Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again
See, The Prophet thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings. I don't even know what that means. Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks. If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly ." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is , well, he is just plain goofy. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that matter. You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not be validated by God's Word. If I remember correctly your thing is "what is unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem to know. So, Judy brings up Adam before the fall, Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy then changes the subject -- and , and , and what ? !! I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered. One must ask, "why?" jd On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks: Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Bill responds the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill And judy , well, does what? The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Judy From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of creation Bill Which is spelled out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to institute a "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam. The first Adam is earthy or of the earthy (as we are). The Second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Your gospel is inverted Bill. It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness although he passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin where we are for the most part loaded down with it. Read 1 Cor 15:42-52. Sounds to me like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. I don't see anything earthy about him. Temptation or no temptation. From: Taylor Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill. Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). Yes they did created the first Adam in their nature and character spiritually - which "likeness" Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the wrong fruit. Thereafter all men (including us) are born into this world by procreation in the likeness of the first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3) The only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is to become conformed to the image of the second Adam which is the sole purpose for His coming and His willingness to lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our place. Laying aside the fact that you are making much too much of Seth having been born in the image of Adam (see Gen 9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with killing someone who was no longer created in God's image, but in Adam's), At the beginnign they were created in God's image and now Noah who found grace is starting over even though it didn't take too many generations for the whole of humanity (all but 8 ppl) to be destroyed. I don't believe God is interested in fellowshipping with a bunch of devils. Judy, I fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being united in his person, his humanness with his divinity. I understand. It is mixture; joining the holy with the profane which is something God hates. The only thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which he did not do: sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that which had indeed produced schizophrenia in the relationship between humanity and God. Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, the one who was created?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:38:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: See, The Prophet thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings. I don't even know what that means. What?? You must not read what the buddies you fellowship write or else you are afraid of losing their fellowship and don't want to dispute it. Lance quotes this all the time. How is it you are into the perichoresis and Baxter and the boys and are ignorant of this? I would say this is major. Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks. If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. Oooh! my goodness, it is now getting worse rather than better. DO YOU SEE THIS LANCE??? JD is now publicly trashing your doctrine. In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly ." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is , well, he is just plain goofy. jd Apparently you are not in the family I was thinking you ran with JD, you must be with them but not of them, an "independent" of some kind ... Hmmm the plot thickens!!! From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that matter. You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not be validated by God's Word. If I remember correctly your thing is "what is unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem to know. So, Judy brings up Adam before the fall, Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy then changes the subject -- and , and , and what ? !! I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered. One must ask, "why?" jd On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks: Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Bill responds the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill And judy , well, does what? The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Judy From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of creation Bill Which is spelled out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to institute a "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam. The first Adam is earthy or of the earthy (as we are). The Second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Your gospel is inverted Bill. It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness although he passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin where we are for the most part loaded down with it. Read 1 Cor 15:42-52. Sounds to me like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. I don't see anything earthy about him. Temptation or no temptation. From: Taylor Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill. Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again
See Irenaeus & Athanasius 'The unassumed is unhealed' If (wo)men are to be fully saved, Christ would have to be FULLY HUMAN. IMO, if He were not fully human then we are yet in our sins. This is who Jesus is. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 16, 2006 19:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again See, The Prophet thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings. I don't even know what that means. Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks. If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly ." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is , well, he is just plain goofy. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that matter. You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not be validated by God's Word. If I remember correctly your thing is "what is unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem to know. So, Judy brings up Adam before the fall, Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy then changes the subject -- and , and , and what ? !! I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered. One must ask, "why?" jd On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks: Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Bill responds the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill And judy , well, does what? The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Judy From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of creation Bill Which is spelled out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to institute a "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam. The first Adam is earthy or of the earthy (as we are). The Second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Your gospel is inverted Bill. It is not Jesus who takes on our likeness although he passed in all the areas where the first Adam failed; and was without sin where we are for the most part loaded down with it. Read 1 Cor 15:42-52. Sounds to me like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. I don't see anything earthy about him. Temptation or no temptation. From: Taylor Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: so there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill. Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen 1.26). Yes they did cr
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Huh ?? and Huh?? again
Man, I think I have misspoken !! Judy attributes the following to me. Understand, I have not seen the post from Lance , in which these words apparently originated - so , of course , without any context at all, I decide that the following is appropriate ! I do hope Lance understands. I have to laugh at myself , here. For once, I kind of wished I had simple shut up ! Here is my response to Judy false accusation (that I wrote these words, not knowing that they they were Lance's.) : John writes: See, The Prophet this is a reference to DM. One should never single someone out if, within a matter of a minute or two, that one becomes manifestly stupid" thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense. Clearly, this is not going to be good. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings. Insert foot. I don't even know what that means. Take foot out, take off shoe What?? You must not read what the buddies you fellowship write or else you are afraid of losing their fellowship and don't want to dispute it. Lance quotes this all the time. How is it you are into the perichoresis and Baxter and the boys and are ignorant of this? I would say this is major. Do I listen to Judy? Ohh noo! Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks. Re-insert shoeless foot If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. all the way to the stinking knee cap !!! Oooh! my goodness, it is now getting worse rather than better. DO YOU SEE THIS LANCE??? JD is now publicly trashing your doctrine. In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly ." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is , well, he is just plain goofy. jd And here, I have clearly NOT learned the lesson taught to me by my Mother -- "never talk with mouth full !!!" jd I am an idiot !! -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:38:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: See, The Prophet thinks you are giving me your understanding of my theology -- only repeating back to me what you think I have said. Nonsense. And here is a perfect example. "What is unassumed is unsaved" has absolutely no heritage in my writings. I don't even know what that means. What?? You must not read what the buddies you fellowship write or else you are afraid of losing their fellowship and don't want to dispute it. Lance quotes this all the time. How is it you are into the perichoresis and Baxter and the boys and are ignorant of this? I would say this is major. Just absolute nonsense surrounded by quotation marks. If it wasn't so puzzling, it would be hilarious. Oooh! my goodness, it is now getting worse rather than better. DO YOU SEE THIS LANCE??? JD is now publicly trashing your doctrine. In fact, beginning with the words "If I remember correctly ." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. And if David thinks I have given you this thought, whatever it is , well, he is just plain goofy. jd Apparently you are not in the family I was thinking you ran with JD, you must be with them but not of them, an "independent" of some kind ... Hmmm the plot thickens!!! From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD Neither you or Bill are making any points that matter. You are so obsessed with doctrine that can not be validated by God's Word. If I remember correctly your thing is "what is unassumed is unsaved" so every vile thing had to be assumed Actually - it was "at Calvary" ... But it was not in the person of the Christ neither of you seem to know. So, Judy brings up Adam before the fall, Bill rebutts with a comment about Adam before the fall, and Judy then changes the subject -- and , and , and what ? !! I don't get it. Bill's point remains unanswered. One must ask, "why?" jd On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:45:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks: Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he have been like the first Adam before the fall, ... Bill responds the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved Judy. We do. Bill And judy , well, does what? The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Judy From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath of God Bill and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a curse along with the rest of creation Bill Which is spelled out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to institute a "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second Adam. The
