Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
J < That's me. Smiling at you. (while I bite my tongue and pray for still more grace) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:02 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:03 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Dont feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. J "It certainly doesnt appear, at least on the surface, to have made any of your camp better people. (ie: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control)" Izzy You should have know us before we met our Lord! Bill Im glad to hear youve improved. (I think!) Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:41 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:55:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. Bill Don’t feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. Izzy Actually, it is not alienation that is the problem so much as judgmentalism from those who cannot afford to be objective. J Yes, that, too. Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
I made earlier refence to 'can't/won't' and, indicated that while vascillating from time to time, I currently lean toward 'can't'. This being possibly true, I don't think that intentionally duplicity and 'can't' go hand in hand. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 28, 2004 12:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/28/2004 8:44:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where there is no love there is no relationship. There is no doubt that this is the underlying principle that motivated Jonathan's posting (for example). However, none of you speak of meeting the standard set by Jesus which is "If you love me you will do what I say"You see, Judy, this is exactly "our" complaint. This assertion, on your part, has nothing to do with honest debate and everything to do with judgmentatlism -- you making a judgment about the relationship of others to Christ. It is accusatory in content and demands a waste of time on the part of those who might feel the need the correct this damning opinion. I feel no such compulsion. John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:10:57 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 12/28/2004 8:44:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Where there is no love there is no relationship. There is no doubt that this is the underlying principle that motivated Jonathan's posting (for example). jt: Underlying principle? There was no rhyme or reason, let alone principle to any of that John.. Surely this is not an example of the method you might use to try and encourage ppl back to spiritual and emotional health is it? IMO Jonathan sounded like a troubled soul full of anger - However, none of you speak of meeting the standard set by Jesus which is "If you love me you will do what I say" You see, Judy, this is exactly "our" complaint. This assertion, on your part, has nothing to do with honest debate and everything to do with judgmentatlism -- jt: What is there to debate? It is a command given by Jesus, one either does it or they don't you making a judgment about the relationship of others to Christ. jt: No accusation John. Just an observation that none of you talk about these things, in fact some are so offended as to call it "dropping scripture bombs" so it is not the savour of life to them. It is accusatory in content and demands a waste of time on the part of those who might feel the need the correct this damning opinion. I feel no such compulsion. John jt: What damning opinion? judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/28/2004 8:44:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where there is no love there is no relationship. There is no doubt that this is the underlying principle that motivated Jonathan's posting (for example). However, none of you speak of meeting the standard set by Jesus which is "If you love me you will do what I say" You see, Judy, this is exactly "our" complaint. This assertion, on your part, has nothing to do with honest debate and everything to do with judgmentatlism -- you making a judgment about the relationship of others to Christ. It is accusatory in content and demands a waste of time on the part of those who might feel the need the correct this damning opinion. I feel no such compulsion. John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:10:06 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 12/28/2004 5:04:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy: IMO Bill is right and 'alienation' IS the problem John. Love always rejoices with the truth and "this Patristic _expression_" leaves a lot to be desired. Are you aware that you judge the ones you accuse of judgmentalism above? Thanks for sharing. "Judgmentalism" still gets my vote -- proving that John Boy can think on his own. (Sorry, Bill -- I will come back the mentoring and Liberal Triad as soon as I have proven that I don't have to.). John Boy jt: Not sure what you have to prove John but getting back to the "relationship" issue. I see lack of love as the main problem yet you and the "liberal triad" seldom mention it. Do you believe you are walking in it already? In spite of the "Incarnation" Where there is no love there is no relationship. Sin kills it every time. I notice that you and the 'liberal ones' clutch tightly to thie "relationship ideal" along with "relationship theologians" However, none of you speak of meeting the standard set by Jesus which is "If you love me you will do what I say" It is when we prove we love Him by keeping His words that He and the Father love us and come to make their abode with us (John 14:18-24)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/28/2004 5:04:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: IMO Bill is right and 'alienation' IS the problem John. Love always rejoices with the truth and "this Patristic _expression_" leaves a lot to be desired. Are you aware that you judge the ones you accuse of judgmentalism above? Thanks for sharing. "Judgmentalism" still gets my vote -- proving that John Boy can think on his own. (Sorry, Bill -- I will come back the mentoring and Liberal Triad as soon as I have proven that I don't have to.). John Boy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:03 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Don’t feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. J "It certainly doesn’t appear, at least on the surface, to have made any of your camp better people. (ie: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control)" Izzy You should have know us before we met our Lord! Bill I’m glad to hear you’ve improved. (I think!) Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
ï For some, 'patristric' is a swear word and, as to such you'd best just 'walk around them' and address such as welcome this 'relational balance' you seek. Bill, ya otta right a book. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 28, 2004 08:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:41:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. BillIzzy: Donât feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. IzzyJohn: Actually, it is not alienation that is the problem so much as judgmentalism from those who cannot afford to be objective. Judy: IMO Bill is right and 'alienation' IS the problem John. Love always rejoices with the truth and "this Patristic _expression_" leaves a lot to be desired. Are you aware that you judge the ones you accuse of judgmentalism above?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
ï On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:41:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill: I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. BillIzzy: Donât feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. IzzyJohn: Actually, it is not alienation that is the problem so much as judgmentalism from those who cannot afford to be objective. Judy: IMO Bill is right and 'alienation' IS the problem John. Love always rejoices with the truth and "this Patristic _expression_" leaves a lot to be desired. Are you aware that you judge the ones you accuse of judgmentalism above?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Only this much for now...here's no surprise..I'm
NOT one of 'em
- Original Message -
From:
Jeff
Powers
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 27, 2004 16:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
would you care to elaborate?
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004
5:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
There are four bona fide 'theologians' on TT
and one wanna be.
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 26, 2004 21:57
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry
CliftonSent: Sunday,
December 26, 2004 7:43 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
ShieldsFamily wrote:
I fail to see the importance of it.
When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your
earthshaking point??? Izzy
Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either
straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what
he sees.Terry
Or so far
behind??? (You could be light years ahead, Terry.)
Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:55:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. Bill Donât feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. Izzy Actually, it is not alienation that is the problem so much as judgmentalism from those who cannot afford to be objective. J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Dont feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. J "It certainly doesnt appear, at least on the surface, to have made any of your camp better people. (ie: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control)" Izzy You should have know us before we met our Lord! Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:53 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. Bill Dont feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. Bill Don’t feel bad; that seems to be an occupational hazard of everyone who believes as you do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:00 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk? === Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy No, but I understand they taste like chicken. Isn’t that called ilken?
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
If he overcharges for them it’s called “bilk”. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 6:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Only while wearing silk! -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, 27 December, 2004 16.36 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk? === Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Thanks. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill Taylor says, "HUH? :>)" Slade says, "Alright, let me try again." -Original Message-From: Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 17.34Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristSlade for the sake of our own understanding, will you please clarify: What is it that you are affirming in Judy's post: 1) her statement above, or 2) the overall tenor of her post, or 3) both of these? Thanks, Bill Ok. I will redden the text I was specifically agreeing with. I will make everything else black. It all begins with Izzy's post which stated, " I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy" Everything I wrote is in the context of Izzy's comment, "They are One." -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christjt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him".* Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.** So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower. *slade interjection: As I said before, I have no problem with the someone disagreeing on the use of "see" versus "experience." I choose "experience" because of my understanding of the active tenses in Hebrew: "see" is not active, whereas "experience" indicates an environment of action. Also, the concept of Echad/Oneness is verified. ** slade interjection: the concept of Yeshua and Abba as being Echad/One is verified here.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 1:13 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill wrote: I am not denying that Jesus is the Word from the beginning or the end. I believe the Word is eternal -- although I do not know where if any place this is stated as such in Scripture. BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "And this is the word which was preached to you. (I Peter 2:5) 8The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Is 40:8)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill, sorry to take so long to get back to you. Im a bit behind on TT. We had 17 here for dinner last night, and are making great memories together this week. J As to what you wrote above, I have no problem with it. I always assumed that God said Let us create Man in our image was spoken by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I assume He created us in the likeness, physically, of Christ, and then He came to be like us. All that said, this is so not relevant to my personal faith and how I live that I never stop to speculate about it. I dont worship relationship, and it sometimes appears to me that your theology does. Can you explain that to me? Izzy Thanks Izzy, Well (of course), I do not believe I worship "relationship." But I am deeply committed to our relational God -- and that then includes the way in which I know him and teach to others the "who" of who he is. It seems to me it is this "who-ness" that people find so difficult to relate to. I know that this is all new to most Christians; it is not new to the Faith, however. I long to be always able to find the relational balance between teaching this Patristic _expression_ of early Christianity, without alienating Christians in the process. That balance is oh so difficult to find, and even harder to keep. Please hang in there with me :>) Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 12:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 3:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. Bill, sorry to take so long to get back to you. Im a bit behind on TT. We had 17 here for dinner last night, and are making great memories together this week. J As to what you wrote above, I have no problem with it. I always assumed that God said Let us create Man in our image was spoken by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I assume He created us in the likeness, physically, of Christ, and then He came to be like us. All that said, this is so not relevant to my personal faith and how I live that I never stop to speculate about it. I dont worship relationship, and it sometimes appears to me that your theology does. Can you explain that to me? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
ShieldsFamily wrote: From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk? === Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy No, but I understand they taste like chicken.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
:) - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 19:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Only while wearing silk! -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Monday, 27 December, 2004 16.36To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk?=== Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Only while wearing silk! -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Monday, 27 December, 2004 16.36To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk?=== Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
But several opinions about whom they might be. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:49 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ There are four bona fide 'theologians' on TT and one wanna be. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2004 21:57 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees. Terry Or so far behind??? (You could be light years ahead, Terry.) Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
would you care to elaborate? - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 5:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ There are four bona fide 'theologians' on TT and one wanna be. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2004 21:57 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:43 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry Or so far behind??? (You could be light years ahead, Terry.) Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk? === Terry have you ever hunted ilk ? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill wrote: I am not denying that Jesus is the Word from the beginning or the end. I believe the Word is eternal -- although I do not know where if any place this is stated as such in Scripture. “BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "And this is the word which was preached to you.” (I Peter 2:5) “8The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” (Is 40:8)
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 3:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. Bill, sorry to take so long to get back to you. I’m a bit behind on TT. We had 17 here for dinner last night, and are making great memories together this week. J As to what you wrote above, I have no problem with it. I always assumed that God said “Let us create Man in our image” was spoken by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I assume He created us in the likeness, physically, of Christ, and then He came to be “like” us. All that said, this is so not relevant to my personal faith and how I live that I never stop to speculate about it. I don’t worship “relationship”, and it sometimes appears to me that your theology does. Can you explain that to me? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Good point: sometimes I just give up. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 3:51 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ I really wish I could follow your posts, Judy. What's new here? the green? the blue? PLEASE PLEASE TRIM -- slade -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 16.34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
There are four bona fide 'theologians' on TT and one wanna be. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2004 21:57 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:43 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry Or so far behind??? (You could be light years ahead, Terry.) Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill Taylor says, "HUH? :>)" Slade says, "Alright, let me try again." -Original Message-From: Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 17.34Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristSlade for the sake of our own understanding, will you please clarify: What is it that you are affirming in Judy's post: 1) her statement above, or 2) the overall tenor of her post, or 3) both of these? Thanks, Bill Ok. I will redden the text I was specifically agreeing with. I will make everything else black. It all begins with Izzy's post which stated, " I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy" Everything I wrote is in the context of Izzy's comment, "They are One." -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christjt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him".* Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.** So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower. *slade interjection: As I said before, I have no problem with the someone disagreeing on the use of "see" versus "experience." I choose "experience" because of my understanding of the active tenses in Hebrew: "see" is not active, whereas "experience" indicates an environment of action. Also, the concept of Echad/Oneness is verified. ** slade interjection: the concept of Yeshua and Abba as being Echad/One is verified here.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
YUP! - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk?===Jeff Powers wrote: its pagan goddess worship! like mother earth, aphrodite, Ishtar, etc. A mother goddess. Jeff Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 18:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, Did ya have to bring in the new-age mumbo jumbo? Jeff ==You lost me Jeff. I don't even know what new age is. Now if you want to know about old age, I am sure I can help you.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? (A)He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 9:41 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Izzy, you seem to be making a paraphrase of John 14:7. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's is my understanding of the passage. For those who think I'm swallowing a camel, please double check your Strong's. Perhaps it can verify or vilify the reading: If you knew me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on, you know Him and have experienced Him. --slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08.43 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
My Son and I (Russ) talked last week about doing what we can to generate a second offensive wave in this battle of minds and hearts for Christ. This is what, in part, we have in mind. Maybe you have an idea or two or maybe, it will be something that we can network. Maybe you have a concern. Share it. I won't argue the case for these efforts -- I will just lay them out there. As I see it, people of Faith are in a battle with a very well defined intellectual majority. Fortunately, the intellectual majority is something around 20% of the population. Unfortunately, that majority are the very people who own many of the newspapers, most of the professorships in our universities, and are driving those issues that compromise the Faith (as it presently does business) and increasingly limit free _expression_. This is not a political war. It is one of faith against faith. Here are some things I have personally been involved with or have a personal knowledge of -- that work against the secular and athietistic influences that seek to destroy our influence. I hasten to add that not all secularists or athietists are our enemy. Anyway: We had a debate at the local J.C. in Fresno. Standing room only. A debate between an evolutionist and design by creation (Christian) scientist. 18,000 students attend our J.C. The accepted result of the debate --- the evolutionist may have scored a draw !! The students were very surprised to see this debate and record the result. They were shocked that the evolutionist did not do better that he did. Myself and one other Christian, in Madera, spent a considerable amount of time, year before last, writing editorial letters to the local paper. I got into the column 10 different times (`12 per year is the limit) and the other nearly that same number. I received appreciative phone calls and a coouple of very angry ones, as well. We beleive some good was accomplished. One family, living directly across from one of the cities high schools, has opened their doors to a noon meeting for the kids on the campus across the street. The meetings stress making Christ and the biblical message work for them in their own way. It stresses doing benevolent things for poorer kids on campus and working against abortion. Two retired high school teachers, Christians both, have taken up attending Fresno State Unitveristy (22,000 young people). They are professional students, attending philosophy, psychology, science and social science classes -- and their job, to comfront teaching that is harmful to the faith of those who attend those classes -- to insure that those professors are not allowed to conduct their assults unchallenged. The "movement" needs teachers who fight within the system for whatever is possible and legal in the pursuit of religious _expression_ and on-campus freedoms. We need lawyers who will fight to defeat those who use the legal system against us. We need professional folk to express their support and ideas for the bibilical message on health and wealth and morality. We are talking about how to put this effort to coordinate all of this into a single effort. Part of what we would be invovled in would find us under constant pressure from those who claim the name of the Lord. Why? Because this effort would NOT entertain a conservative theological agenda (unless opposition to abortion is that which make the effort "conservative.) We would hope to gather as many who claim the name of Christ as possible -- whether Methodist, Messianic, Pentecostal, Catholic or whatever. Actually, maybe the abortion issue would not be a focal point -- but right now, I am there. Anyway -- a big undertaking. We would be fighting those on both sides of the equation, but that is the way it goes. It was a 'Christian" who did in Paul (Alexander the copper smith IMO). John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
HUH? :>) - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ When it comes to the Eternal Word/Eternal Son thing, this is the equation I use Memra L'Maryah (Aramaic Word of the LORD) = Devar haShem (Hebrew Word of YHVH) = The Son = Yeshua = Jesus = The Light = The Life = Torah made Flesh = The Word = The Way = The Holy One of Israel = The Eternal Truth = Captain of the Host of YHVH = Messiah/Mashiach/Christ/Meshecheinu = YHVH = Echad. Beyond that is purely speculative on my part. I'm too stoopid to make an educated guess. -- slade -Original Message-From: Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 17.34Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristSlade for the sake of our own understanding, will you please clarify: What is it that you are affirming in Judy's post: 1) her statement above, or 2) the overall tenor of her post, or 3) both of these? Thanks, Bill Ok. I will color the text I was specifically agreeing with. I will make everything else black. It all begins with Izzy's post which stated, " I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy" Everything I wrote is in the context of Izzy's comment, "They are One." I've noticed that if I try to agree with a point, there is automatic disagreement on the conditions of agreement. If I disagree, there's... well... disagreement. I either ignore the posts completely or attempt to give small, short, succinct answers so there will be little or no response. -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christjt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him". slade interjection: As I said before, I have no problem with the someone disagreeing on the use of "see" versus "experience." I choose "experience" because of my understanding of the active tenses in Hebrew: "see" is not active, whereas "experience" indicates an environment of action. Also, the concept of Echad/Oneness is verified. Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. slade interjection: the concept of Yeshua and Abba as being Echad/One is verified here. So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees. Terry Or so far behind??? (You could be light years ahead, Terry.) Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
When it comes to the Eternal Word/Eternal Son thing, this is the equation I use Memra L'Maryah (Aramaic Word of the LORD) = Devar haShem (Hebrew Word of YHVH) = The Son = Yeshua = Jesus = The Light = The Life = Torah made Flesh = The Word = The Way = The Holy One of Israel = The Eternal Truth = Captain of the Host of YHVH = Messiah/Mashiach/Christ/Meshecheinu = YHVH = Echad. Beyond that is purely speculative on my part. I'm too stoopid to make an educated guess. -- slade -Original Message-From: Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 17.34Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristSlade for the sake of our own understanding, will you please clarify: What is it that you are affirming in Judy's post: 1) her statement above, or 2) the overall tenor of her post, or 3) both of these? Thanks, Bill Ok. I will color the text I was specifically agreeing with. I will make everything else black. It all begins with Izzy's post which stated, " I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy" Everything I wrote is in the context of Izzy's comment, "They are One." I've noticed that if I try to agree with a point, there is automatic disagreement on the conditions of agreement. If I disagree, there's... well... disagreement. I either ignore the posts completely or attempt to give small, short, succinct answers so there will be little or no response. -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christjt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him". slade interjection: As I said before, I have no problem with the someone disagreeing on the use of "see" versus "experience." I choose "experience" because of my understanding of the active tenses in Hebrew: "see" is not active, whereas "experience" indicates an environment of action. Also, the concept of Echad/Oneness is verified. Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. slade interjection: the concept of Yeshua and Abba as being Echad/One is verified here. So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Ahh, sorta like tree hugging vegetarian (if it's organic) anti hunting spotted owl watchers in favor of women's right to choose. The same ilk? === Jeff Powers wrote: its pagan goddess worship! like mother earth, aphrodite, Ishtar, etc. A mother goddess. Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 18:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, Did ya have to bring in the new-age mumbo jumbo? Jeff == You lost me Jeff. I don't even know what new age is. Now if you want to know about old age, I am sure I can help you.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Hahahaha!!! Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 17.59To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristIn a message dated 12/26/2004 1:55:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother?TerryLinda Shields ?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
its pagan goddess worship! like mother earth, aphrodite, Ishtar, etc. A mother goddess. Jeff Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 18:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, Did ya have to bring in the new-age mumbo jumbo? Jeff ==You lost me Jeff. I don't even know what new age is. Now if you want to know about old age, I am sure I can help you.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, Did ya have to bring in the new-age mumbo jumbo? Jeff == You lost me Jeff. I don't even know what new age is. Now if you want to know about old age, I am sure I can help you.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
J.T. > I maintain that Jesus was the Word in the beginning - John 1:1 - and that Jesus is the Word at the end - Revelation 19:13 (Why isn't He called the "eternal Son" here?) Judy, I am not denying that Jesus is the Word from the beginning or the end. I believe the Word is eternal -- although I do not know where if any place this is stated as such in Scripture. One does not have to emphasize the word "eternal" when speaking of God --Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- except when essential aspects of this Trinity are being denied and called temporal. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:30:04 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: Now we're getting to where the 'rubber meets the road' Bill. Do you honestly see Jesus the "oracle" of God as a rationally-static "Word" doctrine? ... It is deceitful to hang all on an ethereal "relationship" that can not be clearly articulated in the Word of God. No, Judy, I do not. A cursory reading of what I wrote will tell you that. Please stop with the slams in insults. Bill jt: Bill we really do not understand one another because the above is not meant to be a "slam or insult" Why do you take everything so personally? Are we both in pursuit of Truth? judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/26/2004 3:32:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is deceitful to hang all on an ethereal "relationship" that can not be clearly articulated in the Word of God. Bill we really do not understand one another because the above is not meant to be a "slam or insult" Why do you take everything so personally? You accuse Bill of being deceitful and then see no problem with it? J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:30:04 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: Now we're getting to where the 'rubber meets the road' Bill. Do you honestly see Jesus the "oracle" of God as a rationally-static "Word" doctrine? ... It is deceitful to hang all on an ethereal "relationship" that can not be clearly articulated in the Word of God. No, Judy, I do not. A cursory reading of what I wrote will tell you that. Please stop with the slams in insults. Bill jt: Bill we really do not understand one another because the above is not meant to be a "slam or insult" Why do you take everything so personally? Are we both in pursuit of Truth? I maintain that Jesus was the Word in the beginning - John 1:1 - and that Jesus is the Word at the end - Revelation 19:13 (Why isn't He called the "eternal Son" here?) judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/26/2004 1:55:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother? Terry Linda Shields ?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
That is where the term "begotten" comes into play. But that will have to be a discussion for another day. Bill Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother?Terry
Re: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In her post Judy writes, "They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" (bold type my own). To her post Slade responds, "Exactly, so why are you disagreeing?" Slade for the sake of our own understanding, will you please clarify: What is it that you are affirming in Judy's post: 1) her statement above, or 2) the overall tenor of her post, or 3) both of these? Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 12:18 PM Subject: RE: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Exactly, so why are you disagreeing? -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ jt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him". Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower. On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:41:23 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy, you seem to be making a paraphrase of John 14:7. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's is my understanding of the passage. For those who think I'm swallowing a camel, please double check your Strong's. Perhaps it can verify or vilify the reading: --slade If you knew me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on, you know Him and have experienced Him. ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
jt: Now we're getting to where the 'rubber meets the road' Bill. Do you honestly see Jesus the "oracle" of God as a rationally-static "Word" doctrine? ... It is deceitful to hang everything on an ethereal "relationship" that can not be clearly articulated in the Word of God. No, Judy, I do not. A cursory reading of what I wrote will tell you that. Please stop with the slams in insults. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Terry, Did ya have to bring in the new-age mumbo jumbo? Jeff Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 15:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill Taylor wrote: Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. The significance of this is not to diminish the doctrine of the eternal Word (Joh 1) -- not at all, I very much embrace and uphold this doctrine. But I believe the Word can only rightly and truly be known as he has made himself known to us in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To speak of the Word in any capacity other than the capacity which we know him in the Son, is to speak of him in abstraction and to rationalize him away from our understanding of him as God, the God who revealed himself to us in personal, relational existence as the Son of the Father. This pre-existent 'Jesus,' as you have identified him, can therefore only be known to us in the capacity in which he came to us in the incarnation of the Son of God, Emmanuel. We dare not chase away in our thinking of divine Sonship the idea of his eternal existence, for to do so is to cloud our ability to know God and to relate to him as he desires to be known -- in the way he has revealed himself to us as Son of the Father: "God ... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1.1-2). And so the significance of this distinction -- and the reason why I am not straining gnats -- is in knowing or not knowing the eternal Word in personal, relational categories. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship -- "that they may be one just as We are one" (Joh 17.22b). To say that the Son is not eternal is to say that this relationship is not the most important relationship of all eternity. It is to say that this relationship is not eternal. It is to say that God in eternity past was something other than he is in eternity present, now that he does have at his heart this Father-Son relationship. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ is therefore to diminish and chase away this most important of doctrines -- the relational unity, which is the oneness of our God; either that or it is to deny the very importance of that relationship itself. Moreover, it is to introduce into our thinking the subtle necessity that God had to create in order to be fully, perfectly God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this is helpful. I pray the opportunity in coming days to go ahead and expand upon the importance of this most important distinction that I am drawing. Bill =Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother?Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Thanks. I want to follow and understand your points. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 16.57To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Blue and Yes Sir... On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:51:09 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I really wish I could follow your posts, Judy. What's new here? the green? the blue? PLEASE PLEASE TRIM -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Mary? Joking of course. judyt On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:45:51 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill Taylor wrote: Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. The significance of this is not to diminish the doctrine of the eternal Word (Joh 1) -- not at all, I very much embrace and uphold this doctrine. But I believe the Word can only rightly and truly be known as he has made himself known to us in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To speak of the Word in any capacity other than the capacity which we know him in the Son, is to speak of him in abstraction and to rationalize him away from our understanding of him as God, the God who revealed himself to us in personal, relational existence as the Son of the Father. This pre-existent 'Jesus,' as you have identified him, can therefore only be known to us in the capacity in which he came to us in the incarnation of the Son of God, Emmanuel. We dare not chase away in our thinking of divine Sonship the idea of his eternal existence, for to do so is to cloud our ability to know God and to relate to him as he desires to be known -- in the way he has revealed himself to us as Son of the Father: "God ... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1.1-2). And so the significance of this distinction -- and the reason why I am not straining gnats -- is in knowing or not knowing the eternal Word in personal, relational categories. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship -- "that they may be one just as We are one" (Joh 17.22b). To say that the Son is not eternal is to say that this relationship is not the most important relationship of all eternity. It is to say that this relationship is not eternal. It is to say that God in eternity past was something other than he is in eternity present, now that he does have at his heart this Father-Son relationship. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ is therefore to diminish and chase away this most important of doctrines -- the relational unity, which is the oneness of our God; either that or it is to deny the very importance of that relationship itself. Moreover, it is to introduce into our thinking the subtle necessity that God had to create in order to be fully, perfectly God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this is helpful. I pray the opportunity in coming days to go ahead and expand upon the importance of this most important distinction that I am drawing. Bill =Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Blue and Yes Sir...
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:51:09 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I
really wish I could follow your posts, Judy.
What's new here? the green? the blue? PLEASE PLEASE TRIM
--
slade
-Original Message-From: Judy
TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 16.34Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill Taylor wrote: Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. The significance of this is not to diminish the doctrine of the eternal Word (Joh 1) -- not at all, I very much embrace and uphold this doctrine. But I believe the Word can only rightly and truly be known as he has made himself known to us in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To speak of the Word in any capacity other than the capacity which we know him in the Son, is to speak of him in abstraction and to rationalize him away from our understanding of him as God, the God who revealed himself to us in personal, relational existence as the Son of the Father. This pre-existent 'Jesus,' as you have identified him, can therefore only be known to us in the capacity in which he came to us in the incarnation of the Son of God, Emmanuel. We dare not chase away in our thinking of divine Sonship the idea of his eternal existence, for to do so is to cloud our ability to know God and to relate to him as he desires to be known -- in the way he has revealed himself to us as Son of the Father: "God ... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1.1-2). And so the significance of this distinction -- and the reason why I am not straining gnats -- is in knowing or not knowing the eternal Word in personal, relational categories. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship -- "that they may be one just as We are one" (Joh 17.22b). To say that the Son is not eternal is to say that this relationship is not the most important relationship of all eternity. It is to say that this relationship is not eternal. It is to say that God in eternity past was something other than he is in eternity present, now that he does have at his heart this Father-Son relationship. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ is therefore to diminish and chase away this most important of doctrines -- the relational unity, which is the oneness of our God; either that or it is to deny the very importance of that relationship itself. Moreover, it is to introduce into our thinking the subtle necessity that God had to create in order to be fully, perfectly God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this is helpful. I pray the opportunity in coming days to go ahead and expand upon the importance of this most important distinction that I am drawing. Bill = Just one question. If God is the eternal father, and Jesus is the eternal son, who is the eternal mother? Terry
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
jt: Now we're getting to where the 'rubber meets the road' Bill. Do you honestly see Jesus the "oracle" of God as a rationally-static "Word" doctrine? Accepting scriptural truth as it is written does not depersonalize anything and most definitely does not introduce any subtle necessity. It is deceitful to hang everything on an ethereal "relationship" that can not be clearly articulated in the Word of God. On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:15:50 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. The significance of this is not to diminish the doctrine of the eternal Word (Joh 1) -- not at all, I very much embrace and uphold this doctrine. But I believe the Word can only rightly and truly be known as he has made himself known to us in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To speak of the Word in any capacity other than the capacity which we know him in the Son, is to speak of him in abstraction and to rationalize him away from our understanding of him as God, the God who revealed himself to us in personal, relational existence as the Son of the Father. This pre-existent 'Jesus,' as you have identified him, can therefore only be known to us in the capacity in which he came to us in the incarnation of the Son of God, Emmanuel. We dare not chase away in our thinking of divine Sonship the idea of his eternal existence, for to do so is to cloud our ability to know God and to relate to him as he desires to be known -- in the way he has revealed himself to us as Son of the Father: "God ... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1.1-2). And so the significance of this distinction -- and the reason why I am not straining gnats -- is in knowing or not knowing the eternal Word in personal, relational categories. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship -- "that they may be one just as We are one" (Joh 17.22b). To say that the Son is not eternal is to say that this relationship is not the most important relationship of all eternity. It is to say that this relationship is not eternal. It is to say that God in eternity past was something other than he is in eternity present, now that he does have at his heart this Father-Son relationship. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ is therefore to diminish and chase away this most important of doctrines -- the relational unity, which is the oneness of our God; either that or it is to deny the very importance of that relationship itself. Moreover, it is to introduce into our thinking the subtle necessity that God had to create in order to be fully, perfectly God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this is helpful. I pray the opportunity in coming days to go ahead and expand upon the importance of this most important distinction that I am drawing. Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
I really wish I could follow your posts, Judy. What's new here? the green? the blue? PLEASE PLEASE TRIM -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 16.34Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:04:44 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill is red JT writes > [MacArthur] says the decree is eternal so that makes the son eternal. I posted the Word from Strongs and it has nothing to do with eternal rather it speaks to a point in time. You have not responded to any of that. BT: You are correct, Judy, I failed to address this concern. Please see my post to David regarding idioms and figures of speech. I believe I address your question (although not explicitly) in that post. BT: I'll take that as a sign that you have wearied of our discussion -- "pre-adamic creation": What does that mean?! jt: God told Adam to replenish the earth. Why would he have used that word if it had not been plenished in the path. This is just a thought, it's not set in concrete but could have been so. BT: That's an intriguing interpretation, Judy, but not one that applies to our discussion, as it rest entirely upon speculation. jt: So does relegating certain scriptures to idioms and figures of speech. BT: And Judy, you might want to check with Dake on your reading of 1 John 5:7 . . . jt: Why? Does he say something other than that the three that bear record in heaven are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? BT: I don't know. I haven't read that portion of Dake, not that I am aware of anyway (wink, wink). jt: Careful Bill - people who wink all the time are 'up to something' BT: On second thought, I've been reading him myself; pitch him and go with someone who knows what he's talking about. Study notes are not Scripture you know. The inspired words are supposed to be on the top of the page; 1 John 5:7 KJV has quite a background. Did you know that? jt: Not very charitable Bill but you have to follow your own conscience such as it is. I see nothing in OT scripture about an eternal Son bearing witness or record in heaven. BT: Two figures passed through the pieces in the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant. Neither of them was Abraham. Yet it was Abraham and Christ to whom the promises were made; but it was Christ alone by whom the covenant was fulfilled. The pre-incarnate Christ is therefore the only one who could represent the recipient in the ratification of the covenant. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To jump ahead a bit, since we have established the relational status of the covenant, it is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that one of the parties who passed through those pieces had to be the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of the Father; the other being the Father to the Son. jt: I understand the Covenant to have been between God and Abraham regardless of who passed between the pieces. Christ is the fulfillment. BT: I would like to know how the Father was the "Father of all spirits" before he had created any of them. Or do you not believe in creation ex nihilo? Or are you suggesting that he was the Father of the Holy Spirit but that that does not in some weird way make the Holy Spirit his Son? jt: I'm not suggesting any of those things - God has always been and the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead. BT: Merry Christmas, Judy. You just got your gift from me (wink, wink). Use it, but don't wear it out too quickly. Bill jt: What gift is this? BT: It's the one which allows you to save face if you are wise enough to do so. jt: You certainly are not lacking in confidence Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Thank you very much, Izzy. I apologize for not expressing the significance of my concern more clearly. You say that 'Jesus' existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form. My question for you is, was Jesus the Father's Son when he existed in this eternal pre-incarnate state with his "FATHER"? Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing for an eternal physical Son. I am arguing for an eternal Son who became physical at a point in human history, a Son who embodied flesh to be "God with us," that we might know the heart of God, God for who he is, that we might more fully uphold in our worship and devotion this most central of truths: the eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. The significance of this is not to diminish the doctrine of the eternal Word (Joh 1) -- not at all, I very much embrace and uphold this doctrine. But I believe the Word can only rightly and truly be known as he has made himself known to us in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To speak of the Word in any capacity other than the capacity which we know him in the Son, is to speak of him in abstraction and to rationalize him away from our understanding of him as God, the God who revealed himself to us in personal, relational existence as the Son of the Father. This pre-existent 'Jesus,' as you have identified him, can therefore only be known to us in the capacity in which he came to us in the incarnation of the Son of God, Emmanuel. We dare not chase away in our thinking of divine Sonship the idea of his eternal existence, for to do so is to cloud our ability to know God and to relate to him as he desires to be known -- in the way he has revealed himself to us as Son of the Father: "God ... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1.1-2). And so the significance of this distinction -- and the reason why I am not straining gnats -- is in knowing or not knowing the eternal Word in personal, relational categories. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship -- "that they may be one just as We are one" (Joh 17.22b). To say that the Son is not eternal is to say that this relationship is not the most important relationship of all eternity. It is to say that this relationship is not eternal. It is to say that God in eternity past was something other than he is in eternity present, now that he does have at his heart this Father-Son relationship. To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ is therefore to diminish and chase away this most important of doctrines -- the relational unity, which is the oneness of our God; either that or it is to deny the very importance of that relationship itself. Moreover, it is to introduce into our thinking the subtle necessity that God had to create in order to be fully, perfectly God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this is helpful. I pray the opportunity in coming days to go ahead and expand upon the importance of this most important distinction that I am drawing. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ BT: Two figures passed through the pieces in the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant. Neither of them was Abraham. Yet it was Abraham and Christ to whom the promises were made; but it was Christ alone by whom the covenant was fulfilled. The pre-incarnate Christ is therefore the only one who could represent the recipient in the ratification of the covenant. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To jump ahead a bit, since we have established the relational status of the covenant, it is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that one of the parties who passed through those pieces had to be the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of the Father; the other being the Father to the Son. Bill, I have no problem believing that Jesus existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form on the earth. He was in the fiery furnace. He was probably one of the 3 angels with whom Abraham argued over sparing Sodom. He was in many places in the OT. However I do not understand what you are driving about eternal Sonship. Have you explained this term? As I said, Jesus existed from eternity with the Father, and nothing was created w/o Him. Whether or not He had a human physical body prior to His birth on earth, I cant really say. And I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/26/2004 10:09:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THINK ORANGE -- FOR JD with an important note on I John 4:2 On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:53:57 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:38:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jd: As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God AS HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do. jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthly ministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?" jd: My words above are very important. The incarnation will mirror the essence of God as He has always existed .. you question this statement. In the incarnation, the Christ brings all that is God into our world. God is a communal essence, the father, son and holy spirit and perhaps even more. All that is God accompanies or is a part of the incarnate Christ. He brings this Spiritual Circumstance (the Godhead) with Him. jt: What about he happening that you call "kenosis?" Scripture tells me that he emptied Himself of the glory He had with the father before taking upon Himself the likeness of man. Yes it does. Nothing has changed except that He appears incarnate. In the Spiritual realm, the lines of existence are not ones of demarcation; rather, they are fetters that tie each to the other in an intimacy that is beyond our comprehension. jt: I believe the "beyond our comprehension" part but not the fetters - that word in itself belongs to the other kingdom. What? It is an English word that includes the idea of "confinement." The Plurality of God involves manifestations that are inextribably joined and, even, defined, by the Others. The "other kingdom" has nothing to do with my definitions, Judy. jd: On earth, lines separate - for my thinking and in this case, the heavenly realm works very differently. As you well know, the Jesus-Only sect uses Is 9:6 as a key passage, nullifying the character of God in Community and insisting that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (Prince of Peace). I believe that what is true of the Son before the incarnation (Is 9:6), was true of all Manifestations ... a very real difficulty for the average saint. jt: I'm not up on Jesus-Only theology or the God of Community theology either for that matter. My desire is to understand what God is saying on His terms. Ditto Do you see saints on a sliding scale John? Sliding scale ??? Ye who are spiritual, help those who are weak; babes; you are yet carnal; Lord I believe, help me in my unbelief; Romans 7:24 -- and so on. If this is what you have in mind, the answer is yes. jd: If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Father. If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Spirit (yet, Paul confuses the two in II Cor. 3:18 and Isa 9:6 furthers this "confusion".) That is how our earthly mind thinks. As a Gentile Saint, I see the mix and do not allow it to be a problem. jt: So Paul is fallible, the scriptures are fallible, earthly minded saints are fallible, but the "God in Community sect" are the ones with the truth? And what does your question have to do my comment? jd: When God says, "let us make man ," we have the Father, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace and the Counselor being involved in the creation wonder. jt:I am an "average saint" who doesn't see it that way John. I see the will of God (The Father); the Word of God who speaks the will into existence; and the Spirit of God; who carries out both word and will. They are of in one accord since God is One. "Average" in my post has more to do with "a larger number of ..." than anything. Your views certainly do not represent commonly held beliefs. That does not make them wrong, of course. The reaminder of the above I agree with, but with come qualification regarding that last sentence. It is true as far as it goes. Christ , in the incarnation, empties himself of this Spiritual Communion and becomes quite distinct. jt: Scripture says He emptied Himself of the Glory He had with the Father and you translate that "Spiritual Communion?" You are correct !! jd: Essence and fullness of the Spirit hm. The later is a part of the former, I would say. jt: But the latter is part of the holy write and the former I have only seen in theological discussions and assertions. So what? "Sliding scale" is not found in holy writ, either. jd: You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have? jt: I t
RE: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Exactly, so why are you disagreeing? -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 13.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ jt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him". Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower. On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:41:23 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy, you seem to be making a paraphrase of John 14:7. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's is my understanding of the passage. For those who think I'm swallowing a camel, please double check your Strong's. Perhaps it can verify or vilify the reading: --slade If you knew me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on, you know Him and have experienced Him. ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
jt: In Vs.6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me If ye had known Me ye should have known My Father also" and he goes on to say "and from henceforth, ye know Him and have seen Him". Jesus speaks these words to His disciples in the Upper Room - They validate my assertion that Jesus is the "Eternal Word" rather than the "Eternal Son" - What does Jesus mean when He speaks of "seeing and knowing the Father through Himself?" Were they to see His fleshly image or his title? I don't think so, He goes on to explain in Vs.10 "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works thatn these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. So - it's not about "experience" - it's about words...or more specifically "The Word" reread the Parable of the Sower. On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:41:23 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy, you seem to be making a paraphrase of John 14:7. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's is my understanding of the passage. For those who think I'm swallowing a camel, please double check your Strong's. Perhaps it can verify or vilify the reading: --slade If you knew me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on, you know Him and have experienced Him. ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:53:57 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:38:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jd: As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God ASHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do. jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthlyministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?" jd: My words above are very important. The incarnation will mirror the essence of God as He has always existed .. you question this statement. In the incarnation, the Christ brings all that is God into our world. God is a communal essence, the father, son and holy spirit and perhaps even more. All that is God accompanies or is a part of the incarnate Christ. He brings this Spiritual Circumstance (the Godhead) with Him. jt: What about he happening that you call "kenosis?" Scripture tells me that he emptied Himself of the glory He had with the father before taking upon Himself the likeness of man. Nothing has changed except that He appears incarnate. In the Spiritual realm, the lines of existence are not ones of demarcation; rather, they are fetters that tie each to the other in an intimacy that is beyond our comprehension. jt: I believe the "beyond our comprehension" part but not the fetters - that word in itself belongs to the other kingdom. jd: On earth, lines separate - for my thinking and in this case, the heavenly realm works very differently. As you well know, the Jesus-Only sect uses Is 9:6 as a key passage, nullifying the character of God in Community and insisting that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (Prince of Peace). I believe that what is true of the Son before the incarnation (Is 9:6), was true of all Manifestations ... a very real difficulty for the average saint. jt: I'm not up on Jesus-Only theology or the God of Community theology either for that matter. My desire is to understand what God is saying on His terms. Do you see saints on a sliding scale John? jd: If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Father. If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Spirit (yet, Paul confuses the two in II Cor. 3:18 and Isa 9:6 furthers this "confusion".) That is how our earthly mind thinks. As a Gentile Saint, I see the mix and do not allow it to be a problem. jt: So Paul is fallible, the scriptures are fallible, earthly minded saints are fallible, but the "God in Community sect" are the ones with the truth? jd: When God says, "let us make man ," we have the Father, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace and the Counselor being involved in the creation wonder. jt:I am an "average saint" who doesn't see it that way John. I see the will of God (The Father); the Word of God who speaks the will into existence; and the Spirit of God; who carries out both word and will. They are of in one accord since God is One. Christ , in the incarnation, empties himself of this Spiritual Communion and becomes quite distinct. jt: Scripture says He emptied Himself of the Glory He had with the Father and you translate that "Spiritual Communion?" jd: Essence and fullness of the Spirit hm. The later is a part of the former, I would say. jt: But the latter is part of the holy write and the former I have only seen in theological discussions and assertions. jd: You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have? jt: I think it is important to say what scripture says jd: Ah, so you admit to a higher authority. Great. We agree. jt: When have I denied a "higher authority?" and why do you now think we agree? about the Son of God and this is that his physical body was created at a point in time. (Hebrews 10:5) jd: Is that what we talking about? The incarnation took place with the birth of Christ. I thought we disagreed on whether Christ, as Son, existed prior to this incarnation. jt: We do disagree on His existence "as Son" However he was present at the beginning with the Father (John 1:1) jd: In Is 9:6, we believe that the Christ is presented in these terms -- as a Father, as a Counselor [indeed, an horoable profession, even if I do say so myself], a Prince of Peace and a Mighty God. So, all that happen one
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/26/2004 6:29:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not intend to raise your hackles, John. You should do exactly as the Lord leads you. You gave us some advice that I thought would be excellent for those you counsel to hear. As far as that goes. the whole world needs to hear it, but if the Lord says no, and you are sure it is from the Lord, then listen to Him. Whatever you choose to do will have no effect on me, but may make a major difference in the lives of those who confide in you. It could turn a person who sees himself as a loser into a winner. Terry No hackles, brother. I wasn't taking offense, just asking what you meant. Its part of the new me. John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Izzy, you seem to be making a paraphrase of John 14:7. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's is my understanding of the passage. For those who think I'm swallowing a camel, please double check your Strong's. Perhaps it can verify or vilify the reading: If you knew me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on, you know Him and have experienced Him. --slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08.43To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
No gnats here, Terry. Wait for it to develope. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2004 08:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So whats your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Slade Henson wrote: Terry said Whatever you choose to do will have no effect on me Slade says This is one difference we have, Terry... and a mild difference at that. You are more individualistic (as noted above) while I see my sin as having an adverse reaction on you whether you realize it or not. We are all the same corps: that being Messiah. I also like your comment regarding a loser becoming a winner. -- slade You are correct. The sin of one person can hurt many others. But I did not imply that John was sinning.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
ShieldsFamily wrote: I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy Exactly what my wife and I have been wondering Iz. Bill is either straining at gnats, or so far ahead of me that I cannot begin to see what he sees. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Terry said Whatever you choose to do will have no effect on me Slade says This is one difference we have, Terry... and a mild difference at that. You are more individualistic (as noted above) while I see my sin as having an adverse reaction on you whether you realize it or not. We are all the same corps: that being Messiah. I also like your comment regarding a loser becoming a winner. -- slade -Original Message-From: Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08.21Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of ChristI did not intend to raise your hackles, John. You should do exactly as the Lord leads you. You gave us some advice that I thought would be excellent for those you counsel to hear. As far as that goes. the whole world needs to hear it, but if the Lord says no, and you are sure it is from the Lord, then listen to Him. Whatever you choose to do will have no effect on me, but may make a major difference in the lives of those who confide in you. It could turn a person who sees himself as a loser into a winner. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/25/2004 3:56:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry And how do you know that I don't? John You told us just recently John. At least that is the message I got. Sorry I can't give you an exact quote because I delete everything at the end of the day. Maybe if you save your posts you could look back and find the one I mean. Here is what I said -- > Do you present the people you counsel with the choice to "choose this day > who they will serve?" Just wondering. > > Not while I counsel. I ASSUME their commitment to God and the biblical message (which I use extensively in my counsel). So there it is, Terry. What is it that I should be doing in my counseling? Jd == I did not intend to raise your hackles, John. You should do exactly as the Lord leads you. You gave us some advice that I thought would be excellent for those you counsel to hear. As far as that goes. the whole world needs to hear it, but if the Lord says no, and you are sure it is from the Lord, then listen to Him. Whatever you choose to do will have no effect on me, but may make a major difference in the lives of those who confide in you. It could turn a person who sees himself as a loser into a winner. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
BANG! See 'Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity -
A world-wide movement assessed by a former Oneness Pentecostal' Gregory A.
Boyd
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 26, 2004 08:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
I also have no idea
what Jesus only theology is. (So shoot me. J )
Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 2:29
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
Oh, and by the way, please do not
find any Jesus-only overtones in my
statement.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday,
December 26, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Well, I can certainly agree with
that . . .
Irenaeus said something on the
order of the Father is the invisible of the Son and the Son is the visible
of the Father. In lucid moments I think Irenaeus is getting to
what Jesus meant in this statement: "He who has seen me has seen the Father"
-- the rest of the time I just marvel at the thought of it
:>)
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:14 PM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
He who has
seen Me has seen the Father;(Jn 14:9) Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Saturday, December 25, 2004
12:33 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
[1]
They are one and [2] the same. Izzy
Yes
to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could
agree with the second. Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill, how do you
explain that Jesus is called eternal father in Is 9:6?
Izzy
Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard
Bible) 6For a (A)child
will be born to us, a (B)son
will be given to
us; And the
(C)government
will rest (D)on
His
shoulders; And
His name will be called (E)Wonderful
Counselor, (F)Mighty
God, Eternal
(G)Father,
Prince of (H)Peace.
I do not know how to
explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I
have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that
post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the
throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it
stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts
regarding an explanation?
Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
I also have no idea what “Jesus only” theology is. (So shoot me. J ) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 2:29 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Oh, and by the way, please do not find any Jesus-only overtones in my statement. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Well, I can certainly agree with that . . . Irenaeus said something on the order of the Father is the invisible of the Son and the Son is the visible of the Father. In lucid moments I think Irenaeus is getting to what Jesus meant in this statement: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" -- the rest of the time I just marvel at the thought of it :>) Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ “He who has seen Me has seen the Father;(Jn 14:9) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:33 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ [1] They are one and [2] the same. Izzy Yes to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could agree with the second. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Oh! I’m cracking up. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 2:23 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Izzy, who are you asking? I don't think it says stupid. Mine says SUP id=en-NASB, but don't ask me what it means. It might have something to do with the Bible-software program you used when posting the verse. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:12 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Oops: NASB From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 8:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Why do you call it the “stupid ANSB” ? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???) John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
BT: Two figures passed through the pieces in the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant. Neither of them was Abraham. Yet it was Abraham and Christ to whom the promises were made; but it was Christ alone by whom the covenant was fulfilled. The pre-incarnate Christ is therefore the only one who could represent the recipient in the ratification of the covenant. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To jump ahead a bit, since we have established the relational status of the covenant, it is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that one of the parties who passed through those pieces had to be the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of the Father; the other being the Father to the Son. Bill, I have no problem believing that Jesus existed with the Father prior to His appearance in physical form on the earth. He was in the fiery furnace. He was probably one of the 3 “angels” with whom Abraham argued over sparing Sodom. He was in many places in the OT. However I do not understand what you are driving about “eternal Sonship”. Have you explained this term? As I said, Jesus existed from eternity with the Father, and nothing was created w/o Him. Whether or not He had a human physical body prior to His birth on earth, I can’t really say. And I fail to see the importance of it. When you see the Son you see the Father. They are One. So what’s your earthshaking point??? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Oh, and by the way, please do not find any
Jesus-only overtones in my statement.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:21
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
Well, I can certainly agree with that . .
.
Irenaeus said something on the order of the
Father is the invisible of the Son and the Son is the visible of the
Father. In lucid moments I think Irenaeus is getting to what Jesus
meant in this statement: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" -- the rest
of the time I just marvel at the thought of it :>)
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:14
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
He who has
seen Me has seen the Father;(Jn 14:9) Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:33
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
[1]
They are one and [2] the same. Izzy
Yes
to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could
agree with the second. Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill, how do you
explain that Jesus is called eternal father in Is 9:6?
Izzy
Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard
Bible) 6For a (A)child
will be born to us, a (B)son
will be given to
us; And the
(C)government
will rest (D)on
His
shoulders; And
His name will be called (E)Wonderful
Counselor, (F)Mighty
God, Eternal
(G)Father,
Prince of (H)Peace.
I do not know how to explain
it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a
very high regard, said that it has something to do with that
post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne
from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck.
It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an
explanation?
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Izzy, who are you asking? I don't think it says stupid. Mine says SUP id=en-NASB, but don't ask me what it means. It might have something to do with the Bible-software program you used when posting the verse. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:12 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Oops: NASB From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 8:06 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Why do you call it the stupid ANSB ? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called eternal father in Is 9:6? IzzyIsaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation?Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???)John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Well, I can certainly agree with that . .
.
Irenaeus said something on the order of the Father
is the invisible of the Son and the Son is the visible of the Father. In
lucid moments I think Irenaeus is getting to what Jesus meant in this
statement: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" -- the rest of the time I
just marvel at the thought of it :>)
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:14
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
He who has seen
Me has seen the Father;(Jn 14:9) Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:33
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
[1]
They are one and [2] the same. Izzy
Yes
to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could
agree with the second. Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill, how do you
explain that Jesus is called eternal father in Is 9:6?
Izzy
Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard
Bible) 6For a (A)child
will be born to us, a (B)son
will be given to
us; And the
(C)government
will rest (D)on
His shoulders; And
His name will be called (E)Wonderful
Counselor, (F)Mighty
God, Eternal
(G)Father,
Prince of (H)Peace.
I do not know how to explain
it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very
high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection
(our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but
I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good
question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an
explanation?
Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Bill is red - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:44:51 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JT writes > [MacArthur] says the decree is eternal so that makes the son eternal. I posted the Word from Strongs and it has nothing to do with eternal rather it speaks to a point in time. You have not responded to any of that. BT: You are correct, Judy, I failed to address this concern. Please see my post to David regarding idioms and figures of speech. I believe I address your question (although not explicitly) in that post. BT: I'll take that as a sign that you have wearied of our discussion -- "pre-adamic creation": What does that mean?! jt: God told Adam to replenish the earth. Why would he have used that word if it had not been plenished in the path. This is just a thought, it's not set in concrete but could have been so. BT: That's an intriguing interpretation, Judy, but not one that applies to our discussion, as it rest entirely upon speculation. BT: And Judy, you might want to check with Dake on your reading of 1 John 5:7 . . . jt: Why? Does he say something other than that the three that bear record in heaven are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? BT: I don't know. I haven't read that portion of Dake, not that I am aware of anyway (wink, wink). BT: On second thought, I've been reading him myself; pitch him and go with someone who knows what he's talking about. Study notes are not Scripture you know. The inspired words are supposed to be on the top of the page; 1 John 5:7 KJV has quite a background. Did you know that? jt: Whatever floats your boat Bill.. but I see nothing in OT scripture about an eternal Son bearing witness or record in heaven. BT: Two figures passed through the pieces in the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant. Neither of them was Abraham. Yet it was Abraham and Christ to whom the promises were made; but it was Christ alone by whom the covenant was fulfilled. The pre-incarnate Christ is therefore the only one who could represent the recipient in the ratification of the covenant. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To jump ahead a bit, since we have established the relational status of the covenant, it is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that one of the parties who passed through those pieces had to be the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of the Father; the other being the Father to the Son. BT: I would like to know how the Father was the "Father of all spirits" before he had created any of them. Or do you not believe in creation ex nihilo? Or are you suggesting that he was the Father of the Holy Spirit but that that does not in some weird way make the Holy Spirit his Son? jt: Are you asking me what came first the chicken or the egg Bill? BT: No, Judy, I'm not. And it is comments like this which prompt me to conclude that you are dodging my questions. Will you please answer them now? BT: Merry Christmas, Judy. You just got your gift from me (wink, wink). Use it, but don't wear it out too quickly. Bill jt: What gift is this? BT: It's the one which allows you to save face if you are wise enough to do so. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:38:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God AS HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do. jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthly ministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?" My words above are very important. The incarnation will mirror the essence of God as He has always existed .. you question this statement. In the incarnation, the Christ brings all that is God into our world. God is a communal essence, the father, son and holy spirit and perhaps even more. All that is God accompanies or is a part of the incarnate Christ. He brings this Spiritual Circumstance (the Godhead) with Him. Nothing has changed except that He appears incarnate. In the Spiritual realm, the lines of existence are not ones of demarcation; rather, they are fetters that tie each to the other in an intimacy that is beyond our comprehension. On earth, lines separate - for my thinking and in this case, the heavenly realm works very differently. As you well know, the Jesus-Only sect uses Is 9:6 as a key passage, nullifying the character of God in Community and insisting that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (Prince of Peace). I believe that what is true of the Son before the incarnation (Is 9:6), was true of all Manifestations ... a very real difficulty for the average saint. If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Father. If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Spirit (yet, Paul confuses the two in II Cor. 3:18 and Isa 9:6 furthers this "confusion".) That is how our earthly mind thinks. As a Gentile Saint, I see the mix and do not allow it to be a problem. When God says, "let us make man ," we have the Father, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace and the Counselor being involved in the creation wonder. Christ , in the incarnation, empties himself of this Spiritual Communion and becomes quite distinct. Essence and fullness of the Spirit hm. The later is a part of the former, I would say. You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have? jt: I think it is important to say what scripture says Ah, so you admit to a higher authority. Great. We agree. about the Son of God and this is that his physical body was created at a point in time. (Hebrews 10:5) Is that what we talking about? The incarnation took place with the birth of Christ. I thought we disagreed on whether Christ, as Son, existed prior to this incarnation. In Is 9:6, we believe that the Christ is presented in these terms -- as a Father, as a Counselor [indeed, an horoable profession, even if I do say so myself], a Prince of Peace and a Mighty God. So, all that happen one day, long ago, in manger near Bethlehem? The Father had a beginning on that day? The Mighty God? jt: The incarnation of one member of the Godhead took place in that manger in Bethlehem God Almighty has not always been The Counselor or the Prince of Peace? Only if you believe these statements are TITLES EARNED BY GOD via obedience to prophetical vision. jt: The Counselor and Prince of Peace are two prophetic/redemptive names of Christ - there are more. These are much more than names, Judy. "Dad" is a name I respond to because that is who I am!!! Christ the Father (Is 9:6) When was that a redemptive name of Christ? It is only here. What must we conclude? The intimacy of the Godhead results in a shared experience, a shared nature and share existence without loosing the idea of plurality. There are no titles for God -- only realities. The coming of the Christ does not change anything about God. You are persistent in arguing that "God changes not." Well, this erronious teaching of yours clearly presents an impossible change for God --- unless, of course, you no longer believe that Christ is the Great God Almighty. jt: God does not change and it is not part of my belief that he does. This must be what you think I believe. Did I not acknowledge this in this above? If Christ is the Son of God, if he is divine, if this claim makes him "equal to God," why is there disagreement as to the eternity of the Sonship of Christ? Reread the following: The apostle John presents what has ALWAYS been true -- Christ as the Word. The plurality of God IS eternal and is given illustration in John 17. Elohim -- a plural word spoken to lift up the Largeness of God,
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 6:15:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1] They are one and [2] the same. Izzy Jesus only theology? J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 3:56:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry And how do you know that I don't? John You told us just recently John. At least that is the message I got. Sorry I can't give you an exact quote because I delete everything at the end of the day. Maybe if you save your posts you could look back and find the one I mean. Here is what I said -- > Do you present the people you counsel with the choice to "choose this day > who they will serve?" Just wondering. > > Not while I counsel. I ASSUME their commitment to God and the biblical message (which I use extensively in my counsel). So there it is, Terry. What is it that I should be doing in my counseling? Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 3:56:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You told us just recently John Told you what? John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:44:51 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, Judy, it looks like you've just about
dodged my entire post.
jt: This is news to me Bill; I was
under the impression that I had responded to the points you made which
were few and far between. It was mostly you agreeing with MacArthur who
sees himself as a modern day Augustine because he changed his position ... and
his whole argument hinges on the word "decree" He says the decree is
eternal so that makes the son eternal. I posted the Word from Strongs
and it has nothing to do with eternal rather it speaks to a point in time. You
have not responded to any of that.
I'll take that as a sign that you have wearied of
our discussion -- "pre-adamic creation": What does that mean?!
jt: God told Adam to replenish the
earth. Why would he have used that word if it had not been plenished in the
path. This is just a thought, it's not set in concrete but could have been
so.
And Judy, you might want to check with Dake on
your reading of 1 John 5:7 . . .
jt: Why? Does he say something
other than that the three that bear record in heaven are the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit?
On second thought, I've been reading him myself;
pitch him and go with someone who knows what he's talking about. Study notes
are not Scripture you know. The inspired words are supposed to be on
the top of the page; 1 John 5:7 KJV has quite a background. Did you know
that?
jt: Whatever floats your boat
Bill.. but I see nothing in OT scripture about an eternal Son bearing
witness or record in heaven.
I would like to know how the Father was
the "Father of all spirits" before he had created any of them. Or do you not
believe in creation ex nihilo? Or are you suggesting that he was the
Father of the Holy Spirit but that that does not in some weird way make the
Holy Spirit his Son?
jt: Are you asking me what came
first the chicken or the egg Bill?
Merry Christmas, Judy. You just got your gift
from me (wink, wink). Use it, but don't wear it out too quickly. Bill
jt: What gift is this?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 6:06
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
jt in red below
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:32:35 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BT in blue below.
jt:
Bill you have overlooked and completely negated the fact that Jesus as
God's Son was begotten on a certain day:
Bill: No, Judy, I have not
overlooked this, nor do I negate it. To begin this conversation I
will simply agree with MacArthur: "the begetting spoken of in Psalm
2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place
in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ
terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten
thee")
jt: Why not? Psalm 2
is prophetic but Hebrews certainly spells out what day this is.
This conflicts with other parts of scripture and since
ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God by way of
the Holy Spirit who uses spiritual words to convey spiritual truths
(1 Cor 2:12,13) . Why would one assume that some
scripture has temporal overtones?
BT: Good question, Judy.
But in this instance it is not mine to answer. Why would you
assume that this scripture must have temporal overtones? I
believe these verses are not temporal but figurative of eternal
truths. I believe they are figurative because if they are not they
present all kinds of problems with the greater narrative of
Scripture. In other words I believe they submit themselves to
the texts which define them more clearly. There is nothing unusual
about the employment of figurative language in Scripture. Slade and
Jeff are much more knowledgeable than I am on the use of figurative
language and the idioms of Hebrew culture, yet even I am able to
recognize at certain times that this or that saying must be
figurative in some way or another because if not it forces a
contradiction where I know none exists.
jt: I've never assumed
"temporal overtones" or even thought about it BT, you suggest it in
your first paragraph above where you agree with MacArthur but
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:58:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Isaiah 9:6 is prophetic John. It speaks of a coming event more than 700yrs before the incarnation. I challenge you to show me the Son's existence that you claim is so clearly presented and is a continuing thread throughout the Old Covenant scriptures. As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God AS HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do. jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthly ministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?" You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have? jt: I think it is important to say what scripture says about the Son of God and this is that his physical body was created at a point in time. (Hebrews 10:5) In Is 9:6, we believe that the Christ is presented in these terms -- as a Father, as a Counselor [indeed, an horoable profession, even if I do say so myself], a Prince of Peace and a Mighty God. So, all that happen one day, long ago, in manger near Bethlehem? The Father had a beginning on that day? The Mighty God? jt: The incarnation of one member of the Godhead took place in that manger in Bethlehem God Almighty has not always been The Counselor or the Prince of Peace? Only if you believe these statements are TITLES EARNED BY GOD via obedience to prophetical vision. jt: The Counselor and Prince of Peace are two prophetic/redemptive names of Christ - there are more.There are no titles for God -- only realities. The coming of the Christ does not change anything about God. You are persistent in arguing that "God changes not." Well, this erronious teaching of yours clearly presents an impossible change for God --- unless, of course, you no longer believe that Christ is the Great God Almighty. jt: God does not change and it is not part of my belief that he does. This must be what you think I believe.Elohim -- a plural word spoken to lift up the Largeness of God, is, nonetheless (If one believes in the providential work of God in the writing and preservation of scripture), a word that indicates the plurality of God. This may not have been the intention of the ancient writer, but the door is opened to the notion of the plurality of God with the use of this word. Look at the phrase "Abraham and his seed ;" if Paul does not tell us that Christ is this seed (Gal 3:16), we would not have that knowledge about the Abrahamic promise. jt: The plurality of God is eternal and still speaks from heaven. It is God the Father, God The Word, and God the Holy Spirit.You write as if I am saying something different. It is, in fact, my point exactly. The apostle John presents what has ALWAYS been true -- Christ as the Word. The plurality of God IS eternal and still speaks from heaven to the same degree that same has been presented before the worlds were [compare this thought with what the Son says to the Father in John 17.] What I am saying is this, the biblical writer may have had one thing in mind, and only one thing, when he/she wrote the words, but their influence is not the only Influence in play -- there is the role that God played in the creation of scripture, as well. The Jewish writer could have honored the Magnificent God in any number of ways, but he chooses a word that, at the same time, allows for the notion of a Divine Fellowship, does he not? If we can establish this Divine Fellwoship, we must conclude that the Son is equally a part of this Community. jt: The scriptures were not written by the will of man. Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)Again, my point exactly. Grace to allPeace you will find elsewhereJD
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Oops: NASB From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 8:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Why do you call it the “stupid ANSB” ? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???) John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father;(Jn 14:9) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:33 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ [1] They are one and [2] the same. Izzy Yes to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could agree with the second. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
“economic Trinity”? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 5:35 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In every HUMAN relationship there must be 'space'. Whether this can be used relative to the economic Trinity, I do not know. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 25, 2004 16:55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???) John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Why do you call it the “stupid ANSB” ? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???) John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Thank you Slade. That is the one. Terry Slade Henson wrote: Here you go, Terry... The email I believe to which you refer is attached -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, 25 December, 2004 17.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:21:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry And how do you know that I don't? John You told us just recently John. At least that is the message I got. Sorry I can't give you an exact quote because I delete everything at the end of the day. Maybe if you save your posts you could look back and find the one I mean. Terry Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] [Infinite Supply] Monday, December 20, 2004 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:13:44 -0500 To: To: In a message dated 12/21/2004 8:46:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you present the people you counsel with the choice to "choose this day who they will serve?" Just wondering. Not while I counsel. I ASSUME their commitment to God and the biblical message (which I use extensively in my counsel). You implication that I am not invovled in the truth is of no benefit to me, since I don't agree. John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Here you go, Terry... The email I believe to which you refer is attached -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, 25 December, 2004 17.47To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:21:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel.TerryAnd how do you know that I don't?JohnYou told us just recently John. At least that is the message I got. Sorry I can't give you an exact quote because I delete everything at the end of the day. Maybe if you save your posts you could look back and find the one I mean.Terry --- Begin Message --- In a message dated 12/21/2004 8:46:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you present the people you counsel with the choice to "choose this day who they will serve?" Just wondering. Not while I counsel. I ASSUME their commitment to God and the biblical message (which I use extensively in my counsel). You implication that I am not invovled in the truth is of no benefit to me, since I don't agree. John --- End Message ---
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:21:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry And how do you know that I don't? John You told us just recently John. At least that is the message I got. Sorry I can't give you an exact quote because I delete everything at the end of the day. Maybe if you save your posts you could look back and find the one I mean. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
To Bill the longsuffering:Great to see those
fingers rat tat tatting once again. Same goes for the 'bishop'. Given the day
Jonathan will have had by the time he catches up on his reading, I trust he'll
only type with his eyes.
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 25, 2004 12:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
Well, Judy, it looks like you've just about
dodged my entire post. I'll take that as a sign that you have wearied of our
discussion -- "pre-adamic creation": What does that mean?!
And Judy, you might want to check with Dake on
your reading of 1 John 5:7 . . . On second thought, I've been
reading him myself; pitch him and go with someone who knows what he's talking
about. Study notes are not Scripture you know. The inspired
words are supposed to be on the top of the page; 1 John 5:7 KJV has quite
a background. Did you know that?
I would like to know how the Father was
the "Father of all spirits" before he had created any of them. Or do you not
believe in creation ex nihilo? Or are you suggesting that he was the
Father of the Holy Spirit but that that does not in some weird way make the
Holy Spirit his Son?
Merry Christmas, Judy. You just got your gift
from me (wink, wink). Use it, but don't wear it out too quickly.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 6:06
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
jt in red below
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:32:35 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BT in blue below.
jt:
Bill you have overlooked and completely negated the fact that Jesus as
God's Son was begotten on a certain day:
Bill: No, Judy, I have not
overlooked this, nor do I negate it. To begin this conversation I
will simply agree with MacArthur: "the begetting spoken of in Psalm
2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place
in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ
terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten
thee")
jt: Why not? Psalm 2
is prophetic but Hebrews certainly spells out what day this is.
This conflicts with other parts of scripture and since
ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God by way of
the Holy Spirit who uses spiritual words to convey spiritual truths
(1 Cor 2:12,13) . Why would one assume that some
scripture has temporal overtones?
BT: Good question, Judy.
But in this instance it is not mine to answer. Why would you
assume that this scripture must have temporal overtones? I
believe these verses are not temporal but figurative of eternal
truths. I believe they are figurative because if they are not they
present all kinds of problems with the greater narrative of
Scripture. In other words I believe they submit themselves to
the texts which define them more clearly. There is nothing unusual
about the employment of figurative language in Scripture. Slade and
Jeff are much more knowledgeable than I am on the use of figurative
language and the idioms of Hebrew culture, yet even I am able to
recognize at certain times that this or that saying must be
figurative in some way or another because if not it forces a
contradiction where I know none exists.
jt: I've never assumed
"temporal overtones" or even thought about it BT, you suggest it in
your first paragraph above where you agree with MacArthur but now
you are saying it is "figurative?" or that it just can't mean what
it says.
Bill: the context of Psalm
2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal
decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the
begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to
eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal
language should therefore be understood as figurative, not
literal" (emphasis added).
jt: I don't see it
Bill since the begetting is a point in time
ie: "this day" Why would anyone consider the
language to be "temporal" or "figurative"rather
than literal?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
ï In every HUMAN relationship there must be 'space'. Whether this can be used relative to the economic Trinity, I do not know. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 25, 2004 16:55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called âeternal fatherâ in Is 9:6? IzzyIsaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation?BillPerhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???)John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
What you just did?? Walked around his excellent post? Or, go to what you perceive to be the heart of the matter? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 25, 2004 12:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Izzy in black: "Father" is a relational term, just like husband is a relational term. One cannot be a husband without having a wife -- this is what I mean when I say it is a "relational term." You were not a wife until you got married and had a husband. It would have been non-sensical -- not to mention misleading -- for you to have maintained that you were always a wife from the date of your birth but that one day you got married and had a husband. Yet you wrote earlier that the "Trinity" is the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. If I understand you correctly, you maintain that the Father is eternal. If this is so, may I ask, whom was he the Father of? Do you realize that you are suggesting, nay, demanding that God was the Father of no one and nothing for an eternity before he created a woman to bear a son? Do you realize that you are implying that God the Father was actually illegitimate until he begat a son? Do you realize that you have created a doctrine that makes God dependent upon his creation in order to be what he claims to have been from eternity: a Father? Please ponder these things. Furthermore, may I ask you to explain to me the nature of the Father's relationship with the Word? Did they have a personal relationship? Was it a Father/Son relationship, or was it something other than this? If it was not a Father/Son relationship, what happened to that relationship on the day that the son was begotten and the Word became flesh? Did that relationship cease to exist? In other words, did the eternal God change? The foundation for my position is everywhere in Scripture. But in order to keep this conversation in a manageable context, allow me to repost the verses I used to establish the eternal Sonship of Christ: "Jesus answered, 'If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.' ... Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.'" (John 8.54,58) In verse 54 Jesus identifies his "Father" as he who honors him. When he calls him Father he identifies and establishes himself as the Son. It is the Son who is honored by his Father. In verse 58 this same Son makes a very clear and distinct reference to the Old Testament name of God. In other words the Son identifies himself as both divine and eternal. Was this Son misleading the Jews when he said these words? Of course not -- unless, of course, he was not eternally the divine Son of the Father. "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17.5) Again Jesus speaks to the "Father." He speaks as the Son of the Father. This Son commands the Father to glorify him with the glory that he had shared with his Father before the cosmos was, which of course is many thousand years prior to the date of his incarnation. Did this Son mislead his hearers when he led them to believe that he had shared in the glory of the Father before the world was? "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17.24) The same holds true with this verse. Here the Son declares that the Father had loved him before the foundation of the world. This again was millenia prior to that date of his incarnation. If there was a time when the Son was not, which is what I hear you asserting, then what glory is it which he desires his hearers behold? By your argument the "Son" could not know any glory except that glory which he knew from the time he had been begotten. Any glory before that time would not be the glory of the Father to his Son. Moreover, what kind of "love" was it that the Father had for th
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Well said, Terry! - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 25, 2004 13:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Marlin Halverson wrote: 1CO 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1CO 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.==Hello Marlin. Good to hear from you again. I think that you have identified part of the problem when you quote Paul mentioning heresies, but that is not all that keeps us from being in one accord.If you have ever read the Screwtape letters, you can picture Satan instructing the demons when he says, "Christians will never break fellowship by argueing over what is filthy or perverted or evil. They are pretty well agreed on those things. Where we have to pry them apart and make them angry at each other is in the area of discerning God's word. Tempt them to nit pick. Tell them that tiny differences are of utmost importance, more important than fellowship or even love for one another. Tell some of them that they are the experts. Tell them to take a stand., put forth their argument as absolute truth and let the unbelievers go to Hell if they can't see it their way. That is how we win the war. Not by fighting them, but by causing them to fight one another.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:21:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry And how do you know that I don't? John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
In a message dated 12/25/2004 10:08:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called âeternal fatherâ in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill Perhaps we want to force too much separation between Father God and the Incarnate Christ. Goes to our thinking that we can actually understand that which is beyond us. God is all of this yet expressed in community. How, exactly that works is yet to be revealed. (???) John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Tsk tsk tsk, Izzy. Too bad you don't listen. You liked what Terry wrote, but there you go. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Saturday, 25 December, 2004 15.00To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Spoken like CS Lewis himself. J Izzy PS And have them insist that everyone must know Greek & Hebrew to discern God’s word, and that God’s word doesn’t mean what it says in English! ==Hello Marlin. Good to hear from you again. I think that you have identified part of the problem when you quote Paul mentioning heresies, but that is not all that keeps us from being in one accord.If you have ever read the Screwtape letters, you can picture Satan instructing the demons when he says, "Christians will never break fellowship by argueing over what is filthy or perverted or evil. They are pretty well agreed on those things. Where we have to pry them apart and make them angry at each other is in the area of discerning God's word. Tempt them to nit pick. Tell them that tiny differences are of utmost importance, more important than fellowship or even love for one another. Tell some of them that they are the experts. Tell them to take a stand., put forth their argument as absolute truth and let the unbelievers go to Hell if they can't see it their way. That is how we win the war. Not by fighting them, but by causing them to fight one another.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Spoken like CS Lewis himself. J Izzy PS And have them insist that everyone must know Greek & Hebrew to discern God’s word, and that God’s word doesn’t mean what it says in English! == Hello Marlin. Good to hear from you again. I think that you have identified part of the problem when you quote Paul mentioning heresies, but that is not all that keeps us from being in one accord. If you have ever read the Screwtape letters, you can picture Satan instructing the demons when he says, "Christians will never break fellowship by argueing over what is filthy or perverted or evil. They are pretty well agreed on those things. Where we have to pry them apart and make them angry at each other is in the area of discerning God's word. Tempt them to nit pick. Tell them that tiny differences are of utmost importance, more important than fellowship or even love for one another. Tell some of them that they are the experts. Tell them to take a stand., put forth their argument as absolute truth and let the unbelievers go to Hell if they can't see it their way. That is how we win the war. Not by fighting them, but by causing them to fight one another. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Marlin Halverson wrote: 1CO 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1CO 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. == Hello Marlin. Good to hear from you again. I think that you have identified part of the problem when you quote Paul mentioning heresies, but that is not all that keeps us from being in one accord. If you have ever read the Screwtape letters, you can picture Satan instructing the demons when he says, "Christians will never break fellowship by argueing over what is filthy or perverted or evil. They are pretty well agreed on those things. Where we have to pry them apart and make them angry at each other is in the area of discerning God's word. Tempt them to nit pick. Tell them that tiny differences are of utmost importance, more important than fellowship or even love for one another. Tell some of them that they are the experts. Tell them to take a stand., put forth their argument as absolute truth and let the unbelievers go to Hell if they can't see it their way. That is how we win the war. Not by fighting them, but by causing them to fight one another. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: peace does not come from whatever is going on on TT. It only comes from a passionate and personal relationship with the indwelling Christ, period. John Sounds good to me. Maybe you should try it out on those you counsel. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
[1] They are one and [2] the same. Izzy Yes to the first, and I would want some qualification before I could agree with the second. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called eternal father in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of Christ Bill, how do you explain that Jesus is called “eternal father” in Is 9:6? Izzy Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible) 6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us; And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders; And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God, Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace. I do not know how to explain it, Izzy. I remember that a professor at university, for whom I have a very high regard, said that it has something to do with that post-resurrection (our resurrection) day, when Christ receives the throne from the Father, but I didn't understand him well enough that it stuck. It's a really good question, though. Do you have any thoughts regarding an explanation? Bill They are one and the same. Izzy
