are you simply robbing them of faith in Jesus 
Christ for healing?

Cd wrote:
 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?

There are many factors that can cause someone to make a mistake in judgment. 
In any case, this would be best followed up by me talking with Kevin.  My 
concern is only for the sick who seek healing.  I care for the sick, and I 
do not think believers should ever do anything that hinders a person's 
faith.  These Street Preachers did the same thing with one of their own, 
Willy, who had esophogeal cancer.  He wanted to believe God for healing, and 
these doubting Street Preachers discouraged him and robbed his faith from 
him.  Willy died.  Shame on those Street Preachers who would not agree with 
him in prayer for his healing, but instead chose to rebuke him.  Shame on 
those Street Preachers who doubt the God who heals.

cd wrote:
 Be wise and don't rebuke the brethren for
 doing what the Spirit directs.

Not one Street Preacher has ever told me that the SPIRIT directed them to 
protest a Benny Hinn service.  Not one.

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?

Only if you are sectarian.  Street Preachers are not some elite club of 
super Christians.  As a group, they are just like every other believer 
serving the Lord.  Some are holy and perfect.  Some struggle with sin.  Some 
are profane.  Some are reprobate and are going to be burning in the lake of 
fire.

cd wrote:
 Have you not noticed after all these years our discussion
 become heated when I feel that the brethren need defended
 or protected.

Yes.  As I told you years ago, you have not broken free of a religious 
spirit which divides into sects.  The Baptists don't have it all right.  The 
Wesleyans don't have it all right.  The Mormons don't have it all right. 
The Presbyterians don't have it all right.  The Street Preachers don't have 
it all right.  No religious sect has it all right.  The only one who is 
right is Jesus, and we should reprove, rebuke, and exhort one another until 
we are all found complete in Him.

cd wrote:
 How about teaching against Calvinism to warn
 of danger-I had to defend against you until the
 water got muddy?

Huh?  I don't know what you are talking about.

cd wrote:
 I agree this is very strange-why not chose your
 topic with more wisdom? I am not angry only
 expressing truth David.

I really do not know what you are talking about.

cd wrote:
 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?

I'm starting to think you might have had a mole in some paltalk meeting 
pretending to

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David

Judy wrote:
 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?

The only foundation for our adoption is that Christ became flesh.  Without 
that, nobody can be adopted into the household of God.

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

Judy wrote:
 I have never denied that Christ came in the
 flesh so the above accusation is that of a lying
 spirit.

Judy, you are not hearing Bill if you accuse him of a lying spirit.  Let me 
show you why I say this.

Bill had asked you:
 I believe he was fruit of David's genitals according
 to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the same?

You responded:
 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?

What we have here is you denying that Jesus was the fruit of David's 
genitals according to the flesh.  Then you asked, why is the flesh 
connection so important.  Bill answers you:

1 John 4:3
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have 
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The connection of Jesus to the flesh is important because Scripture makes it 
important.  It warns us that the spirit of antichrist denies that he was 
flesh.  It seeks to make people believe that he was not really in the flesh, 
but that he had a different nature.  There is great power that comes to 
believers when they perceive that he was just like us in all points, except 
that he never succombed to temptation and sinned.

You have some tough passages of Scripture to explain, Judy.  How about 
starting with Acts 2:30,

Acts 2:30
(30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

It seems pretty clear to me that you answered Bill No, in direct 
contradiction to this passage.  How are you going to respond?

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?

cd:
 I don't think you are hearing us properly David.
 WE/I am saying that Christ did not appear in
 our heathren state-He appeared in the state we
 are after salvation nor before salvation.

I agree with this.  This is not what I heard from Judy.

Do you believe that as a baby, Jesus cried and caused his parents some loss 
of sleep and grief?  Did he fall and skin his knee as a kid, and make 
mistakes, maybe hitting his thumb with a hammer, stuff like that?  If he 
were swinging a bat at a baseball, would he perhaps miss sometimes, even 
strike out?

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] Free Speech

cd wrote:
 When the women with the issue of blood touched
 the robe of Christ-Her faith lead her to the source
 and when she touched the source virtue flowed
 from the source. It took both faith and the source
 of virtue to heal her. Are you saying that B. Hinn
 holds this type of virtue David?

I don't know, Dean.  You keep trying to bait me into passing judgment on 
Hinn.  My objection is not to them rebuking Hinn.  My objection is when they 
rebuke people going to the meeting without providing them the real thing.

When I preach at the University, I seek the betterment of those to whom I 
preach.  I share about a relationship with Jesus.  I teach about the value 
of marriage and the family.  I urge them to trust the Bible as an authority 
of right and wrong.  I educate them about what the Bible teaches about the 
moral choices they have been indoctrinated to reject.  I will sometimes pray 
with people and heal the sick.  I do not see this the same light as what 
Paul Mitchell described doing at a Benny Hinn meeting.

David Miller. 

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

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

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

Judy wrote:
 There is so much that indicates Jesus
 is not as orthodoxy paints Him.

It seems to me that traditional orthodoxy is closer to your point of view. 
That is what led to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the Roman 
Catholic Church.  Logic tends to mandate that if Jesus was free of the taint 
of original sin, then so was Mary.

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] What is sin?







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 9:40:41 AM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] What is sin?

Dean, what is your definition of sin and would you please give me a few examples of "sin."

You say in this post that before your being "born again," you had no choice but to sin. So, are you saying that the person outside Christ HAS to commit adultery when faced with that temptation? That, when faced with the temptation, an unbeliever HAS to drive drunk? 

What is your definition and and some examples, please. 

jd



cd: Sin is the action- or wanting the action- of any thing contrary to the commandmentsof God.Christ also laid down rules of conduct of a Christian but these all come under the commandments in one form or another.Example :To know to do good and not do it sin-to do good would be to love thy neighbor and one would do by not coveting his goods,bearing false wittiness,.. These all fall under the commandment of love the Lord with all thy heart and you neighbor as your self. Love of God is the first table -or the first four commandments-love of thy neighbor is the second table or love thy neighbor as thyself which include the last six commandments. I do not read having no choice but to sin in this post? We always have a choice but as serving Satan we did his will unto sin.


-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [Original Message]   From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To:   Date: 1/30/2006 7:48:23 PM   Subject: 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.  --   cd: I don't think you are hearing us properly David. WE/I am sayin
 g that  Christ did not appear in our heathren state-He appeared in the state we are  after salvation nor before salvation. As a born again believer I have flesh  and blood I can choose to sin-but chose not to-I am a spiritual child of  Abraham due to abdoption from the heathen state-I was changed to become  more Christ like. Jesus did not lower himself to that level to become a  heathen.  - 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.     cd: But there is also much about His divinity also David.We are not saying  he wasn't flesh and blood- you seem to think He r
e duced himself down to the  lowest state of sin -where we were. Yet he clearly states that Satan had no  claim on Him.  -- 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  ---   cd: We don't think you guys are clearly/accuritely describing you side of  the coin. When we
 l ooked at your side we find you are mistaken -we saw that  your side was cleaner-with more beauty than what you described to us.  - David Miller. --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Title: Interesting observation

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26
Subject: Interesting observation

Somewhat ironically, given Judy's 
remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here 
is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture:
Veneration of Mary was 
another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their 
predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving 
and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being 
has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this 
role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and 
kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, 
magnifying our Lord’s humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It 
is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual 
sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on 
behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or 
co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity 
with sinners. 
Indeed, the heart of 
Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval 
Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by 
their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, 
but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to 
God.
D --No virus found in this outgoing 
message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 
267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Lance wrote:
 Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence
 that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy
 influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence
 for good (teaching.)

Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ?

Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body of 
Christ?  I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false 
prophetess.  Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else?  How do 
you understand your function in the body of Christ?

I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side of 
Christ which I describe to her.  Maybe once you guys back off with your 
baseball bats and judgmental attitude, she will be in a better position to 
hear.  For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of 
Christ is not error nor heresy.  I affirm her position about Christ's 
Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity.  I'm just 
patient that she will, in time, 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy









- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:09:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech. 

The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?

The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.


If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church.
---
cd; Good post David-they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) Lonnie,Kevin,Ruben,and Larry Craft had a good time with their best. Larry C. also had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-)

 Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too?

David Miller.



- Original Message - 
From: Dave 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. when it offends them?  When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: 




Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. 

David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law.  Speech is 
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as 
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder.  You don't really believe in free 
speech, do you.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation



Amen to this. It seems obvious to me that if Christ was not God in the flesh, His coming to earth was quite unnecessary. All of the business of saving man could have been done by God without actuallyappearing in the flesh

jd

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




- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26
Subject: Interesting observation

Somewhat ironically, given Judy's remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture:
Veneration of Mary was another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, magnifying our Lords humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity with sinners. 
Indeed, the heart of Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to God.
D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

The teaching of anti-Christ doctrine is not deserving of patience. It is far to dangerous a theology to be allowed without proper recognition. This forum is not a church. Judy's attendance, then, is "welcomed" on that basis. You, David, see "prophet(ess), apostle, bishop, evangelist and teacher " as offices within the church , as if "office" catches the full implication of each word. I believe that the more important consideration in defining one as a ... is to be seen in the activity of that person. Whoever said that Judy wasa false prophetess was probably looking to the way she functions on this forum. She functions as a prophetess or teacher just as surely as David Miller does. It is simply not important how she "sees" herself. What is important is what she preaches in the name of the Lord.

She has preached against the deity of the incarnate Christ for a good long while -- over a year. And I believe there is every reason to think that she came to this forum with that belief.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ? Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body of Christ? I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false prophetess. Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else? How do you understand your function in the body of Christ? I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side of Christ which I describe to her. Maybe once you guys back off with your baseball bats and judgmental att
itude, she will be in a better position to hear. For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of Christ is not error nor heresy. I affirm her position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/31/2006 1:11:19 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

 cd:
  I disagree David-why seek Hinn for the healing
  and not Christ.

 They are not seeking Hinn instead of Christ.  They are seeking Christ. 
God 
 gives different gifts to different people.  Some have gifts of healings. 
I 
 have been to five of Kathryn Kuhlman's meetings, and I believe that she
was 
 a handmaiden of the Lord used in healing.  I have never been to a Benny
Hinn 
 meeting, so I know nothing about him.  I can tell you that I have been to
a 
 faith healing meeting before where I believed the man was a fraud.  He
had 
 three television cameras on him and the Curtis Hixon auditorium in Tampa 
 filled with people when I went up on the stage during his meeting and
told 
 him that he was not of God.  If the Lord ever does lead me to a Benny
Hinn 
 meeting and I perceive him to be a fraud, you can expect to see me up on 
 stage rebuking HIM, not standing out on the sidewalk rebuking the people 
 going in.
--
cd:I don't know anything about Kathryn and I believe healing is good. Hope
more people get involved but not people like Hinn.If one is seeking Christ
then Hinn is not the right direction. Are the preachers rebuking the people
going to these events or telling them about a fraud? 
--

 If I ever meet the man and see works of his that deserve rebuke, and the 
 Lord gives me the freedom to rebuke, I'm sure I will.  Until then, I will 
 not speak to that which I do not know about.  I am aware of good reports 
 coming from his ministry.  You apparently rely on the medium of glorified 
 gossip for your information.  That is not wise.  I assume that you have 
 never met this man who you condemn and speak evil of.

cd: My information comes from men of God many respected street preachers
and now Dave Hunt- David- not glorified news papers-I also have wintriness
the wrong they do in reporting the story.
---

 cd:
  Because I believe they are being mislead
  into sin David-strange fires.

 Do you KNOW this or do you simply strongly suspect this?  Are you healing 
 those who are coming, or are you simply robbing them of faith in Jesus 
 Christ for healing?

cd: If there is any healing done I would not be doing it- God
would.Speaking the truth is not robbing anyone-lying is.

 Cd wrote:
  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?

 There are many factors that can cause someone to make a mistake in
judgment. 
 In any case, this would be best followed up by me talking with Kevin.  My 
 concern is only for the sick who seek healing.  I care for the sick, and
I 
 do not think believers should ever do anything that hinders a person's 
 faith.  These Street Preachers did the same thing with one of their own, 
 Willy, who had esophogeal cancer.  He wanted to believe God for healing,
and 
 these doubting Street Preachers discouraged him and robbed his faith from 
 him.  Willy died.  Shame on those Street Preachers who would not agree
with 
 him in prayer for his healing, but instead chose to rebuke him.  Shame on 
 those Street Preachers who doubt the God who heals.
-

cd: I knew Willie well and miss him-he had a gentle nature.But he should
not have let anyone give him doubts-and not all sickness gets healed as
Paul and Timothy both demonstrated. God allow some things for His own
reasons.
-

 cd wrote:
  Be wise and don't rebuke the brethren for
  doing what the Spirit directs.

 Not one Street Preacher has ever told me that the SPIRIT directed them to 
 protest a Benny Hinn service.  Not one.
-
cd: How many have you asked? When you speak to Kevin for the follow up ask
him this question?
--

 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?

 Only if you are sectarian.  Street Preachers are not some elite club of 
 super Christians.  As a group, they are just like every other believer 
 serving the Lord.  Some are holy and perfect.  Some struggle with sin. 
Some 
 are profane.  Some are reprobate and are going to be burning in the lake
of 
 fire.
  --
cd: True but most I know are good people-the cursing you spoke is only a
very few older nuts who won't listen but I suspect Satan sends his into our
group too.

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

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/31/2006 1:47:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 cd:
  I don't think you are hearing us properly David.
  WE/I am saying that Christ did not appear in
  our heathren state-He appeared in the state we
  are after salvation nor before salvation.

 I agree with this.  This is not what I heard from Judy.
---
cd: Wow after all this time -Thank you God someone understands what I am
saying-Say it again David?
-

 Do you believe that as a baby, Jesus cried and caused his parents some
loss 
 of sleep and grief?  Did he fall and skin his knee as a kid, and make 
 mistakes, maybe hitting his thumb with a hammer, stuff like that?  If he 
 were swinging a bat at a baseball, would he perhaps miss sometimes, even 
 strike out?

cd: No I don't-nor did He stump his toe-
Mat 4:6  And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:
for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in
their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot
against a stone. I will have to give the baseball thing some thought. 

 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] Free Speech

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/31/2006 1:53:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

 cd wrote:
  When the women with the issue of blood touched
  the robe of Christ-Her faith lead her to the source
  and when she touched the source virtue flowed
  from the source. It took both faith and the source
  of virtue to heal her. Are you saying that B. Hinn
  holds this type of virtue David?

 I don't know, Dean.  You keep trying to bait me into passing judgment on 
 Hinn.
-
cd: No sir, I am not doing that David . I am not that way-I am trying to
make you think about what type of man Hinn. 
-

  My objection is not to them rebuking Hinn.  My objection is when they 
 rebuke people going to the meeting without providing them the real thing.

 When I preach at the University, I seek the betterment of those to whom I 
 preach.  I share about a relationship with Jesus.  I teach about the
value 
 of marriage and the family.  I urge them to trust the Bible as an
authority 
 of right and wrong.  I educate them about what the Bible teaches about
the 
 moral choices they have been indoctrinated to reject.  I will sometimes
pray 
 with people and heal the sick. 
---
cd: This all are good works David may I commend you for a good job/well
done sir.I had a young man come to me today afraid-he been sick for a while
and the doctors don't know what is wrong with him-he asked me for
prayer.Pray for him also.
--

 I do not see this the same light as what 
 Paul Mitchell described doing at a Benny Hinn meeting.
--
cd: I know P. Mitchell and he's a good preacher but I am not aware of what
he did at Hinn events-could you elaborate?
--

--
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: 1/31/2006 10:01:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You are denying that Christ was God in the flesh !!
cd: No I am not John. I am saying that there is a difference in Him and the One who is totally good. I view Christ as Lord in the flesh. Do you remember the piece of pie that is divided into three equal slices-representing the GodHead-I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is good." statement of Chris..

-- 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: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 10:13:36 AM 
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

Of course God has invited every single human being
cd; Of course John.

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



How very deceiving ...
No, Jesus is the covenant and we get in on it if invited ...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:19:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd: Typical Augustinian response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could fall.



1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 
He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as to determine which state Christ appeared in.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM 
Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation

Title: Interesting observation



cd:L The "F" word was enough for me.Debbie has nothing to teach me Lance.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 3:11:15 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26
Subject: Interesting observation

Somewhat ironically, given Judy's remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture:
Veneration of Mary was another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, magnifying our Lords humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity with sinners. 
Indeed, the heart of Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to God.
D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

Lance wrote:
 You, David, like many, are FOR THE
 BIBLE, as you put it, when you massage
 it to your own ends.

Not true, Lance.  The Bible is useful for instruction in righteousness.  It 
not not meant to be massaged to one's own ends.

Lance wrote:
 One the FEMALE free speech issue you are
 simply unbiblical. Deal with it, David (by extension
 Christine, Mrs. David etc.)

My views about the female free speech issue (whatever that is) come from 
the Bible.  I submit to the Bible's teachings on all matters.  Do you?

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

JD wrote:
 She has preached against the deity of
 the incarnate Christ for a good long while
 --  over a year.

This is not a proper characterization of what Judy believes.  It is 
difficult to discuss truth when one side constantly misrepresents what the 
other side believes.  Judy has never preached against the deity of Jesus 
Christ.  She has been attempting to emphasize the deity of Christ when faced 
with the suggestion that Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of his 
flesh.  These matters are not easily understood.  I personally understand 
how someone might have trouble with the suggestion that Jesus Christ was 
flesh and blood just like you and me.  I had difficulty with the concept 
when I first considered it.  It was easier for me because nobody told me 
about it... I just read it in the Scriptures and believed it.

It was easier for those living at the time to accept his humanity.  They saw 
him everyday, and they observed his humanity far better than any of us. 
What was revolutionary for them was not that he was a man, but that he was 
the Son of God, the Messiah.

After his ascension, then the Gnostics started with the idea that he really 
was not a man at all, but he only appeared to be a man.  It was a lot easier 
to make up stuff about Jesus after he was no longer standing among them.

In these days where people can't even agree on when life begins, or whether 
a spirit and soul exist, or only a spirit, or only a soul, or neither spirit 
or soul but only physical body exist well, the question gets 
complicated.  I don't expect everyone to comprehend immediately.  We testify 
to the truth, we share Scripture, we express truth, and through patience we 
help others comprehend the miracle of the incarnation, God made flesh.  I 
have little doubt that Judy will see this well enough.  The biggest obstacle 
to her right now is that the loudest proponents of this view treat her very 
unfairly.  That speaks louder to her than any arguments that you might make.

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?

Dean, do you think in school that Jesus never missed a question on a test in 
his whole life?  Did he ever drop his keys, was his penmanship always 
perfect, when he drew a picture, was it the most beautiful picture ever 
drawn?  What about his physique, was he the most handsome man ever created, 
did he have any freckles or moles on his body, did he ever bite his 
fingernails, did he ever get any dirt under his fingernails?  When he walked 
the road in sandals, did his feet ever get dusty?  Do you think he ever 
experienced a sunburned skin?  Did he ever experience the problem of getting 
a speck of foreign material in his eye?  Just how far removed from the 
normal experiences of life do you think Jesus was?  Why be born of a woman 
at all if he was not going to experience how we mortals live our lives?

David Miller.

-

 Do you believe that as a baby, Jesus cried and caused his parents some
loss
 of sleep and grief?  Did he fall and skin his knee as a kid, and make
 mistakes, maybe hitting his thumb with a hammer, stuff like that?  If he
 were swinging a bat at a baseball, would he perhaps miss sometimes, even
 strike out?

cd: No I don't-nor did He stump his toe-
Mat 4:6  And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:
for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in
their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot
against a stone. I will have to give the baseball thing some thought.

 David Miller




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

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

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

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

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


I am rethinking that as Christ said only God is good-I now find that one piece is sweeter than the other-but God gave all power to Christ so He now is also sweeter-think about it and slow down stating on what I believe-thanks bro..cd


jd responds: 

You write it - I think you believe it, Dean. Tell mein the following exactly where I am speaking for you. 

Look at the following: I say "I hope you are not coming to a decision that Jesus ... was not God in the flesh" and you say " "That seems to be the direction .."

I will not slow down when referencing what you write. 

jd






- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: 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
cd; That seems to be the direction but I want the deeper level of understanding John-revolving around the:" Why call me goodonly God is good." statement of Chris..

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

So tell Judy.

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 10:13:36 AM 
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

Of course God has invited every single human being
cd; Of course John.

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

How very deceiving ...
No, Jesus is the covenant and we get in on it if invited ...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:19:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

cd: Typical Augustinian response by way of Calvin.I readhim as saying: Why should one fear God because we are in the covanent and he has no fear that He too could fall.

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 
He also fail to deal with the two different states of man as to determine which state Christ appeared in.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 7:36:14 AM 
Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. 

the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me?

RD

http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


I love it. We can blasphemy the very nature of Christ but that is fine. Surely I am not the only one who actually saw the point of Debbie's discussion. As I remember, she was trying to make a point about the use of the word "sodomite." And her presentation worked - except for one thing; she forgot she was addressing the morally righteous. 

The shock and awe you all experienced with the use of the f'in word is the same dismay many feel when the word sodomite is used. She brought out that passionate discontent rather brilliantly. 

jd

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




cd:L The "F" word was enough for me.Debbie has nothing to teach me Lance.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 3:11:15 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation


- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26
Subject: Interesting observation

Somewhat ironically, given Judy's remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture:
Veneration of Mary was another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, magnifying our Lords humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity with sinners. 
Indeed, the heart of Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to God.
D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

The reasons for her difficulty and the history lesson constitute information that is more than obvious, David. Unnecessary.

She most definitely hasdenied that Jesus is God in the flesh.But you, of course, seem to think there are other matters that are more important, so maybe you missed it.

I don't likegoing to the archieves, but on this one, I most definitely will. She believes there are at least two kinds of human "flesh," the one Jesus possessed and the one the rest of us own. Shedoes not believe in the physical blood-lineage of Jesus toDavid and Abraham. And she does not believe that Christ was actually God in the flesh.

What are earth do you think we have been arguing about for the last two or three weeks ??? !!!

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: She has preached against the deity of the incarnate Christ for a good long while -- over a year. This is not a proper characterization of what Judy believes. It is difficult to discuss truth when one side constantly misrepresents what the other side believes. Judy has never preached against the deity of Jesus Christ. She has been attempting to emphasize the deity of Christ when faced with the suggestion that Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of his flesh. These matters are not easily understood. I personally understand how someone might have trouble with the suggestion that Jesus Christ was flesh and blood just like you and me. I had difficulty with the concept when I first considered it. I
t was easier for me because nobody told me about it... I just read it in the Scriptures and believed it. It was easier for those living at the time to accept his humanity. They saw him everyday, and they observed his humanity far better than any of us. What was revolutionary for them was not that he was a man, but that he was the Son of God, the Messiah. After his ascension, then the Gnostics started with the idea that he really was not a man at all, but he only appeared to be a man. It was a lot easier to make up stuff about Jesus after he was no longer standing among them. In these days where people can't even agree on when life begins, or whether a spirit and soul exist, or only a spirit, or only a soul, or neither spirit or soul but only physical body exist well, the question gets complicated. I don't expect everyone to comprehend immediately. We testify to the truth, we share Scrip
ture, we express truth, and through patience we help others comprehend the miracle of the incarnation, God made flesh. I have little doubt that Judy will see this well enough. The biggest obstacle to her right now is that the loudest proponents of this view treat her very unfairly. That speaks louder to her than any arguments that you might make. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David




Bill wrote: I believe he was the fruit of 
David's genitals according to the flesh, Judy. Do you believe the 
same?


Judy replied: No . . 
.

Bill then replied: This should clarify any confusion Dean may have had 
about being in agreement with [Judy] in regards to Christ being a 
geneticdescendent of David et al.

To which cd's response was: ??


Dean, does this help to answer your questions? Or 
have I misunderstood you: You do believe that Christ was the fruit of David's 
genitals according to the flesh, don't 
you?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:15 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the 
  Root and the Offspring of David
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/30/2006 8:51:36 PM 
Subject: 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

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

David writesI affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much
as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity.  I'm just patient that she
will, in time, understand.


David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm
only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. But lest your statement
be misunderstood, I want to clarify that I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and
by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity
and holiness which could only be of divine derivation.

Bill



- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'


 Lance wrote:
  Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence
  that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy
  influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence
  for good (teaching.)

 Is Judy a teacher in the body of Christ?

 Judy, would you clarify what you perceive to be your function in the body
of
 Christ?  I seem to remember someone accusing you of being a false
 prophetess.  Are you are teacher or prophetess or something else?  How do
 you understand your function in the body of Christ?

 I have confidence that the Holy Spirit will help Judy understand the side
of
 Christ which I describe to her.  Maybe once you guys back off with your
 baseball bats and judgmental attitude, she will be in a better position to
 hear.  For the time being, her emphasis upon the holiness and purity of
 Christ is not error nor heresy.  I affirm her position about Christ's
 Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity.  I'm just
 patient that she will, in time, 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.

 --
 This message has been scanned for viruses and
 dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
 believed to be clean.



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

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

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




you wantthe 
what??

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You are denying that Christ was God in the flesh !!
  

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  Dean, I want the deeper level of understanding..

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'






On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:08 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:What was 
revolutionary for them was..that he was [both] a man,[and] that he 
was the Son of God..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation




yo, Bro, calm 
down--DaveH cantake you a deeper level intothe "F" word 
thanDebbieever thought of--just ask him very politely forhis 
greater revelation concerning JCs Momma

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:30:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  
  cd:L The "F" word was enough for me.Debbie has nothing to teach 
  me Lance.

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




..roflx666!

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:21:20 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  you wantthe 
  what??
  
  On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
You are denying that Christ was God in the flesh !!

  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus 
of God's Nature?

Dean, I want the deeper level of understanding..

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

He has invited all to the banquet JD but most are too busy to bother which is evident by their rhetoric. So too many will not be properly attired when the wedding feast actually happens.
Sadly!!!

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





cdwrites: So I ask you How is one 
able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit 
for men?

  
  And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a 
  living being." The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
  -- 1 Corinthians 15.45-47
The first Adam was made from dust and received 
from Godthe breath of life. His mandate was one: "Be fruitful and 
multiply."But rather than doing what he was told, Adam chose instead to do 
the inexplicable. Adam'ssin brought death not only to himself but also to 
all of his descendants -- Jesus included.What did the first Adam produce? 
He produced death. 
The second Adam was born into the fall of the 
first. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came 
together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the 
firstAdam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to 
sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his 
person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), 
defeating what had brought death to them all. Then Christ paid the ultimate 
price: he died on their behalf. Ah, but because he had defeated in his own flesh 
that which had condemnedthe flesh of Adam, death had no power to hold 
him.Now in ascension the Second Adam sends his spirit to give life to 
thosewho could only die without him. Who is the Second Adam? He is the 
life-giving Spirit.
Bill
Bill

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ




what level is this 
from?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 04:08:01 GMT "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  He has invited all to the banquet JD but ..too many will not be properly 
  attired when the wedding feast actually happens.

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

David, Actually I am saying the same as Dean. I believe Jesus walked about in a flesh and blood body. I just don't accept that it was a fallen (under the Adamic curse) flesh and blood body which is what I am understanding the rest of you to be saying. Dean is the only one whose Christology I can relate to.

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

I'd have to disagree with every point made by Bill in his post about the two Adams; Bill you are totally into flesh and blood - even your theology is earthly. The first Adam was fruitful and he did multiply - in the flesh. He had Cain, Abel, Seth and no telling how many others since he lived for 967 or so years.
The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the fall. He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life from His birth. He didn't generate any physical life though and he died unmarried and childless. judyt

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ

It's from the parable of the wedding fest which you may have relegated to some other dispensation. However, I believe it will happen and those who have not been feasting on His Word but have been occupied with the dregs of this fallen world will get to spend eternity being entertained by what they have chosen. judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt

Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ


Did I miss an introduction??!! 

Anyway -- the post below is spoken as well as a works salvationist can muster. Proper wedding attire is not the key to my salvation. Actually, I don't even own a suit !! 

Now, on the other hand, if you reference Gal 3:26-27and the "putting on Christ,"I stand corrected.   That attireis the only attire that works for me. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
He has invited all to the banquet JD but most are too busy to bother which is evident by their rhetoric. So too many will not be properly attired when the wedding feast actually happens.
Sadly!!!

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

David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through men of the cloth.Also I believe that going on and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre.
What is too difficult for God? Does he have to do things the same way every time? Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure and holy - without the taint of the first Adam. This is what I believe. judyt

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

David, Can you imagine any ordinary 12 year old boy being so caught up in the things of God that he goes to the temple, loses all track of time, and amazes the men of the cloth there with the understanding shown by his questions? Then when his parents find him after a three day absence he asks them if they didn't know that he had to be about his Father's business...
judyt

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




Judy, you write as though you think you are disputing my 
comments; however, you are not:

  1. "Bill you are totally into flesh and blood - even 
  your theology is earthly." Not only is this an ad hominem 
  argument, it is also untrue. If of late my focus has been upon Christ's human 
  nature, it is only because the humanity of Christ has been to topic of our 
  discussion. At no time, however,have I failed to also uphold the truth 
  of his divinity. This post included.
  2. "The first Adam was fruitful and he did multiply - in the 
  flesh." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy: 
  Adam'ssin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his 
  descendants -- Jesus included.However, it was only after the fall 
  that he did this; hence all of his posterity were born under the curse of sin 
  -- Jesus included.
  3. "The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not 
  born into the fall." Christ was born of the fruit of David's 
  genitals, Judy. He is the Offspring of David and the Seed of Abraham. Both 
  David and Abrahamare Adam's descendants; hence Christ is Adam's 
  descendant too. "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell 
  on all the face of the earth, . . ."(Acts 17.26) 
  4. "He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life 
  from His birth." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy. 
  But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came 
  together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the 
  firstAdam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was 
  not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. 
  Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention 
  Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. 
  
  5. "He didn't generate any physical life though and he died 
  unmarried and childless." This so stupid as to not even 
  warrant a response.
Bill

  

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  I'd have to disagree with every point made by Bill in his post 
  about the two Adams; He had Cain, Abel, Seth and no 
  telling how many others since he lived for 967 or so years.
  The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the 
  fall. judyt-- 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?




JTwrites  Also I believe that going on 
and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre.

Why, Judy? Is it because it is biblical and you can't blame it 
on Orthodoxy? Christ was born the genetic descendant of David; he is 
thefruit of David's genitalsaccording to the flesh. 


Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:51 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as 
  divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through 
  men of the cloth.Also I believe that going on and on about David's 
  genitals is equally bizarre.
  What is too difficult for God? Does he have to do things the same way 
  every time? Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure 
  and holy - without the taint of the first Adam. This is what I 
  believe. judyt-- 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?

Christ is not the literal seed of David's genitals Bill and by your insistance that he is you have far more scripture to explain away than I do.
The reason the Messiah was to be born of the woman was because she is less responsible than Adam for the transgression. She was deceived, Adam was not. He shirked his responsibility and then chose to go with the woman rather than take a stand for righteousness. The curse comes by way of the father and Jesus is the ONLY one begotten this way. I could go on and on but I won't.
judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'

Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may.

What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God.

There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate.
Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested.

David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter.

But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on.

And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !!

-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of the scornful if I were you. judyt

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


We all know that I am the one who makes a big deal of Rom 5:12 and the part that says ".through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all BECAUSE ALL HAVE SINNED." 

Well, thank God for Billy T . Look to point #4:


4. "He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life from His birth." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the firstAdam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. 

I now have the language I need to connect what I see as critically important in 5:12 with the Adamic sin and consequence. Bill says "Christ's response to the fall was not to sin !!" And Paul is saying [of the rest of us] that our response to the 
Adamic situation was to go anddo likewise {because all have sinned] !! Such was (is) the nature of our response. 

jd
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Judy, you write as though you think you are disputing my comments; however, you are not:

1. "Bill you are totally into flesh and blood - even your theology is earthly." Not only is this an ad hominem argument, it is also untrue. If of late my focus has been upon Christ's human nature, it is only because the humanity of Christ has been to topic of our discussion. At no time, however,have I failed to also uphold the truth of his divinity. This post included.
2. "The first Adam was fruitful and he did multiply - in the flesh." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy: Adam'ssin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included.However, it was only after the fall that he did this; hence all of his posterity were born under the curse of sin -- Jesus included.
3. "The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the fall." Christ was born of the fruit of David's genitals, Judy. He is the Offspring of David and the Seed of Abraham. Both David and Abrahamare Adam's descendants; hence Christ is Adam's descendant too. "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, . . ."(Acts 17.26) 
4. "He is the Lord from Heaven; and was the Lord of life from His birth." As I acknowledge in my post, Judy. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the firstAdam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. 
5. "He didn't generate any physical life though and he died unmarried and childless." This so stupid as to not even warrant a response.
Bill



- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I'd have to disagree with every point made by Bill in his post about the two Adams; He had Cain, Abel, Seth and no telling how many others since he lived for 967 or so years.
The second Adam, contrary to your claim was not born into the fall. judyt-- 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 works-oriented theology is over-heated at this point. And misinformed. 

to think that the woman is not as infected as the man is nonsense. Job 25: 4 reads this wise: How then can man be righteous before God? And how can he be pure who is born of a woman?

-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Christ is not the literal seed of David's genitals Bill and by your insistance that he is you have far more scripture to explain away than I do.
The reason the Messiah was to be born of the woman was because she is less responsible than Adam for the transgression. She was deceived, Adam was not. He shirked his responsibility and then chose to go with the woman rather than take a stand for righteousness. The curse comes by way of the father and Jesus is the ONLY one begotten this way. I could go on and on but I won't.
judyt

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


What is too difficult for God? You use this very qustion to win the day. But I ask the same question of you. Indeed, Judy, if nothing is too difficult for God, then why can't God mean what He actually says concerning Jesus being from the you -know-whats of David !!!

-- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through men of the cloth.Also I believe that going on and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre.
What is too difficult for God? Does he have to do things the same way every time? Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure and holy - without the taint of the first Adam. This is what I believe. judyt

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


David writes: 




John wrote: I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, had no choice when it came to sin. I no longer believe that to be the case. Man does have a choice. Adam had a choice.

Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely. You are moving close to that position. Such leads to moral government theology and open theism. Make sure that is where you want to be.

David Miller. 



I really do not care where it might lead. Should I?? The fact of the matter is this: God expected Adam and Eve to do what He told them to do. He expected the same of Cain, of Abraham, of David, of Samson, of the Babylonians, of the people of Nineveh, those who listened to the Sermon on the Mount, to the adulterous woman - to us all. 

Adam , with the very same human nature I have, finally responds porrly to his condition and in so doing, changes his situation. Our response to that Adamic circumstance is to go and do likewise !! We all die because we have joined adam in his response to his human nature (Ro 5:12) Only Christ responds differently to the condition of the First Adam. 

It is not that we cannot accomplish great good - rather, that we will , given enough time, commit sin that condemns. We don't have to - but we will.

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

2006-01-31 Thread Dave Hansen





free speech has limitations.  We recognize that.

DAVEH:  Really!  Who determines those limitations?  In a theater,
governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not.  Same
with going into one's house.  And...the same can apply to standing
outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what
goes on in that house.  There are many circumstances (such as the time
of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is
lawful, and what is not.  The point is, that those things are
determined by law.  

    On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for
what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach
however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not
want to be heard.  However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it
seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech
protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear.

    For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? 
So far, nobody has made that claim.  There seems to be no rule beyond
the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up
at his whim.  Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free
speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules,
or a SP complains that he is offended.  At that time...the free
speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT.  

    Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do
something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to
provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of
speech is being impinged.  Seems to me that if you want the right to
bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when
others do likewise.

    However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they
want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect
to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or
not.  I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.

They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well
as inside.

DAVEH:  That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it
being that way.  Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh
DavidM!

buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their
own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to
say?

DAVEH:   That's kinda how I perceive heaven.  Those who want to
exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an
effort to offend others, may find themselves removed.  Isn't that the
way it works in TT?

The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue

DAVEH:    Who says???   Why do you conclude that, DavidM?  Do you have
Biblical support for that theory?

 I understand you guys invited James White.  Why not the Street
Preachers too?

DAVEH:   I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but
I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives
like in return.  IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces
of those he expects to listen to him.  My guess is that JW understands
the real nature of free speech, based on his experience
speaking to an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some
SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by
waving underwear on the sidewalk.

David Miller wrote:

  
  
  
  Dave, free speech has limitations.  We recognize
that.  One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no
fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and
start preaching to him.  Obscenity also is not considered acceptable
when we talk about free speech.  
   
  The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and
gather assemblies together in public places.  I think I do understand
why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to
privatize what would otherwise be a public area.  Nevertheless, such is
very telling on your organization and the people who run it.  They
want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as
inside.  What will they do next, buy all the property in the
world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their
own assembly to hear what they have to say?
   
  The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue,
not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those
outside to come in and talk with them.  If I had homosexuals or others
gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them
a platform.  I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say."  Then I would
discuss it with them.  I would ask if anybody else there wanted to
address what was said.  The truth has no fear of being challenged. 
Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.
   
  If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best
debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of
dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between

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