subject:"\[TruthTalk\] Original Sin"

In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   
There goes the nieghborhood [sic]



Written like a true anti-intellectual.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Kevin Deegan

Be on guard against any tampering with the Word, whether disguised as a search for truth, or a scholarly attempt at apparently hidden meanings; and beware of the confusion created by the senseless rash of new versions, translations, editions, and improvements upon the tried and tested Bible of our fathers and grandfathers. 
Martin R DeHaan
I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE GUILTY OF BEING OVERAMBITIOUS IN EARNESTLY 'CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH' (JUDE 3) THAN TO BE GUILTY OF COMPROMISE FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING OTHERS" (Bible Versions and Perversions. p. 31 1962 M R DeHaan).
TURN FROM THOSE WHICH ARE THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF DOUBT, AND TURN TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WHICH IS THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF FAITH. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS RELIABLE BECAUSE IT TELLS US AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, and not what some galaxy of scholars (who, however learned, are but mortals like ourselves) think it ought to say" (IBID p. 26).
He was a gravelly voiced KJV FUNDAMENTALIST preacher
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. 

He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' 

JT  > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."
 
He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' 
 
JT  > In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. 
 
He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. 
 
JT > The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.
 
He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' 
 
JT > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" 
 
He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. 
 
JT > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.
 
He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." 
 

JT  >  When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood
 was the result of supernatural conception
 
 I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know.
 
 Bill

 

- Original Message - 
From: Bill Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin









As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."

 
In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self"  The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.
 
When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take par

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Kevin Deegan

WOW all that to find out that PARTAKE means to UBS Lexicon:    metecho -- share in (something) ... 
Friberg Lexicon:    metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. 
Go Figure !
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way.
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Biil      never tire of offering your opinion on these matters.   A very beneficial post.   Your lexical aides are interesting.   When we get together, I will bring my 1935  A.T, Robertson Greek grammar  --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles  and hum or something !!   Cool.  JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
    
As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."  In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self"  The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.  When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception  Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be
 interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg Lexicon:    metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:    metecho --
 to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon:    metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon:    metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon:   metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to
 participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the
 eternal/di

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Kevin Deegan

"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   
There goes the nieghborhood[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  JD"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   "
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread ShieldsFamily









 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
10:33 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin



 

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.



Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered
intellectual.  

JD


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are
coming  !!   "

 

Spare us,
and send the Redcoats instead. Iz

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread ShieldsFamily









J  Can we
hear an Amen?  Iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
9:11 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin



 



This reminds me, I found the rest of the
saying ... :)





Architects cover their mistakes with
paint





Doctors cover their mistakes with sod,





Brides cover their mistakes with
mayonaise





Hypocrites cover themselves with ritual





Theologians cover themselves with words





(Should I add Greek ones?)

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:05:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 
jt: Yes - I agree with you - 
Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans 
have.  The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born 
with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was 
dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the 
Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive  "a 
measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our 
human spirit passes from death to life).  Any 
problems?
 
bt: Yes, big problems. You are making Jesus something other than human when you insist that he was 
equipped with things in his humanity that we are not in ours (i.e., a spirit 
that was alive to God whereas ours was dead), and then equip 
us with something in our humanity that he did not 
experience in his own person (i.e., a nature subject to the 
fall). 
 
jt: Do you believe the first 
Adam was "something other than human" also?  He had a human spirit that was 
alive to God since he fellowshipped with Him in the cool of the day.  What 
I am saying is that Jesus had the same human nature as the first Adam (before 
the fall) - and that he overcame in his personal life the areas where the first 
Adam fell (during the temptation in the wilderness). Yes Jesus  did 
experience our fallenness along with every sin you can and cannot imagine during 
those hours of darkness on the cross and this is the ONLY time he 
was separated from the Father ever - and this because of 
us.
 
Now humanity is a new creation in Christ's 
resurrection, born from above. And we receive the Holy Spirit if 
and when we believe the good news of our 
salvation. 
 
jt: Not "humanity" per 
se.  Only those who receive Him receive the POWER TO BECOME a son of 
God.  Just believing won't do much - because even the devils believe and 
tremble - Also remember Jesus' prayer in John 17? He wasn't praying for the 
world, only the ones God had given to him and those who would believe through 
them.
 
Jesus was alive to the things of God and 
so are we (because he defeated 
the powers which kept us in bondage), and if and when we stop 
believing the lies of this world and its father and believe instead in 
the good news of our salvation, we are able to 
respond to our Father in heaven, because he sends us the Spirit of Christ with 
which to guide us.
 
jt: We are not born into this 
world "alive to God" Bill, in fact we are dead in trespasses and sin (see Eph 
2)  Jesus was never ever "dead in trespasses and sin" other than during 
that 3hrs on the cross.  Yes he defeated principalities and powers but 
there are many who "believe" the good news who are still just as bound by them 
as they were before they believed.  So why is that?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Is this different from what 
you are saying above?
 
Yes, but never mind. I love you, Judy.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

I wrote  
>  Instead humanity was purified in relationship 
with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the 
humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God 
through the things he suffered. 
 
jt: How do we learn 
obedience by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to 
learn all over again when God prunes us personally?
 
For the limited sake of this discussion 
I should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his 
humanity was purified in relationship with his 
divinity in Christ's person throughout his life, the 
tyrants being defeated all along the way, and the his humanity 
'becoming perfected' in the process of learning obedience to God through the 
things he suffered." That would have been easier for you to understand. 

 
Nevertheless, in 
that he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, 
and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated 
it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that 
his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject 
him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out 
from the Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not 
eternal life, but the second death, for which their is no 
salvation.   Bill
 
jt: If I remember 
correctly Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is 
important to you.  But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated 
sin, death, and the devil.  Yes he did have victory over them in 
His own life and this is an example to us - But it is the cross that is 
the power of God and from the cross we receive power to overcome these 
things in our own lives.   When he ascended he gave gifts to men 
and it is when we receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons 
of God. (John 1:12)
 
Is this different from 
what you are saying above?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  I wrote  
  >  Instead humanity was purified in relationship 
  with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the 
  humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God 
  through the things he suffered. 
   
  jt: How do we learn 
  obedience by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to 
  learn all over again when God prunes us personally?
   
  For the limited sake of this discussion I 
  should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity 
  was purified in relationship with his divinity in 
  Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the 
  way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of 
  learning obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have 
  been easier for you to understand. 
   
  Nevertheless, in that 
  he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, and the 
  devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated it in all 
  humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that his 
  victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject him as 
  our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from the 
  Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not eternal 
  life, but the second death, for which their is no salvation.   
  Bill
   
  jt: If I remember correctly 
  Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is important to 
  you.  But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated sin, death, and 
  the devil.  Yes he did have victory over them in His own life and 
  this is an example to us - But it is the cross that is the power of God 
  and from the cross we receive power to overcome these things in our own 
  lives.   When he ascended he gave gifts to men and it 
  is when we 
  receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons of God. (John 
  1:12)
   
  Is this different from what 
  you are saying above?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin





Yes - I agree with you - 
Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans 
have.  The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born 
with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was 
dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the 
Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive  "a 
measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our 
human spirit passes from death to life).  Any 
problems?
 
Yes, big problems. You are making Jesus 
something other than human when you insist that he was equipped with things in 
his humanity that we are not in ours (i.e., a spirit that was alive to God 
whereas ours was dead), and then equip us with something in our humanity that he 
did not experience in his own person (i.e., a nature subject to the 
fall). 
 
Now humanity is a new creation in Christ's 
resurrection, born from above. And we receive the Holy Spirit if 
and when we believe the good news of our 
salvation. 
 
The spiritual-death thing can be pitched, 
because it is not a biblical concept. Jesus was alive to the things of God and 
so are we (because he defeated the powers which kept us in bondage), 
and if and when we stop believing the lies of this world and 
its father and believe instead in the good news of our salvation, we are able to 
respond to our Father in heaven, because he sends us the Spirit of Christ with 
which to guide us.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
  sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
  the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
   
  jt: ... If I were writing about the 
  subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
  that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
  RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
   
  BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
  rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
  heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  
   
  BT: I will point out once again the 
  deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
  not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
  form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
  not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and 
  partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been 
  otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could 
  somehow be tainted by his humanity 
   
  "that God 
  (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the 
  rest of fallen humanity"
   
   But you only 
  think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms 
  of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is 
  nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it 
  is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has 
  some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 
  Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin 
  Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a 
  union -- the union of two natures coming 
  together in one person: fully God, fully man. 
  
   
  jt: I don't relate to the 
  "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
  incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  
  I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst 
  us.  ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
  a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 
  
   
  This idea is not 
  difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
  Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we 
  would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that 
  we would somehow become little gods, that we wo

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


>"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !! 
> 
>
=
   Woe is us !!


Yes, indeed.   That does seem to be case.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin





I wrote  >  
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God 
in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity 
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the 
things he suffered. 
 
jt: How do we learn obedience 
by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to learn all over 
again as God prunes us?
 
For the limited sake of this discussion I 
should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity 
was purified in relationship with his divinity in 
Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the 
way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of learning 
obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have been easier 
for you to understand. 
 
Nevertheless, in that he is go'el, when he 
defeated sin, death, and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he 
defeated it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in 
that his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject 
him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from 
the Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not eternal 
life, but the second death, for which their is no 
salvation.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
  sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
  the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
   
  jt: ... If I were writing about the 
  subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
  that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
  RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
   
  BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
  rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
  heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  
   
  BT: I will point out once again the 
  deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
  not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
  form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
  not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and 
  partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been 
  otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could 
  somehow be tainted by his humanity 
   
  "that God 
  (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the 
  rest of fallen humanity"
   
   But you only 
  think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms 
  of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is 
  nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it 
  is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has 
  some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 
  Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin 
  Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a 
  union -- the union of two natures coming 
  together in one person: fully God, fully man. 
  
   
  jt: I don't relate to the 
  "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
  incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  
  I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst 
  us.  ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
  a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 
  
   
  This idea is not 
  difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
  Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we 
  would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that 
  we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new 
  divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks 
  can only be understood relationally, like a

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think 
Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that 
they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other 
times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I 
SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I 
agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying 
agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why 
in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the 
sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, 
and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- 
and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be 
sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you 
understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me 
what you think of it.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:06 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin
> Bill Taylor wrote:> > Hey, David, would you tell me how 
you> > interpret Jesus' words in the following> > verses 
(feel free to draw from a larger> > context if you like)?> 
>> > John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth.> > Your word 
is truth."> > John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify> > 
Myself, that they also may be sanctified by> > the truth."> 
> In a nutshell, this passage teaches us that the word of God is truth, 
and it > changes our hearts from that with which we were born.  It 
causes us to be > set apart as a peculiar people, a spiritual people, 
holy before God.  This > transformation occurs as we hear his word 
and believe his word, which is > what trusting in Christ is.  This 
passage also speaks about Jesus being our > perfect example.  He 
walked in this sanctifying process first, before us, > that we also might 
be sanctified by the truth.  It is by seeing how this > worked 
itself out in the life of Christ that we know that we can do it too, > 
and we can know what kind of response we will get in the world as we walk 
> like this.  This is the power of the incarnation.> > 
We might also observe here that it is not some magical work of Christ that 
> sanctifies us, but rather we are sanctified by the word of truth that 
finds > root in our hearts.  We are sanctified in the same way that 
Jesus was > sanctified -- by the word of truth.> > Peace be 
with you.> David Miller. > > > --> 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you 
will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.>

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
 
I think the attachment is a Word 
Perfect file.  I had troubles also.  Boyd is 'one of my boys'.  I 
highly enjoyed 'Repenting of Religion' but most of all find comfort in Boyd's 
attempts at understanding suffering and evil (and he is one of the few 
Trinitarians who takes on spiritual warfare).  While at the end of the 
day I would probably reject Open Theism I wholeheartedly appreciate its 
attempts at challenging our ideas of suffering, prayer, and knowledge.  
There is much in the Open view of God that is worth hearing and 
digesting.
 
Jonathan lurking at Lance's 
desk  
Hi Jonathan & Lance - Sorry G. - they 
couldn't open it :).  Actually it was Lance I was referring to as I know he 
likes Gregory Boyd who apparently isn't only into Open Theism - he also promotes 
the Perichoresis dance.  I don't disagree with his thesis that 
unconditional love is where it's at - only with his methods of how to get from 
here to there.   I thought this Review interesting, WDYT?  
judyt
 
ALL YOU NEED IS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
A Judgmental Assessment of Judgmentalism is predictably 
full of Contradictions
Reviewed by John Wilson - From Christianity Today 
2-10-05
It must have sounded like 
a suitably edgy title: Repenting of Religion. Why on earth, the slightly 
shocked reader is supposed to ask, of all the things to be repentant about, 
should we repent of religion?
Because, Gregory Boyd explains, springing the trap, 
religion is all about "getting life from the rightness of our behavior," a 
fatally delusive sense of self-satisfaction sustained by perpetually judging 
others and finding them wanting.
Such judgment, Boyd arguesbased on his 
Bonhoeffer-influenced reading of Genesisis in fact the primal sin from which 
all other sins derive. Yet most evangelical churches, the senior pastor of 
Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, writes, utterly fail to recognize 
this; indeed, their very identity depends on sinful, self-righteous judgment. 
And while evangelicals are particularly egregious in this regard, the whole 
church stands indicted: "What we shall find is that, as has been the case with 
almost all religions throughout history, the Christian religion has to a 
significant extent become the defender of and promoter of the Fall rather than 
the proclaimer of the Good News that alone can free us from the 
Fall."
And again, this is the verdict Boyd renders on "large 
segments of the body of Christ": "Tragically, they promote the essence of the 
Fall as though it were salvation." The remedy, as Boyd's subtitle indicates, is 
to turn from judgment to unconditional love: "The only conclusion about other 
people that God allows us and commands us to embrace is the one given to us on 
Calvary: People have unsurpassable worth because Jesus died for 
them."
It is the business of "each believer" to "focus on his or 
her own relationship with God. Rather than being concerned with whether others 
are walking in faith, we each should be concerned with whether we ourselves are 
walking in faith." (There is a place for "appropriate judgment," Boyd allows, 
but only among disciples who are in "intimate contexts in which people have 
invited one another into their livescontexts such as the small house churches 
all first-century Christians participated in"where it takes the form of 
"discernment and loving feedback.")
So far does the policy of nonintervention extend, Boyd 
tells us, "the church must always remember that it has no business confronting 
people outside the covenant community, even leaders of other religious groups 
who are leading people astray." After all, Jesus "did not confront religious 
leaders in other cultures and religions; his concern was only with religious 
leaders who were thwarting God's will within God's covenant community at that 
time."
Perhaps these quotations from Boyd's book will suggest 
what a strange brew it is, a book riven by self-contradictions and flawed by a 
hermeneutic so naïve it beggars belief. Railing against judgment, Boyd issues 
sweeping judgments against the church throughout its entire historyjudgments 
that rest almost entirely on sheer assertion.
In evangelical churches, Boyd claims, "the sins we 
declare ourselves to be against are invariably selected to not target 
ourselves." Really? In the church where my wife and I are members, Faith 
Evangelical Covenant Church in Wheaton, Illinoisas in all the churches we have 
regularly attendedthe sins our pastor warns us against are as mundane and 
deadly as those illuminated in The Screwtape Letters.
Boyd caricatures the evangelical response to 
homosexuality, quite sure in his judgment that what motivates evangelicals on 
this issue is simply a sinful desire to feel morally superior. He refuses to 
extend to them the understanding he chastises them for failing to extend to 
others, understanding that comes only when we "get on the inside of their 
stories."
Mocking other Christians for their "system" of evalua

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
 
jt: ... If I were writing about the 
subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
 
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
 
Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old Adamic 
sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue over whether 
or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is the same as 
saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along 
with the rest of fallen humanity?  
 
BT: I will point out once again the 
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and partly 
man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been otherwise. 
This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be 
tainted by his humanity 
 
"that God 
(Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest 
of fallen humanity"
 
 But you only think 
this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an 
alloy. But your idea of Jesus is nothing other than 
the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea of a 
demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the 
offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not 
all of the powers of a god" (The American 
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by 
Houghton Mifflin Company). The person of Jesus was not an 
alloy; he is a union -- the union of two natures 
coming together in one person: fully God, fully man. 

 
jt: I don't relate to the 
"alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  I 
don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us.  
ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 

 
This idea is not 
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we would 
be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that we 
would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new 
divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks can 
only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together to make 
one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a 
union. 
 
jt: A husband and wife come 
together sexually as 'one flesh' which is a physical act. The Godhead is one 
Spirit which is a whole other kind of oneness.
 
That is what happened in 
the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine nature; they formed 
a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was in now way tainted by 
the fallenness of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. 

 
jt: If Jesus was born with an 
Adamic nature he would have to have that taint if it comes through 
procreation.  However, it appears that Adam was held responsible in the 
garden and men were held responsible for the spirituality of their families 
under the Old Covenant. DavidM and I were discussing this in a 
biological way or by looking at natural generation.  However, I note that 
the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not give Jesus a genealogy after the 
flesh.  Matthew traces the generations from Abraham through Isaac (the 
son of Promise) to David and on to Christ (the Promise) and in Luke 
the genealogy goes all the way back to Adam genealogically and ends with Christ 
the son of Joseph (as was supposed) and we know that this is not so - which 
gives Jesus a spiritual rather than a natural genealogy - don't ask me to 
reconcile this with Greek syncretism.
 
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in 
Christ's person throughout his life, the tryants 
being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" 
in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered. 

 
jt: How do we learn obedience 
by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to learn all over 
again as God prunes us?
 
Think of the two natures 
in the one person of Christ as a union and you wi

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Terry Clifton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !! 
 

=
Woe is us !!
 "
 

--
"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] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread David Miller

Bill Taylor wrote:
> Hey, David, would you tell me how you
> interpret Jesus' words in the following
> verses (feel free to draw from a larger
> context if you like)?
>
> John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth.
> Your word is truth."
> John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify
> Myself, that they also may be sanctified by
> the truth."

In a nutshell, this passage teaches us that the word of God is truth, and it 
changes our hearts from that with which we were born.  It causes us to be 
set apart as a peculiar people, a spiritual people, holy before God.  This 
transformation occurs as we hear his word and believe his word, which is 
what trusting in Christ is.  This passage also speaks about Jesus being our 
perfect example.  He walked in this sanctifying process first, before us, 
that we also might be sanctified by the truth.  It is by seeing how this 
worked itself out in the life of Christ that we know that we can do it too, 
and we can know what kind of response we will get in the world as we walk 
like this.  This is the power of the incarnation.

We might also observe here that it is not some magical work of Christ that 
sanctifies us, but rather we are sanctified by the word of truth that finds 
root in our hearts.  We are sanctified in the same way that Jesus was 
sanctified -- by the word of truth.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Terry Clifton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter and John had a learning curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were
unlearned' is past tense baby
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant
men
 

=
Now it's professor Peter and doctor John.
--
"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] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Lance Muir




I think the attachment is a Word Perfect 
file.  I had troubles also.  Boyd is 'one of my boys'.  I highly 
enjoyed 'Repenting of Religion' but most of all find comfort in Boyd's attempts 
at understanding suffering and evil (and he is one of the few 
Trinitarians who takes on spiritual warfare).  While at the end of the 
day I would probably reject Open Theism I wholeheartedly appreciate its 
attempts at challenging our ideas of suffering, prayer, and knowledge.  
There is much in the Open view of God that is worth hearing and 
digesting.
 
Jonathan lurking at Lance's desk  


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 13:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  Judy,
   
  I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't 
  read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say 
  that he is one of our "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is 
  way into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while 
  back -- they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But 
  he is not one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still 
  too Arminian for my liking; although he has done some good work relating 
  to the problem of evil.
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

    Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin

Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - 
TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is 
a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
be interested.  The reviewer points out the 
obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - 
just
all love and dancing with no responsibility.  
Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of 
  engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply 
  impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with 
  one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are 
  sufficiently similar to do so. 
   
  jt: Their gospels are 
  sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of 
  engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Judy,
 
I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't 
read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say 
that he is one of our "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is way 
into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while back -- 
they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But he is not 
one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still too Arminian 
for my liking; although he has done some good work relating to the problem 
of evil.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT 
  is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
  are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is a 
  review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
  be interested.  The reviewer points out the 
  obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just
  all love and dancing with no responsibility.  
  Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of 
engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply 
impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with 
one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are 
sufficiently similar to do so. 
 
jt: Their gospels are 
sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of 
engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Big mistake corrected below in BOLD
UPPERCASE!, smaller ones corrected, too.

- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:00
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:

I wrote > Never mind, Judy, I found it.
Your statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan
of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It
seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the
obscurity of his definition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing
about the subject today I would not even bother with all that and
I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so
many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came
up with the term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable
even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened
that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill
that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born
with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand
and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on
the other which is the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has
now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen
humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of
"Jesus" was not an amalgamization in the sense that his two natures
came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming
brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a different kind of
new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet dissimilar from
what they both would have been otherwise. This is what you propose
above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his
humanity ("that God (Emmanuel) has now
taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen
humanity"). But you only think this way
because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy. But
your idea of Jesus is nothing other than the syncretism
Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea of a demigod
that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a
mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is
a union -- the union of two natures coming together in one
person: fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms
of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed
that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not
suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we
would be a new divine substance similar to God. No, the
"one" to which he speaks can only be understood relationally, like a
husband and a wife come together to make one flesh. They do not become
an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a union. That is what
happened in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine
nature; they formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was
in NO way tainted by the fallenness of humanity in
the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life,
the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through
the things he suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But
think of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have
major problems with everyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I wrote > Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your
statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the
Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he
should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of
his definition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing about
the subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not
even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate
this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the
term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even.
I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is
the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill that
we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old
Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue
over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is
the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's
nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus"
was not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came
together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His
two nature did not fuse to become a different kind of new substance,
partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both
would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity
of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity ("that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's
nature along with the rest of fallen humanity"). But you only think this way because you are thinking of
Jesus in terms of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is
nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it
is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being
"the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers
of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a
union -- the union of two natures coming together in one person:
fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we
would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting
that we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new
divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks
can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together
to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance;
they become a union. That is what happened in the person of Christ between
his human nature and his divine nature; they formed a union, not an alloy.
Therefore God was in now way tainted by the fallenness of
humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the
tryants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming
perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he
suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But think
of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have major
problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll have
problems with his humanity, and you will have problems with his divinity.
You will be saying things like "Jesus did not come here as God," on one day,
and he "took on part, but not all" of humanity, i.e., "the flesh but
not the blood" on the next. Repent of your Greek concepts, Judy, and think
like Jesus, a Jew. There is no excuse for continuing in ignorance and
unlearnedness once you have heard the truth.
All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot
that notion in the foot - think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
toda

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

BT: I was just trying to understand why you would 
say such things as "Jesus did 
not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as 
God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why 
you would say such things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess 
it's not a 
problem.  Hm: Where are 
the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his 
head.
 
jt: I say this Bill because to begin 
with noone has ever seen God and lived to tell ...  Even at Mt. Sinai 
Moses only saw His hinder parts
and still had to put a veil over 
his face so as not to scare the people.  The Israelites had sense enough 
not to want to go near that mountain because they would have been 'consumed' by 
His presence.  This is the kind of glory that was layed aside and left in 
heaven when Jesus came to earth to take upon Himself the body God had 
prepared for him in the womb of Mary.

   
  
Bill had asked (for the second time): Was 
Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here 
as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
 
jt answered: Have you 
ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill?  One can 
force scripture to validate anything when they come with a 
strong preconceived notion.
 
Jesus came here as the 
Son of God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He 
first saw the Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in 
and of Himself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel 
and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?  Why is this 
a big deal? In 
His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the 
wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 
10:4)
 
What's the 
problem??
 
BT: I was just trying to understand why you 
would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and 
"... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I 
still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such 
things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a 
problem.  Hm: Where are 
the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his 
head.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Lance Muir




One of Alan Arkin's greatest roles.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 11:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Gary your 
hatred is thinkly veiled.Of course it is thinkly 
  veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  
  JD"The intellectuals are coming;   the 
  intellectuals are coming  !!   
"

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 4:32:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

(NB:she can't lose 'cause she can't be 'hit')

:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt


Actually, Judy, if you would take to time to read G's post, you would find a clear and positive statement about your intellectualism.   I did not read it as a slam to you.   Not at all   -    if anything, G was giving folks like me a point of view that allows for differing intellectualism from you.  It helped me to understand you a little more.  


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.

Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  

JD


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   "

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread ttxpress




Peter and John had a learning 
curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were unlearned' is past tense 
baby
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy 
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   of Peter and John and perceived 
  that they were unlearned and ingnorant 
men

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




This reminds me, I found the rest of the saying ... 
:)
Architects cover their mistakes with paint
Doctors cover their mistakes with sod,
Brides cover their mistakes with mayonaise
Hypocrites cover themselves with ritual
Theologians cover themselves with words
(Should I add Greek ones?)
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:03:41 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your 
Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way. Bill

  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biil    never tire of offering your 
opinion on these matters.   A very beneficial 
post.   Your lexical aides are interesting.   When we 
get together, I will bring my 1935  A.T, Robertson Greek grammar  
--- we can stand above the book, holding lite 
candles  and hum or something !!   Cool.  
JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific 
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: 


  As it relates to the 
current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy 
wrote   >   Jesus 
partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's 
blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood 
he also himself likewise took 
part of the 
same."

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is 
  the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, 
  but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you 
  (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
  
   
  jt: To me it no longer matters 
  about DeHaan and the meaning of this Greek Word.  If I were writing about 
  the subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even 
  sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this 
  with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the 
  term.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  There is a 
  whole lot more involved in this than a few Greek words and a pile of 
  Lexicons.
   
  When we discussed this 
  earlier I was writing to DavidM who for some reason also believed (back 
  then anyway) that Jesus was the same as us in every way except that he never 
  acted out to actually commit a sin - a notion which I found and still 
  find abhorrent. I had DeHaan's book about the blood here at the time and this 
  was (as you note) his argument. However, since then I have done some homework 
  on my own about the subject.
   
  All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot 
  that notion in the foot - think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, 
  today, and forever."
  Yesterday he was the second member 
  of the Godhead.  God is a spirit (Jn 4:24).  So what part of Jesus 
  the man was "Emmanuel" God with us?  In what way is this comparable to 
  the fallen Adamic race?
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are 
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the 
same.' 
  
JT  > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children 
are 
partakers of flesh and 
blood he also himself likewise took 
part of the 
same."
 
He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human 
children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of 
Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' 

 
JT  > In 
this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be 
partakers of flesh and 
blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise 
took 
part of the 
same. 
 
He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely 
different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. 
 
JT > The word "took part" as 
applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied 
to the children.
 
He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 
'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' 
 
JT > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's 
self" 
 
He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 
'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's 
children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. 
 
JT > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to 
"share fully" so that all of Adam's 
children share fully in Adam's flesh and 
blood.
 
He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 
'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take 
both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh 
part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." 
 

JT  
>  When we read that JESUS "took part of the 
same" the word is 
METECHO which means "to take part but 
not all" The children take 
both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only 
part, that is, the flesh part, 
whereas the blood was the result of supernatural 
    conception
 
   I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That 
  would be interesting to know.
   
   Bill
  
 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Bill 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sen

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-12 Thread Lance Muir




A smattering of applause from those who perceived 
the choice of 'thinkly' veiled to have been intentional. However Jt's 'deflector 
shields' allowed her to remain unscathed by Gary's 'phonton torpedoes'. Now 
we're talkin' 'rules of engagement'. (NB:she can't lose 'cause she can't be 
'hit')

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 06:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  So, moderation today means jumping in to stir 
  the pot and to notify all as to whose side you are on, along with 
  identifying and card filing those in the discussion?.  Gary your hatred 
  is thinkly veiled.
   
  The observations sound familiar though: 
  
   
  "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and 
  perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they 
  took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus".
   
  So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone 
  who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He 
  sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt
   
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

this is crucial--all 
posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 
'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, 
she 
maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly 
equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth'
 
in the background, like 
'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the 
hermeneutic in play is that unlearnedness 
rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without 
learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical 
dynamic
 
to account simultaneously for 
(e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual 
comments--parallel bias against those who know by 
or through learning together--requires some 
intelligence 
 
how could one cut 
through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
 
this is a high magnitude 
moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, 
enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the 
foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, 
too
 
G
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 
"Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  And I still don't 
  understand, for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
  things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




So, moderation today means jumping in to stir the 
pot and to notify all as to whose side you are on, along with identifying 
and card filing those in the discussion?.  Gary your hatred is thinkly 
veiled.
 
The observations sound familiar though: 

 
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and 
perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they 
took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus".
 
So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone 
who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He 
sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  this is crucial--all 
  posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 
  'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, 
  she 
  maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly 
  equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth'
   
  in the background, like 
  'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in 
  play is that unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, 
  bible' posts laced with the 
  authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learning appears to 
  be the operative hermeneutical dynamic
   
  to account simultaneously for 
  (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual 
  comments--parallel bias against those who know by 
  or through learning together--requires some 
  intelligence 
   
  how could one cut 
  through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
   
  this is a high magnitude 
  moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, 
  enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing 
  helps our readers to follow the discussion, too
   
  G
   
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 
  "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
And I still don't understand, 
for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your 
Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  Biil  
      never tire of offering your opinion on these 
  matters.   A very beneficial post.   Your lexical 
  aides are interesting.   When we get together, I will bring my 
  1935  A.T, Robertson Greek grammar  --- we 
  can stand above the book, holding lite candles  and hum or something 
  !!   Cool.  JDIn a message dated 
  2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
      

As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature 
  of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   Jesus partook of human flesh 
  without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 says 
  "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also 
  himself likewise took part of the 
  same."  
  In this 
  verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be 
  partakers of flesh and blood, and 
  then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise 
  took 
  part of the 
  same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely 
  different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word 
  translated "took part" implies "taking part in something 
  outside one's self"  The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means 
  to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share 
  fully in Adam's flesh and blood.  When we read that JESUS 
  "took 
  part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not 
  all" The 
  children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that 
  is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural 
  conception  Hi, Judy. I realize that the 
  above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the 
  subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I 
  thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am 
  wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say 
  that metecho means "'to take part but not 
  all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this 
  come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, 
  or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to 
  Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like 
  that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none 
  of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The 
  following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg 
  Lexicon:    metecho -- (have a) share in, 
  participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. 
  choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament 
  Words:    metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, 
  echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is 
  awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS 
  Lexicon:    metecho -- share in (something) 
  ... Louw-Nida Lexicon:    metecho -- (a) 
  share in ... Liddell-Scott 
  Lexicon:   metecho -- to partake 
  of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be 
  members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD 
  Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share 
  in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same 
  things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker 
  &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The 
  _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 
  'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of 
  metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense 
  points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God 
  assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and 
  accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about 
  your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still 
  have it, I would also like to know your source for the following 
  statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in 
  something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source 
  as your other quo

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the 
opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but 
he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and 
by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. 

  He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are 
  partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' 

  JT  > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children 
  are 
  partakers of flesh and blood 
  he also himself likewise took 
  part of the 
  same."

  He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human 
  children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of 
  Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' 

  JT  > In 
  this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be 
  partakers of flesh and blood, 
  and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise 
  took 
  part of the 
  same. 

  He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely 
  different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. 

  JT > The word "took part" as 
  applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied 
  to the children.

  He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 
  'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' 

  JT 
  > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's 
  self" 

  He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 
  'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children 
  share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. 

  JT 
  > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so 
  that all of Adam's children 
  share fully in Adam's flesh and 
blood.

  He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 
  'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take 
  both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh 
  part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." 

  JT  >  
  When we read that JESUS "took part of the 
  same" the word is METECHO 
  which means "to take part but not 
  all" The children take 
  both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ 
  took only part, that is, the flesh part, 
  whereas the blood was the result of supernatural 
  conception

 I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That 
would be interesting to know.

 Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin

  As it relates to 
  the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, 
  Judy wrote   >   
  Jesus partook of 
  human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 
  2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are 
  partakers of flesh and 
  blood he also himself likewise took 
  part of the 
  same."

  In this verse 
  the "children" that is, the human children are said to be 
  partakers of flesh and 
  blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself 
  likewise took 
  part of the 
  same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely 
  different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word 
  translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's 
  self"  The Greek 
  word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that 
  all of Adam's 
  children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.

  When we read 
  that JESUS "took part of the 
  same" the word is 
  METECHO which means "to take part but 
  not all" The children 
  take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only 
  part, that is, the flesh part, 
  whereas the blood was the result of supernatural 
  conception

  Hi, Judy. I 
  realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are 
  back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at 
  the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions 
  now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, 
  where you say that metecho means 
  "'to t

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool.

In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote > Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."

In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.

When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception

Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:

Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate.
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V.
UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ...
Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ...
Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another
BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14."
Reinecker &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670).

Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?

If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood. What does your source say?

Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9).

Anyway, I'll talk to you later,

Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin






  
  
  As it relates to the 
  current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   
  Jesus partook of 
  human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 
  says "forasmuch then as the children are 
  partakers of flesh and blood 
  he also himself likewise took 
  part of the 
  same."
  
   
  In this verse the 
  "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, 
  and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise 
  took 
  part of the same.  
  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 
  "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word translated 
  "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's 
  self"  The Greek 
  word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that 
  all of Adam's children 
  share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.
   
  When we read that 
  JESUS "took part of the 
  same" the word is METECHO 
  which means "to take part but not 
  all" The children take 
  both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ 
  took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood 
  was the result of supernatural conception
   
  Hi, Judy. I realize 
  that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the 
  subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I 
  thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am 
  wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you 
  say that metecho means "'to take part but 
  not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what 
  it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's 
  commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do 
  not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means 
  "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where 
  you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same 
  distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this 
  word:
  
Friberg 
Lexicon:    metecho 
-- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, 
w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. 
Expository 
Dictionary of New Testament Words:    metecho 
-- to partake of, share in (meta, with, 
echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is 
awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. 
UBS 
Lexicon:    metecho -- 
share in (something) ... 
Louw-Nida 
Lexicon:    metecho -- 
(a) share in ... 
Liddell-Scott 
Lexicon:   metecho -- 
to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to 
be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another 
BAGD 
Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part 
or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the 
same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." 

Reinecker & 
Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The 
_expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 
'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of 
metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The 
aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when 
the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly 
man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). 

  
  Do you see what I 
  mean about your definition being distinctly different than 
  these?
  If you still have 
  it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: 
  "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside 
  one's self.'" Is this from the 
  same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with 
  Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's 
  self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the 
  eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was 
  something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to 
  partake of something that he was not prior to the 
  Incarnation, namely, flesh and 
  blood.  What does your source say? 
  Our discussion put 
  me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
  that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through 
  His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9). 
  Anyway, 
  I'll talk to you later,
  
  
  Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




hopefully the foregoing helps our 
readers to follow the discussion, too
 
It helped me :>)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:48 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  
  this is crucial--all 
  posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of 
  intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, she maintains that it's only her 
  'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the 
  Word of Truth'
   
  in the background, like 
  'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in play is that 
  unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced 
  with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without 
  learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical 
  dynamic
   
  to account simultaneously for 
  (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against 
  those who know by or through learning together--requires some 
  intelligence 
   
  how could one cut 
  through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
   
  this is a high magnitude 
  moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, 
  enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers 
  to follow the discussion, too
   
  G
   
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 
  "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
And I still don't understand, 
for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin





this is crucial--all 
posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of 
intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, she maintains that it's only her 
'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word 
of Truth'
 
in the background, like 
'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in play is that 
unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced 
with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without 
learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical 
dynamic
 
to account simultaneously for 
(e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those 
who know by or through learning together--requires some 
intelligence 
 
how could one cut 
through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
 
this is a high magnitude 
moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, 
etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the 
discussion, too
 
G
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill 
Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  And I still don't understand, 
  for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
  things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 

  Bill had asked (for the second time): Was 
  Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as 
  God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
   
  jt answered: Have you ever 
  heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill?  One can 
  force scripture to validate anything when they come with a 
  strong preconceived notion.
   
  Jesus came here as the Son 
  of God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He first saw 
  the Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in and 
  of Himself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and 
  God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?  Why is this a big 
  deal? In His 
  preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the 
  wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 
  10:4)
   
  What's the 
  problem??
   
  BT: I was just trying to understand why you would 
  say such things as "Jesus did 
  not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as 
  God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why 
  you would say such things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I 
  guess it's not a 
  problem.  Hm: Where are 
  the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his 
  head.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

> Judy wrote:
> > The Brethren qualify because they are called
> > out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those
> > who are in Christ are; and they now have power
> > to overcome any and all innate inclinations
> > and/or tendencies.
>
> Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but
because
> of his ability not to follow them, he was holy.  The flesh only defiles us
> if we follow it.  Same with Jesus.  He was holy even though his flesh was
> genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>

Hey, David, would you tell me how you interpret Jesus' words in the
following verses (feel free to draw from a larger context if you like)?

John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be
sanctified by the truth."

Thanks,

Bill

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




you have some for 
sale?
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:36:52 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  BUY TRUTH 
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:53:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill?  One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion.


Coming from our friend, Judy Taylor   (no kidding), this is a rather amazing observation.  

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours &Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. 


I might be wrong (but probably not) but maybe the "violation" of which you speak has something to do with our (Bill and me) taking our next breath !!!   That seems to cause Judy the most pain.    

Just another good guy trying to share his wisdom,

Johd David Smithson

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Stop with "heresy" Judy. It means absolutely nothing coming from you.  And I could care less about such nonsensical statements.
  
jt: Here we go with the personal "ad hominems" again John, you  just can't seem to help yourself, sigh!  


You have lost me on this.   What in the world is "ad hominem" about my complaining of your use of the word "heresy"? 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. 
 
So what?  
 
jt: So - that gospel is false and it is heresy.  There is not a whole lot of difference between yours and theirs you are both making God totally responsible for everyone's choices and claiming that Adam's fall was appointed and predestined all along.  The Mormons go so far as to say it was a good thing


This is a little bit funny, actually.   My doctrine is similar to the Mormon doctrine, you say.   I ask, "So what?"   And you respond by making the connection between what I believe and the Mormon teaching   --   the similarity is that both are heretical and false.  

You do not seem to understand that your opinion of my belief structure is of no consequence on this forum.   It has nothing to do with anything your might place into consideration in support of your point verses mine.  

You want to discuss issues, Judy, fine   -    and I will read your posted responses.  But I will simply ignore any post that contains conclusions concerning my teachings that put me into the ranks of the truly heretical   -   and hence "the lost." Try to be nice and if thay is not to be, try to be silent.  

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-11 Thread Kevin Deegan

BUY TRUTH - DON'T RENT !
 
Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
 
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


*'we'*, meaning clearly that a bilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below
 
..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation?
 
..in certain wars the DMZ for the North was also the DMZ for the South
 
..for now i think the 'bilateral' notion applies, depending on developments in the dialog/s
 
how's Prudence? (hopefully thriving even in her rented quarters:)
 
cordially,
 
G
 
--
 
cc. David Miller
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

jt: Here *we* go with the.."ad hominems"..__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-11 Thread David Miller

Judy wrote:
> The Brethren qualify because they are called
> out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those
> who are in Christ are; and they now have power
> to overcome any and all innate inclinations
> and/or tendencies.

Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because 
of his ability not to follow them, he was holy.  The flesh only defiles us 
if we follow it.  Same with Jesus.  He was holy even though his flesh was 
genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




some feedback: 

 
no 'RoE', below, implies an 
eerie isolationism, perhaps like a mental handicap (to learning 
'Truth')
 
further, maybe your approach 
to hermeneutics is becoming clearer which is good; is summed up 
in the notion that true Christians know 'Truth' before it is 
learned
 
while true this insight 
could assist our readers; what do you think?
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:37:28 -0500 Judy 
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Don't know anything about "rules of 
  engagement"..
  ||
  ir[/]relevance to Truth.  
  jt

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy wrote:> So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate> inclination or tendency toward 
sin?"  If this is> so then the wise men who came to 
worship> Him were fooled, and the angels along with> Simeon and 
Anna were false prophets because> they all called Him Holy.
 
An innate inclination toward sin does not make a person unholy.  The 
Scriptures call the brethren holy (Heb. 3:1, 1 Thess. 5:27), but this does 
not mean that their flesh was now without any innate inclination toward 
sin.
 
jt: The Brethren qualify because they are called out, 
set apart, and
sanctified - at least those who are in Christ are; 
and they now have power 
to overcome any and all innate inclinations and/or tendencies.
 
Grace and Peace,
Judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-11 Thread David Miller

Judy wrote:
> So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate
> inclination or tendency toward sin?"  If this is
> so then the wise men who came to worship
> Him were fooled, and the angels along with
> Simeon and Anna were false prophets because
> they all called Him Holy.

An innate inclination toward sin does not make a person unholy.  The 
Scriptures call the brethren holy (Heb. 3:1, 1 Thess. 5:27), but this does 
not mean that their flesh was now without any innate inclination toward sin.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is 
Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is a 
review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
be interested.  The reviewer points out the 
obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just
all love and dancing with no responsibility.  Only 
problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of 
  engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply 
  impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one 
  another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are sufficiently 
  similar to do so. 
   
  jt: Their gospels are sufficiently 
  similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of engagement like in a 
  boxing or wrestling match.
   


Repenting of Religion 	2--10-05.wps
Description: Binary data

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




*'we'*, meaning clearly that 
a bilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, 
below
 
..perhaps that unity is essential 
to your ongoing conversation?
 
..in certain wars the DMZ for the 
North was also the DMZ for the South
 
..for now i think 
the 'bilateral' notion applies, depending on developments in the 
dialog/s
 
how's Prudence? (hopefully 
thriving even in her rented quarters:)
 
cordially,
 
G
 
--
 
cc. David 
Miller
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  jt: 
  Here *we* go with the.."ad 
hominems"..

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Judy wrote  >  
Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as 
God ... 
 
And again later she says   
>   Jesus 
did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon 
himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men.  

 
Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to 
you? 
 
jt 
responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that 
calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince 
of Peace.  All true. 
 
Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus 
was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he 
was not God with us, Emmanuel?
 
jt: God is a Spirit and yes 
Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father 
while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing 
and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same 
yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the 
Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly 
ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take 
upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth as Christ 
Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose 
of being slain as a sacrifice for our sin.
 
Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still 
do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask 
it again. The question is, was Jesus God with 
us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here 
as God," and if not, why do you say he is not 
Emmanuel?
 
jt: Have you ever heard of 
"rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill?  One can force scripture to 
validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived 
notion.
 
Jesus came here as the Son of 
God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He first saw the 
Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in and of Himself 
and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When 
did I say He is not Emmanuel?  Why is this a big deal? 
In His 
preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, 
so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 
10:4)
 
What's the 
problem??

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
JD: So why is the creation of 
Adam any different.  I believe in the 
"fall."   I do not believe in a fallen 
nature.    Adam was always going to 
sin.    Christ was always going to come to his 
rescue.   And that is why I believe that to 
disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of  the Christ is to deny what was 
destined to happen, appointed to happen,  provided for in the creation of 
Adam  before the worlds were.  jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to 
that of Mormonism. 
 
So what?  

 
jt: So - that gospel 
is false and it is heresy.  There is not a 
whole lot of difference between yours 
and theirs you are both making God totally responsible for everyone's 
choices and claiming that Adam's fall was appointed and predestined 
all along.  The Mormons go so far as to say it was a good 
thing.
 
JD: Well,  I suppose, in some 
ways, one could say this.  Life in Christ is a 
predetermined concept in the mind of God.   But Judy,  if 
God is in control of the world,  I guess we could blame Him for all that 
occurs.   I use different words to picture 
what I believe.  
 
jt:  A predetermined 
concept?  So God predetermined that his ONLY begotten Son (who was 
pure and holy, separate from sinners) would die a horrible and cruel death on a 
Roman cross?  What makes you think you 
know what 
is going on in the mind of God?  
Being Sovereign is different from being a 
control freak.  God gave Adam dominion and he in turn handed that dominion 
over to Satan who became god of this world.  In John 14:30 where Jesus says 
"the ruler of this world is coming and he has nothing in me" he 
was not referring to God the Father.
  JD: When we say, "God is not finished with me 
yet,"  we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve.  
This is heresy 
John.  Adam and Eve were complete.  They were innocent, holy and 
pure, naked and unashamed. 
 
And where did I say 
otherwise?   When God plopped them down onto this earth as man and 
woman,  they were without sin.   But they had a sin 
nature.   That is clear from the biblical text of the their actions 
immediately prior to the sin event.  
 
jt: They weren't plopped from 
anywhere. God made them here from the dust of the earth and breathed into them 
the breath of life (His breath); and since there was/is no sin nature in Him 
where did that part of your theology come from (along with your concept of 
their actions immediately prior to the "sin event").
 
They fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day 
and needed absolutely nothing; their job was to be good stewards over what God 
had entrusted to them. The saying "Be patient with me God 
is not finished with me yet" is an excuse for our offences toward Him and others 
because of our own sin, selfishness, and unbelief which is our problem, 
and our responsibility, not God's.  
 
This is so anti biblical, 
I scarsely know where to begin.  It can be an excuse.  But, in 
fact, it is also very true.   Our sin, selfishness and unbelief are 
not our problem any longer.   All of this has been 
covered by the flow of the blood.  I will leave it at 
that. 
 
jt: It may be anti JD but it 
is not anti biblical. God didn't leave Adam and Eve half baked in the garden. Do 
you think he would give someone who is only half finished dominion over His 
creation and tell them to "be fruitful and multiply?"  Why replicate 
something unfinished?  Makes no sense.  And sin, selfishness, and 
unbelief ARE our problem when they are not repented of and turned 
from.
Yes God has given us 
everything we need for life and godliness in Christ so we have no excuse.  
The blood of Christ will not "cover" sin; it cleanses the conscience from dead 
works/ritual when applied the right way.
  At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected 
Christ.   
The creation event, for man, is not completed 
outside the reception of the Christ,  
 
jt: The above is a doctrine of men because 
at the moment of their creation there was nothing to redeem since all that was 
in them was the "breath of God" and as yet there had been no fall.  
 I do see now why you and others who accept this or a similar doctrine must 
cling so tenaciously to the idea of this "Eternal Sonship" which most definitely 
comes from the RCC.
Stop with "heresy" 
Judy. It means absolutely nothing coming from 
you.  And I could care less about such 
nonsensical statements.
 
jt: Here we go with the 
personal "ad hominems" again John, you  just can't seem to help 
yourself, sigh!  
They needed nothing before the 
fall John, Christ included because they were already in complete and full 
fellowship with Him since in His preincarnate state He is God the Word who spoke 
them into existence and who they fellowshipped with them every day in the 
garden. The reason we need Christ today is because there is a breach between us 
and God which we have no ability in and of ourselves to mend, we are being 
transformed from death to life.   
 
JD: Certainly.   No one den

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-11 Thread Lance Muir




Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and 
both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of 
you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of 
engagement' (yours & Johns) are sufficiently similar to do 
so. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 11, 2005 08:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 
    AM
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin

 
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Judy 
  wrote  >  Jesus layed aside his former glory so he 
  was not on this earth as God ... 
   
  And again 
  later she says   >   Jesus did not come here as God. He layed 
  aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in 
  the likeness of men.  
   
  Judy, my friend, what 
  does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? 
  
   
  jt 
  responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that 
  calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and 
  Prince of Peace.  All true. 
   
  Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that 
  Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was 
  here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel?
   
  jt: God is a Spirit and 
  yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God 
  the Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw 
  the Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since 
  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He 
  was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the 
  time of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had 
  with the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he 
  was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of 
  Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a 
  sacrifice for our sin.
   
  Judy, I've never seen such slippery language 
  in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to 
  my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, 
  was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come 
  here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not 
  Emmanuel?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin

  On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Judy 
wrote  >  Jesus layed aside his former glory so he 
was not on this earth as God ... 

And again 
later she says   >   Jesus did not come here as God. He layed 
aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in 
the likeness of men.  

Judy, my friend, what does 
the name Emmanuel suggest to you? 

jt 
responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that 
calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and 
Prince of Peace.  All true. 

Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that 
Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was 
here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel?

jt: God is a Spirit and 
yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the 
Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the 
Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus 
Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was 
never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time 
of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with 
the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he 
was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of 
Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a 
sacrifice for our sin.

Judy, I've never seen such slippery language 
in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to 
my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, 
was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come 
here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not 
Emmanuel?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:43:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John in bold print  -  we will have 
to clean this up next time around, I think.  n a message 
dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: 
The first Adam chose to do it without any 
propensity.No he didn't.   
One is tempted and then sin occurs.   Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to 
disobey.Are you 
saying that Eve had a "fallen nature,"  not Adam?  If not, why on 
earth would you make such a distinction?  No, I'm saying both of them 
were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. 

 
Where do you 
draw the line on this "image of God thing.  He is not only pure, holy and 
unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our 
discussion  -   not capable of 
sinning. 
 
jt: His image did not make 
them Creators also. His image is being primarily spirit with His 
nature and character.  
 
Eve took the bait and became 
deceived because she listened to the wrong voice.  
 
If Eve were in the image of God as 
according to you,  she COULDN'T have "[taken] the 
bait."   
 
jt: Sure she could and she 
did. She was deceived; see above for His image. They were still His creation, He 
didn't make
them Gods.  They were in 
His image just like Jesus came to earth and took our likeness upon 
Himself.
 
Adam chose to go down with her 
rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. 

 
Adam had a choice God does 
not.   Adam and Eve justified what they were about 
to do;  God is not capable of such activity.   Not 
capable. 
 
jt: Adam justified himself by 
blaming the woman "AFTER THE ACT" Also Adam was not God.  Being made in God's "image and 
likeness" does not make him divine any more than Jesus being made in our "image 
and likeness" makes Him a sinner. 
 
So whereas they had been naked and 
unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and 
trying to hide and cover themselves.  He 
sinned exactly like all of us do.   His nature was the 
same.   
 
jt: His nature was NOT the 
same as ours.  Being made in the likeness of something is not exactly 
cloning/replicating the original.
So Jesus was born full of guilt and 
shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God 
?   
 
of course not  "propensity" 
you say  -  then I must agree 

 
jt: 
So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate inclination or tendency toward 
sin?"  If this is so then the wise men who came to worship Him were fooled, 
and the angels along with Simeon and Anna were false prophets because they all 
called Him Holy.  
 
According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In 
creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam"  

 
Sure He did and I have no problem admitting this because 
the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man.    
Man was created a free moral agent  something God is not.    
Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and 
its teachings on original sin.  
 
jt: No my argument is 
taken from the Bible John.  Where do you get the idea God is not free to do 
whatever He wants? When you are God who is there to tell you 
NO? He does exactly what He 
wants.Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two 
things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK  
-  obviously something you think you must do)  and the subtle 
assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions.  
  John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument 
from scripture - 
 
a very 
scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it 
and  work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring 
up   And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to 
you?    
 
jt: Self fulfilling prophecy 
John?
 
and why does it always 
turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument 
has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; 
 
Judy, you simply do not write without put 
downs.   Does not happen.    

 
jt: Now you are, in effect 
(sarcasm), calling me a liar.
 
I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am 
making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else 
-  simply "logic."  No scripture.  Just a reasoned 
position.  In your mind,  Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with 
anything less than perfection in mind.   Therefore, Adam HAD to be 
perfect  --  created with no capacity for 
sin. 
 
jt: No John, it's 
the wisdom of God and if you are not able to receive it you don't 
understand, righteousness, sin, and/or many other issues in God's 
Word. I don't care how long you've been in the 
ministry. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you 
when I get a spare moment.  
 
Do that, Judy.  I always want 
scripture.  
 
God's creation was good

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Judy 
  wrote  >  Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was 
  not on this earth as God ... 
   
  And again later 
  she says   >   Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside 
  his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the 
  likeness of men.  
   
  Judy, my friend, what does 
  the name Emmanuel suggest to you? 
   
  jt 
  responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that 
  calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince 
  of Peace.  All true. 
   
  Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that 
  Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was 
  here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel?
   
  jt: God is a Spirit and yes 
  Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father 
  while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father 
  doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is 
  the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus 
  the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly 
  ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take 
  upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth 
  as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for 
  the sole purpose of being slain as a sacrifice for our 
  sin.
   
  jt: I didn't 
  use the word "similarity"  I used the word "likeness" which is what the 
  Bible says. 
   
  Are you saying that you have never argued that 
  the word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it 
  means this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :>) Please forgive 
  me.
   
  jt: Not that I can recall, No. I 
  regularly make a conscious effort not to add to or take away from what is 
  written because I want to understand what God is saying rather than what 
  someone else thinks He said.
   
  No problem, thank you for sharing your 
  thoughts Bill,
  Grace and Peace,
  Judy

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Knpraise

I

John in bold print  -  we will have to clean this up next
   time around, I think.  



n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 

The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.

No he didn't.   One is tempted and then sin occurs.   

Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.

Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature,"  not Adam?  If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?  
 
No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing.  He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion  -   not capable of sinning.   Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice.  If Eve were in the image of God as according to you,  she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait."   Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choice  --   God does not.   Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do;  God is not capable of such activity.   Not capable.  So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves.
  
He sinned exactly like all of us do.   His nature was the same.   

So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame  of course not with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ?  "propensity" you say  -  then I must agree According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam"  Sure He did   ---    and I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man.    Man was created a free moral agent   .   something God is not.    Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin.   

Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK  -  obviously something you think you must do)  and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions.  
  
John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and  work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring up   and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point?  And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you?    My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs.   Does not happen.    I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. 
 
And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else -  simply "logic."  No scripture.  Just a reasoned position.  In your mind,  Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind.   Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect  --  created with no capacity for sin.  
 
If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment.  Do that, Judy.  I always want scripture.  God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners.  For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus.  You have missed the point, entirely.  I read the Genesis account, make note of what happened, in detail, immediately prior to the actual eating of the forbidden fruit, and draw my conclusions.   About as scriptural as one can get.  What we --  I guess I should say "I"  --   what I see IN THE RECORD of Adam and Eve up until the time of the sin event is the character of two individuals AS THEY WERE CREATED.    
  
You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind.   As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently.   You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not.   The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light."   
 
Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John.  Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is Christ (God's likeness).  I don't know why you would not think of a day as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.  And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Bill Taylor





Judy wrote  
>  Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this 
earth as God ... 
 
And again later 
she says   >   Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside 
his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness 
of men.  
 
Judy, my friend, what does the 
name Emmanuel suggest to you? 
 
jt 
responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that refers 
to Him as Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of 
Peace.  All true. 
 
Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus 
was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he 
was not God with us, Emmanuel?
 
__
 
jt: I didn't use 
the word "similarity"  I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible 
says. 
 
Are you saying that you have never argued that the 
word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it means 
this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :>) Please forgive me.
 
Peace to you,
 
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Judy Taylor




 
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:51:01 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 
Judy wrote  
>  Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this 
earth as God ... 
 
And again later 
she says   >   Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside 
his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness 
of men.  
 
Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel 
suggest to you? Please allow yourself to consider what I've written pertaining 
to Philippians 2.5-11 (see below*). 
 
jt: Emmanuel means "God with 
us" but the same scripture that refers to Him as Emmanuel also calls 
Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace.  All true. 

 
But earlier Judy 
wrote   >   For some reason you have embraced a 
gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both 
at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of 
Jesus.
 
No, Judy, that is not so. Moreover, you do not 
realize what you have done. In the same post you have denied both Jesus' 
divinity and his humanity. Jesus did not come in the similarity of a 
man; for I am aware that this is what you mean. No, the Son of God 
took upon himself the likeness of man in that he was 
also fully human. 
 
jt: I didn't use the 
word "similarity"  I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible 
says. 
 
To uphold the human nature of Jesus is not 
to say that his divine nature was anything less than wholly divine. 
Jesus was fully human and fully God, two natures in one 
person. 
 
jt: I don't believe I am 
saying what you think that I am saying Bill. What I object to is the idea that 
Jesus had a "fallen human nature" in the image of the first Adam which is what 
the rest of us who are born by means of procreation inherit along with the 
'iniquities of the fathers'
 
If I may, I would like to say, as it pertains 
to your comments about his humanity, that you are making the mistake that many, 
many Christians make today, in that you are attempting to make the human 
nature of Jesus something other than what it was -- completely 
human -- and this in order to uphold the integrity of his divinity 
(although as I consider your comments above I can only wonder why). But that is 
not necessary:
 
jt: I don't know exactly what 
you mean by "completely human" Bill. I have no problem with Jesus being fully 
human on the same order as the first Adam before the fall along with a full 
measure of the Holy Spirit but He was not exactly like us. He received 
worship.
 
the human nature of Jesus was not divine, 
and the divine nature of Jesus was not human; the humanity was human and 
the divinity was divine and the two came together to form an 
inseparable union in the one person of Jesus Christ. And because 
the two natures were not equal, in that his human nature was infinitely 
inferior to his divine, yet never once overwhelmed by it (cf Phil. 2.5-11 see 
below), the incarnational relationship between the two natures 
must always be considered asymmetrical. Being human, Jesus was frail in every 
manner commensurate to humanity, even in that he could sin and that he was 
fraught with the same proclivities as we; but being divine, he 
was able to overcome that frailty in every instance -- throughout 
his life gaining victory over that which from the time of the fall had held 
humanity in bondage. 
 
jt: I don't understand your 
thinking Bill because it is so theological but I do understand the person of 
Jesus and yes he had the same limitations we do because of his humanity and 
he overcame temptation in the wilderness by the Word of God which is honored by 
God the Father, not because He was divine (he layed that aside - 
remember?).  His teaching was from the Father and the works were from the 
Father also.  He said the Father is greater than I - 
 
Hence he was able to reverse that captivity, taking 
it captive and defeating it in himself -- finally and forever, once 
and for all. O but to recognize and embrace this truth is 
not to diminish the divine characteristics of our Lord; nor is it to make him 
less than or other than what he was; it is to worship Emmanuel, God with us, 
pure and holy, to exalt him and to glorify him for who he was: Mary's son, 
the Son of God -- for what he did, none other could do. Thank 
you, Jesus. Bill
 
jt: I don't believe I am 
diminishing any of that Bill; but He could not have had a fallen human nature 
and be pure and holy ATST. My belief is that He took the form of man upon 
himself with it's human limitations, everything other than it's 
fallenness.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Bill Taylor

art of his Father: "He who has 
seen me has seen the Father." No, the Son did not divest himself of divinity in 
the kenosis, the taking on of human form; instead he maintained and 
demonstrated divinity via the path of humbling service, even unto 
death.
 
In nothing less 
than a staggering pronouncement we read in verses 9-11 that this pleased the 
Father, who exalted this God-man, his Son Christ Jesus to the glory that had 
previously only been exercised in divinity. Thus it was in the exaltation 
that Christ established his Lordship -- indeed in resurrection, over 
humanity and all creation, a human being becoming equal with God. 

 
And so we see that the Son did not become less than 
God in his service to humanity, indeed quite the opposite: in service he came to 
reveal the heart of God: "Then Jesus said to them, 'When you lift up the 
Son of Man, then you will know that I AM (ego eimi), and that 
I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these 
things'" (John 8.28).
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
  On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a 
  message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:The first Adam chose to do it 
  without any propensity.No he 
  didn't.   One is tempted and then sin occurs.   
  Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational 
  choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a 
  "fallen nature,"  not Adam?  If not, why on earth would you make 
  such a distinction?  
   
  No, I'm saying both of them 
  were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Eve 
  took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong 
  voice.  Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a 
  stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before 
  God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide 
  and cover themselves.
  He sinned exactly like all of us 
  do.   His nature was the same.   So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity 
  to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel 
  of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" 
  He did not create a "fallen Adam"Understand that your entire argument here is a combination 
  of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but 
  OK  -  obviously something you think you must do)  and the 
  subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled 
  proportions.  
   
  John how is it you never give me 
  a well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it always turn 
  personal (ad hominem) at some point?  My argument has nothing to do with 
  putting you or anyone else down;  I just happen to believe that you 
  are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. 
  
   
  And I say "your logic on the matter" because you 
  offer nothing else -  simply "logic."  No scripture.  Just a 
  reasoned position.  In your mind,  Judy cannot imagine a god who 
  creates with anything less than perfection in mind.   Therefore, 
  Adam HAD to be perfect  --  created with no capacity for sin.  
  
   
  If you want chapter and verse John 
  then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment.  God's 
  creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image 
  which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners.  For some reason you have 
  embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and 
  holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of 
  Jesus.
   
  You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" 
  are the same in my mind.   As we stand, face to face with the 
  creation circumstance, we see it very differently.   You see it as a 
  completed task, on every level and I do not.   The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of 
  time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 
  hours to say "let there be light."   
   
  Capacity for sin and fallen nature are 
  NOT the same John.  Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind 
  is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is 
  Christ (God's likeness).  I don't know why you would not think of a day 
  as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and 
  the darkness He called night.  And there was evening and there was 
  morning, one day" (or the first day).  How could it be more 
  clear?
   
  More than that, not a single creation [primary] 
  event

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Judy Taylor




 
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message 
dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:The first Adam chose to do it 
without any propensity.No he didn't.   
One is tempted and then sin occurs.   Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to 
disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature,"  not 
Adam?  If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?  

 
No, I'm saying both of them 
were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Eve 
took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong 
voice.  Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a 
stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God 
in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and 
cover themselves.
 He sinned exactly like all of us 
do.   His nature was the same.   So 
Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, 
point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel of JD maybe but not 
according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He 
did not create a "fallen Adam"Understand that your entire 
argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which 
is completely unnecessary but OK  -  obviously something you think you 
must do)  and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of 
spirit-filled proportions.  
 
John how is it you never give me a 
well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it always turn 
personal (ad hominem) at some point?  My argument has nothing to do with 
putting you or anyone else down;  I just happen to believe that you 
are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. 

 
And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing 
else -  simply "logic."  No scripture.  Just a reasoned 
position.  In your mind,  Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with 
anything less than perfection in mind.   Therefore, Adam HAD to be 
perfect  --  created with no capacity for sin.  
 
If you want chapter and verse John then 
I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment.  God's creation 
was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is 
pure, holy, and separate from sinners.  For some reason you have embraced a 
gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the 
beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of 
Jesus.
 
You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same 
in my mind.   As we stand, face to face with the creation 
circumstance, we see it very differently.   You see it as a completed 
task, on every level and I do not.   The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of 
time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours 
to say "let there be light."   
 
Capacity for sin and fallen nature are 
NOT the same John.  Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is 
the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is 
Christ (God's likeness).  I don't know why you would not think of a day 
as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and 
the darkness He called night.  And there was evening and there was morning, 
one day" (or the first day).  How could it be more 
clear?
 
More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was 
completed on the same "day" it was presented.   A careful reading of 
the text will varify this.   
 
You are being "too careful" John because 
God can use any timeframe he wants to and none of us were there were we? No it 
wouldn't take God the Word 24hrs to make a statement.  However you don't 
know how long it took God the Spirit to bring it to pass do you? We can only 
know what has been revealed, the secret things belong to the 
Lord.
 
So why is the creation of Adam any different.  I believe 
in the "fall."   I do not believe in a fallen 
nature.    Adam was always going to sin.    Christ 
was always going to come to his rescue.   And that is why I believe 
that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of  the Christ is to deny what 
was destined to happen, appointed to happen,  provided for in the creation 
of Adam  before the worlds were.  
 
Then you have embraced a gospel very 
similar to that of Mormonism. I don't see a whole lot of difference. You 
are in effect making God responsible for the fall and saying it was appointed 
and predestined all along.  No wonder you are so hung up on this eternal 
sonship doctrine.
 
When we say, "God is not finished with me yet,"  we speak 
the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve.  
 
This is heresy John.  Adam and Eve 
were complete; they were innocent and pure, naked and unashamed. They 
fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing; 
their job was to be good stewards over what God had already given 
them.  The saying "Be patient with me

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-10 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.



No he didn't.   One is tempted and then sin occurs.   
 
Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.

Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature,"  not Adam?  If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?  


  
He sinned exactly like all of us do.   His nature was the same.   
 
According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good"
 He did not create a "fallen Adam"

Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK  -  obviously something you think you must do)  and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions.    And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else -  simply "logic."  No scripture.  Just a reasoned position.  In your mind,  Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind.   Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect  --  created with no capacity for sin.  You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind.   As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently.   You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not.   The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light."   More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented.   A careful reading of the text will varify this.   So why is the creation of Adam any different.  I believe in the "fall."   I do not believe in a fallen nature.    Adam was always going to sin.    Christ was always going to come to his rescue.   And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of  the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen,  provided for in the creation of Adam  before the worlds were.  When we say, "God is not finished with me yet,"  we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve.  At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected Christ.   The creation event, for man, is not completed outside the reception of the Christ,  His ministry of reconcilition and the spirtual process we know as "growth" resulting in a spiritual home with God in Christ.  The "fall" makes this conclusion irresistable.  But the "fall" did not mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam, himself.   Look at the record of the fall.   See there in its pages, the very same processes we, you and I, go through before a sin event.   We have the association with evil influences,  an intellectual openness to the consideration of sin,  the act of justification,  the sharing of evil opinion with others,  the denial of the truth of God ("you will surely die"),  the reaching out for sin, the act of taking into your possession the very opportunity for sin  (plucking the fruit from the tree)   all before the actual sin event.   How is all this possible if they did not have the same capacity for sin, the same human nature, as we?   


  
Remember  -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop.  JD 
 
There can be whatever God says there can be and Adam sinned by choice without 
any propensity.  Jesus OTOH refused to sin aside from any propensity.  JT

Now, you know that Jesus was "tempted."   God is not temptable.   What is the difference between Jesus and God?   His flesh.   He became like us in every respect.   The fact is this:   Christ could have sinned and chose to do otherwise, condemning all those who say, "I am flesh, I have no choice."   When it comes to sin, it is not that we can or cannot sin; rather, it is that we will or will not.   I do not sin because I have to.   I sin because I want to.   An ugly fact that condemns us all.  
God has not propensity for sin, and, consequently will never sin.   He cannot sin.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a 
  message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it 
  without any propensity.
  No he didn't.   One is tempted and 
  then sin occurs.   
   
  Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a 
  rational choice; he chose to disobey.
   
  He sinned exactly like all of us do.   His 
  nature was the same.   
   
  According to the gospel of JD maybe but 
  not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good"
  He did not create a "fallen 
  Adam"
   
  Remember  -- without propensity, there can be no 
  propooperty and sin is poop.  JD 
  
   
  There can be whatever God says 
  there can be and Adam sinned by choice without 
  any propensity.  Jesus OTOH 
  refused to sin aside from any propensity.  JT

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.


No he didn't.   One is tempted and then sin occurs.   He sinned exactly like all of us do.   His nature was the same.   Remember  -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop.  

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's"
 thinking when he's been dead for so long?


go back to sleep Judy.   Bill and David do not need any help.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:21:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms
you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of
"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as I
stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from the tree
of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity.


Yes  -- this is most interesting to me as well.   I have never seen "condemnation" dealt with in quite the way David has approached it.   Is the death of Adam and Eve spiritual or physical.    It seems to me to be physical.   God says they will die if they eat of the one tree.   They are driven from the garden specifically because of their proximity to the other tree " ..   if they eat they live forever .  "   In fact, the existence of the tree of life is somewhat of a surprise to the reader of the Genesis story.  It is never even hinted at until "death" has become an issue.   

Plan B theology (as I call it) is a problem for me.  Perhaps the two of you will say something in your discussion that will open a door on that issue for me.   But please do not gear the discussion to that end.   If something is said that inadvertently effects that thinking on my part  --  so be it.   I am just thinking out loud.   I will shut up.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he 
  weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's 
  been dead for so long?
  
 
BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be 
influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you 
"heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone 
else, didn't they? 
 
jt: Depends what you mean by gospel. The first time 
I heard that I needed to come to Jesus was at a Billy Graham rally and I 
came fwd but it took another 17yrs for me to take that commitment seriously 
and this was when I began to study the scriptures for myself.
 
Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the 
source of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think 
you go to the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of 
other Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to 
disagree: Is it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? 
 
jt: Do I agree with the scriptures or the "other 
Christians" who go to them?  The Holy Spirit is not confused and He is 
the one we should depend upon to lead us into All truth. I can only speak 
for myself, I don't know what other Christians are up to.
 
The truth is, you bring things with you to your 
study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your 
conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and 
gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. 

 
jt: I know you won't believe this Bill but I had no 
assumptions before I began sitting under certain teachers.
Being a Medical Transcriptionist by profession I am 
able to take good notes and I began to see a lot of contradictions.  
This was also true in some books, the ones that had to do with 
explaining what the scriptures were saying - so I layed them all aside and 
started over and this is when the scriptures really began to open up and 
speak to me.
 
It is his business as to why he doesn't bring well 
meaning Christians to consensus on every theological point, but he does not, 
and he does not tell us why this is so.
 
jt: I know why this is so Bill. It is because His 
hands are tied.  When we look to men rather than to God we are open to 
every wind of doctrine and doctrines of men take the heart captive and blind 
the eyes. They also cause division.
 
Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's 
thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous 
occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical 
text. 
 
jt: Those exact words may not 
be there but the concept is because Adam died the day he ate the fruit from 
the wrong tree and we know that he didn't die physically.  Why do you 
have such a difficult time with this?  What is "life and death are in 
the power of the tongue" talking about? - physical or spiritual 
death. 
 
It is a technical term that you read into the text 
in your study of Scripture, as it pertains to the human condition. If it is 
a correct theological term, in that it is an accurate conclusion, you have 
Augustine to thank for this: it is his term, which you are employing 
now as if it were a true biblical concept. I happen to think it comes to us 
as a result of the dualism he operated under, because of the Manichaeism in 
his past.
 
jt: I don't know about Augustine and his 
Manichaestic dualism but that's not where I'm at. I believe God man man a 
triune being.  God is Spirit and being made in His image we are also 
primarily spirit beings who have a soul and who live in a body. So you see 
my beliefs are not patterned after those of Augustine.
 
As I said before, you may read Augustine and find 
that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if 
you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover that much of 
what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in 
Augustine's arguments. 
 
jt: Why can't I be honest with God's Word?  I 
don't need Augustine as a mediator.  IMO this is the problem. We can 
not discuss or fellowship around God's Word alone.  Why is 
that?
 
To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as 
Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from 
the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity.
 
jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-09 Thread Kevin Deegan


Was David calling his Mother a sinner or is this further evidence of Sin Nature passed down to the child?"
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*note subject changeSubject was "  Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"Bill Taylor wrote:>>... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned>>to them as sin until that time that they have both a>>cognitive and a moral awareness of the law,>>i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression>>of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).Izzy wrote:>Agreed.Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5?  The following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man:Romans 5:18(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnationSeveral verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from Adam
 to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:Romans 5:14(14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgressionThe concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions. These people who experienced death did so because of someone who sinned before them.  Furthermore, they had no real understanding that that their actions were sinful because there was no law.  I have to admit that I tend to look at matters the way you two do, but I fear that much of that is because of my culture and upbringing.  These passages challenge my way of thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed upon.  Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you can.  I am very interested.David Miller. Allow me one comment.   When Paul speaks of the sin of
 Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 5:12.   We are complicit with Adam because we, ALSO, have sinned.  Adam's sin opened the door to death   --   but his life did not condemn us apart from our own failings.   No need to respond to this.   I will butt out for now.  John __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

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

  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

  From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent 
  inthinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on 
  theiranthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our 
  thinking inthis area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
  to agreewith him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is 
  that most areunaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and 
  will want toadjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves 
  through histheology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his 
  thought processes.

  jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he 
  weasel his way into "everyone's"
  thinking when he's been dead for so 
long?

  BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be 
  influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you 
  "heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone 
  else, didn't they? Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the source 
  of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think you go to 
  the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of other 
  Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to disagree: Is 
  it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? The truth is, you bring things with 
  you to your study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your 
  conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and 
  gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. It is 
  his business as to why he doesn't bring wellmeaning Christians to consensus on 
  every theological point, but he does not, and he does not tell us why this is 
  so.

  Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's 
  thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous 
  occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical text. 
  It is a technical term that you read into the text in your study of Scripture, 
  as it pertains to the human condition. If it is a correct theological term, in 
  that it is an accurate conclusion, you have Augustine to thank for this: it is 
  his term, which you are employing now as if it were a true biblical 
  concept. I happen to think it comes to us as a result of the dualism he 
  operated under, because of the Manichaeism in his past.

  As I said before, you may read Augustine and find 
  that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if 
  you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover that much of 
  what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in 
  Augustine's arguments. 

  To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
  termsyou are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
  of"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is 
  as Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from 
  the treeof life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
  humanity.

  jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in 
  (a state of) iniquity
  my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am 
  sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl)

  BT: Yes, indeed he does. And our same Bible also says 
  that from the fruit (and think in terms of the sperm) of his genitals, Jesus 
  would be born (through Mary, of course; see Acts 2.30). Why do you also deny 
  below that Jesus was born under the same propensities as David, from his 
  fathers back to Adam?
  Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
  think,hm. 

  jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I 
  respectfully disagree.  The iniquities
  (generational curses) come down through the 
  Fathers and those who spoke
  prophetically over him at the temple when he was an 
  infant along with the
  angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all 
  referred to Him as "that 
  holy thing"

  BT: This conclusion reflects upon your deficient 
  understanding of the word "holy." Holy is first and formost a term which 
  speaks to the quality of the relationship within the Godhead, the mutual 
  indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is what is in view in the 
  above mentioned statements. What I am saying pertaining to "the judgment of 
  that condemnation" is that, being human, Jesus to was born under the sentence 
  of death, and this in part (at least) because of the post-lapsarian (which 
  means after the fall) exclusion of hum

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent 
inthinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on 
theiranthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our 
thinking inthis area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
to agreewith him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is that 
most areunaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and will 
want toadjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through 
histheology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his thought 
processes.
 
jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel 
his way into "everyone's"
thinking when he's been dead for so long?
 
To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
termsyou are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
of"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as 
Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from the 
treeof life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity.
 
jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in (a 
state of) iniquity
my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am 
sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl)
Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
think,hm. 
 
jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I respectfully 
disagree.  The iniquities
(generational curses) come down through the 
Fathers and those who spoke
prophetically over him at the temple when he was an 
infant along with the
angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all referred 
to Him as "that 
holy thing"
 
I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward 
sin,Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. 
 
jt: Jesus could have sinned without having to have had 
a "propensity" for it
The first Adam chose to do it without any 
propensity.
 
But in his victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification 
of ALL life(which is why God in his forebearance did not "impute" their 
trespasses to them), 
including life after death, which will be granted to deceased children via 
their inclusion 
in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like to look into this a bit 
further before 
being any more specific.  Bill

re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




It may not bother y'all to read all my spelling 
mistakes (thank you for being so gracious), but it bothers me very 
much when I make them -- so, as a form of penitence, I have corrected some 
mistakes below:
 
Thanks,
 
Bill
 
- Original Message - From: "David 
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
<TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:43 
AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin  Bill 
Taylor wrote:Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation of 
humanity and remain so until they refuse him and therefore 
that justification of life.David responds  >  One 
argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the observation of 
death.  I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, and 
resurrection in regards to humans being born into death.  Those who are 
born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did 
prior to Christ's incarnation.  Do you see it 
differently? Yes, David: as long as God is patient, not willing 
that any should perish but come to repentance, humans will continue to die for 
the same reason that Adam died after he sinned: they will remain removed from 
the tree of life, lest they eat of it and live forever under the conditions of 
the fall. (See below for more comments on this) Bill Taylor 
wrote:Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon Izzy disagreed, arguing 
instead that they don't need to be saved because they have not sinned. If I 
remember you correctly, I think you take a similar position.David 
responds  >  No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do 
not need to be saved because they have not sinned.  I admit that I have 
trouble seeing how guilt would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 
18 supports this view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death 
and are in a state that is separated from God.  There are questions about 
all of this that I am still trying to work out in my mind.  The Augustinian 
tradition seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt.  I suppose I 
tend towardthat perspective.  There also appears to be different kinds 
of condemnation, the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority 
over us (hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 
third and fourth generation) versus the condemnation for sin committed in 
ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed willfully and 
obstinately.If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any 
condemnation due to those who commit sins in ignorance.  If I am hearing 
you wrong on this, please clarify.  Thanks. David
 
 
David,
I do very much think that all Christians 
today need to be very diligent in thinking themselves through the influence of 
Augustine on their anthological interpretations. He has had a colossal impact on 
our thinking in this area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
to agree with him, which is their prerogative. My suspicion, however, is that 
most are unaware of his influence on their theological perspectives and will 
want to adjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through his 
theology, and realized the influence of Manicheaism on his thought 
processes. To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about 
this in the terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the 
meaning of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation 
is as I stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from 
the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity. Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
think, hm. I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward 
sin, Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. But in his 
victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification of ALL life 
(which is why God in his forbearance did not "impute" their trespasses to them), 
including life after death, which will be granted to deceased children via their 
inclusion in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like to look into this a bit 
further before being any more 
specific. Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation
> > of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and
> > therefore that justification of life.
>
> One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the
> observation of death.  I don't see any change after Christ's death,
burial,
> and resurrection in regards to humans being born into death.  Those who
are
> born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they
did
> prior to Christ's incarnation.  Do you see it differently?

Yes, as long as God is patient, not willing that any should perish but come
to repentance, humans will continue to die for the same reason that Adam
died after he sinned: they will remain removed from the tree of life, lest
they eat of it and live forever under the conditions of the fall. (See below
for more comments on this)

>
> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon
> > Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't
> > need to be saved because they have not sinned.
> > If I remember you correctly, I think you take a
> > similar position.
>
> No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do not need to be saved
> because they have not sinned.  I admit that I have trouble seeing how
guilt
> would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 18 supports this
> view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death and are in a
> state that is separated from God.  There are questions about all of this
> that I am still trying to work out in my mind.  The Augustinian tradition
> seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt.  I suppose I tend toward
> that perspective.  There also appears to be different kinds of
condemnation,
> the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority over us
> (hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
> third and fourth geneartion) versus the condemnation for sin committed in
> ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed wilfully and
> obstinately.
>
> If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any condemnation
due
> to those who commit sins in ignorance.  If I am hearing you wrong on this,
> please clarify.  Thanks.

I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent in
thinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on their
anthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our thinking in
this area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue to agree
with him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is that most are
unaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and will want to
adjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through his
theology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his thought processes.

To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms
you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of
"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as I
stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from the tree
of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity.
Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I think,
hm. I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward sin,
Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. But in his
victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification of ALL life
(which is why God in his forebearance did not "impute" their trespasses to
them), including life after death, which will be granted to deceased
children via their inclusion in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like
to look into this a bit further before being any more specific.

Bill
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-09 Thread David Miller

Bill Taylor wrote:
> Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation
> of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and
> therefore that justification of life.

One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the 
observation of death.  I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, 
and resurrection in regards to humans being born into death.  Those who are 
born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did 
prior to Christ's incarnation.  Do you see it differently?

Bill Taylor wrote:
> Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon
> Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't
> need to be saved because they have not sinned.
> If I remember you correctly, I think you take a
> similar position.

No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do not need to be saved 
because they have not sinned.  I admit that I have trouble seeing how guilt 
would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 18 supports this 
view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death and are in a 
state that is separated from God.  There are questions about all of this 
that I am still trying to work out in my mind.  The Augustinian tradition 
seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt.  I suppose I tend toward 
that perspective.  There also appears to be different kinds of condemnation, 
the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority over us 
(hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 
third and fourth geneartion) versus the condemnation for sin committed in 
ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed wilfully and 
obstinately.

If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any condemnation due 
to those who commit sins in ignorance.  If I am hearing you wrong on this, 
please clarify.  Thanks.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-09 Thread ShieldsFamily









 

These passages challenge my way of 

thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two
have 

just agreed upon.  Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if
you 

can.  I am very interested.

 

Peace be with you.

David Miller. 

 

David, I see “orginal sin” as
the inherited sin nature.  I believe that you have stated in the past that God
judges us for our committed sins. (Not for our inherited sin-tendency.) A
newborn infant has committed no sin.  Whenever he reaches the age of
accountability/understanding/conscience then he can (and does) sin. Until then
he is just doing whatever he has been conditioned to do by those around him. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




See comments below:
 
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin

> *note subject change> Subject was 
"  Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"> > Bill 
Taylor wrote:> >> ... I do not think their transgressions are 
reckoned> >> to them as sin until that time that they have both 
a> >> cognitive and a moral awareness of the law,> >> 
i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression> >> of such is 
sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).> > Izzy wrote:> > Agreed.> 
> Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 
5?  The > following passage seems to indicate that an advserse 
sentence of > condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one 
man:> > Romans 5:18> (18) Therefore as by the offence of 
one judgment came upon all men to > condemnation> > Several 
verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning > over 
men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:> > Romans 
5:14> (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
that had > not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgression> > The concepts Paul teaches here appear 
contradictory to your perceptions. 
I think you mis-perceive my perception. :>) This 
is where I find disagreement with Izzy and you, I believe, if I correctly 
remember your position. Were it not for their inclusion in Christ, by way of his 
atoning representation of them, young children (along with all humanity), would 
remain under the condemnation of Adam's offense, and should they die, they would 
die under the judgment of that same offence. Hence, I wrote to Izzy that I 
had great difficulty thinking of them as "innocent": Were it not for Christ, 
their guilt in Adam would condemn them, even before they have 
"sinned" (Paul touches on the same thing in verse 14, although in 2Cor 
5.19 he clarifies that God did not impute their trespasses to them). BUT 
this is not the rest of the story. Verse 18 goes on to state: "even so 
through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all [humans], resulting in 
justification of life." Young children are included in Christ's 
recapitulation of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and 
therefore that justification of life. Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon 
Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't need to be saved because 
they have not sinned. If I remember you correctly, I think you take a similar 
position.
 
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:33:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Allow me one comment.   When Paul 
speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 
5:12.  
 
jt: Don't let us forget Romans 
5:14 either "Nevertheless death reigned from 
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned" So infants are born into a culture of death no matter which way 
you look at it.
 
 We are complicit with Adam because we, 
ALSO, have sinned.  
 
jt: We and our offspring are 
complicit with Adam because we are born into the spiritual death he embraced 
when he 
chose to disobey God.
 
Adam's sin opened the door to 
death   --   but his life did not condemn us apart from our 
own failings.
 
jt: His life condemned us to be 
born under the curse of death rather than born into life (by natural 
generation) and there 
is just one way to reverse the curse and move 
from death to life.   
 
No need to respond to this.   I 
will butt out for now.  
 
jt: No problem 
John...  
 

  In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  *note subject changeSubject was "  Basis of Unity 
(Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"Bill Taylor wrote:>>... I 
do not think their transgressions are reckoned>>to them as sin 
until that time that they have both a>>cognitive and a moral 
awareness of the law,>>i.e., of right and wrong and why the 
transgression>>of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).Izzy 
wrote:>Agreed.Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject 
matter of Romans 5?  The following passage seems to indicate that 
an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the 
offense of one man:Romans 5:18(18) Therefore as by the offence 
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnationSeveral verses 
earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from 
Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:Romans 5:14(14) 
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over 
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgressionThe concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to 
your perceptions. These people who experienced death did so because of 
someone who sinned before them.  Furthermore, they had no real 
understanding that that their actions were sinful because there was no 
law.  I have to admit that I tend to look at matters the way you 
two do, but I fear that much of that is because of my culture and 
upbringing.  These passages challenge my way of thinking on this, 
and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed 
upon.  Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you 
can.  I am very interested.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-09 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
> When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our
> relation to that, let's not forget 5:12.   We are
> complicit with Adam because we, ALSO,
> have sinned.

True enough.  I think we all agree with this.  However, the issue raised by 
Bill was that their transgressions are not reckoned to them until that time 
that they have both a cognitive and moral awareness of the law.  It was said 
that if they don't have an understanding of why their transgressions are 
sinful, then their transgressions are not reckoned to them.

If this were true, why then the argument by Paul that men were condemned 
even though their sin was not like Adam's sin?  And how was it not like 
Adam's sin?  They had no knowledge that they were sinning.  Yet, they 
continued to die.  Why?  Because Adam's sin was imputed to them, and they 
all sinnned.  They continued to sin in ignorance, yet they still suffered 
condemnation.  One transgression resulted in condemnation to all men (Rom. 
5:18).

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin