Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, Judy. Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" Was? Yes, from his baptism. Is? Yes. On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance wrote: There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM. Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are to some others. Surely you know that I object to this characterization of me, Lance. My philosophy is more like Plato than Aristotle, but my philosophy and teaching is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Having so identified yourself, David, (more like Plato than Aristotle) you ought to object to DM, not to me. You are, IMO, a philosophical rationalist. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance wrote: There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM. Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are to some others. Surely you know that I object to this characterization of me, Lance. My philosophy is more like Plato than Aristotle, but my philosophy and teaching is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
JD wrote: Have I gone over your head with the use of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you will find begging the question in there somewhere. You have no idea just how ridiculous this makes you sound. Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! You are plain wrong about this idea you have that ad hom and begging the question are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't have the time right now to educate you on the differences. Maybe the moderator can help, or maybe you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, begging the question is allowed on TruthTalk. It is not a good form of argumentation, but you will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for begging the question. It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation. The ad hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others and causes posts like this one that you just made. The reason you might have seen a list with begging the question and ad hom together is because these are two different forms of fallacious argumentation. You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks ridiculous. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
myth (you are begging the question in your analysis below, assuming that the fathers hold no authority whatsoever, which is the assertion being made in the first place.) David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) myth (a typically emptyesoteric equation--actually, an 'adherent' of the church fathers is a ridiculous idea--a student of their residualimpactcould conclude, likeCalvin did, that theyremaininvisiblyintellectually influential,but (for him, too, as for Bill)their authority per seislong gone; but, by contrast, LDSadherence istoday, toan ongoing existentialauthority presentto millions of Mormons and enforced--an arrogancealready arrestingall ready aimlessly academicAmericans) On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:44:14 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Attaching you to the fathers ..is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons."
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Oophs! Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus? And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier -- hm. Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If your theology is such that the fall was eitherpredetermined or inevitable from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, hisidentification as such comingby revelation to Joseph. IF the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say thathumans were chosen in"Yah saves" beforeany were even created;i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the nameimplies the eventual necessity. Bill On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:55:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, Judy. No Bill I don't think itpossible to know how every person I speak to thinks. All I can possibly be is "me in the Lord" and ppl will either accept or reject me as is; I have no control over that. I know Paul tried to speak as a Jew to the Jews etc. but we are all in the same culture here on TT so far as I know Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" Was? Yes, from his baptism. Had to have been before his baptism; his birth was precipitated by the Holy Spirit and there was spiritual recognition between he and John while both were in utero when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth. The Spirit descending at his baptism was to anoint him for ministry. Jewish men were baptised and anointed for ministry as priestsat age 33. He fulfilled all righteousness. Is? Yes. On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy, in a post moments ago, acknowledged that she cannot be but what she is. This is how I read Judy. This is how I accept Judy. I do find her to be REGULARLY but, UNINTENTIONALLY offensive to others. My concern would be that such has been pointed out to her often. She adopts a 'I must be true to the Scriptures' approach. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 07:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) JD wrote: Have I gone over your head with the use of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you will find begging the question in there somewhere. You have no idea just how ridiculous this makes you sound. Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! You are plain wrong about this idea you have that ad hom and begging the question are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't have the time right now to educate you on the differences. Maybe the moderator can help, or maybe you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, begging the question is allowed on TruthTalk. It is not a good form of argumentation, but you will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for begging the question. It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation. The ad hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others and causes posts like this one that you just made. The reason you might have seen a list with begging the question and ad hom together is because these are two different forms of fallacious argumentation. You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks ridiculous. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Are you saying that God decreed the fall of man Bill? On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor Oophs! Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus? And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier -- hm. Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If your theology is such that the fall was eitherpredetermined or inevitable from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, hisidentification as such comingby revelation to Joseph. IF the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say thathumans were chosen in"Yah saves" beforeany were even created;i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the nameimplies the eventual necessity.Bill On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Yikes!! You're right, I just looked in the mirror. BTW FWIW I always include myself in every criticism, Judy. No kiddin'. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 08:54 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance writes: Judy, in a post moments ago, acknowledged that she cannot be but what she is. This is how I read Judy. This is how I accept Judy. I do find her to be REGULARLY but, UNINTENTIONALLY offensive to others. My concern would be that such has been pointed out to her often. She adopts a 'I must be true to the Scriptures' approach. There are others besides you with concerns Lance. My concern is that you and others who see the need to ask these kinds of questions see themselves as so loving, doctrinally sound,and unoffensive. Kind of like the king with no clothes. judyt - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: January 11, 2006 07:57Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) JD wrote: Have I gone over your head with the use of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you will find "begging the question" in there somewhere. You have no idea just how ridiculous this makes you sound. Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging the question" are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't have the time right now to educate you on the differences. Maybe the moderator can help, or maybe you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, "begging the question" is allowed on TruthTalk. It is not a good form of argumentation, but you will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for begging the question. It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation. The ad hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others and causes posts like this one that you just made. The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the question" and "ad hom" together is because these are two different forms of fallacious argumentation. You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks ridiculous. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance wrote: Having so identified yourself, David, (more like Plato than Aristotle) you ought to object to DM, not to me. You are, IMO, a philosophical rationalist. Hi Lance. You paint me with too broad of a brush. I may be more agreeable with Plato than Aristotle, but as I said in my previous post, I am more like Jesus Christ than Plato. I have no reason to object to myself. You are well read, Lance, but you have not yet left your mother's milk and learned to think for yourself. What I mean is that you are constantly trying to categorize people into categories that you have learned about from others. None of these categories actually exist in the real world. They are philosophical constructs. You need to leave your more primitive level of learning and starting applying your mind in a rational way to philosophy and theology in such a way that you begin to formulate your own reasons for believing what you believe. You might think that you are not smart enough to do it, but you are. It is courage you need, boldness, to begin to think for yourself. It is there within you. Make use of it. Don't bury your talent. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I'm content to express myself within the framework of those who do a better job than I, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 09:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance wrote: Having so identified yourself, David, (more like Plato than Aristotle) you ought to object to DM, not to me. You are, IMO, a philosophical rationalist. Hi Lance. You paint me with too broad of a brush. I may be more agreeable with Plato than Aristotle, but as I said in my previous post, I am more like Jesus Christ than Plato. I have no reason to object to myself. You are well read, Lance, but you have not yet left your mother's milk and learned to think for yourself. What I mean is that you are constantly trying to categorize people into categories that you have learned about from others. None of these categories actually exist in the real world. They are philosophical constructs. You need to leave your more primitive level of learning and starting applying your mind in a rational way to philosophy and theology in such a way that you begin to formulate your own reasons for believing what you believe. You might think that you are not smart enough to do it, but you are. It is courage you need, boldness, to begin to think for yourself. It is there within you. Make use of it. Don't bury your talent. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Original question by Judy: Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit? Judy wrote: Had to have been before his baptism; his birth was precipitated by the Holy Spirit and there was spiritual recognition between he and John while both were in utero when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth. These observations address that a work of the Holy Spirit was present, but it does not address his being FULL of the Holy Spirit. Judy wrote: The Spirit descending at his baptism was to anoint him for ministry. Jewish men were baptised and anointed for ministry as priests at age 33. He fulfilled all righteousness. I think you meant age 30. If the Spirit anointed him at this point for ministry, then could one not say that he was not FULL of the Spirit prior to this point in time? Did not this anointing of the Spirit add something of the Spirit to him? Please explain in more detail how you see this. Also, we must consider the following passage in this discussion. Philippians 2:5-8 (5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Does not this passage teach that Jesus emptied himself of his Divinity in some way when he became man? Consider this also in light of the following passage: Hebrews 2:9 (9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Here he quotes Psalm 8:5, indicating that Jesus was made lower than the angels. Don't you think this happened at his birth? If so, taking these passages together indicate Jesus as being God prior to his birth, and therefore full of the Holy Spirit at that time in that being God, he was of the same substance with God. Then upon birth, something happened. He emptied himself and did not consider being equal with God something to be seized and held onto. Rather, he emptied himself and became lower than the angels, born a man, but born unique, unlike other men, in that he was born by the power of the Holy Spirit. Then Jesus grew in wisdom the Bible says. He was tempted as other men. He learned obedience by his sufferings. These are all characteristics of men, not of God. The Bible instructs us that there was a point when he was baptized, and at that time, the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove. Either that was just for show, or it was an anointing that added something more of the Spirit to him that he did not have before. It appears that not too long after this time, he began public ministry which included miracles. Do you see anything faulty with the way I am thinking on this subject Judy? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance wrote: I'm content to express myself within the framework of those who do a better job than I, David. Then you had better invest heavily in them, or you will be like the coward who buried his talent in the ground and returned it to his master when he returned. If you are going to leave the job to others, be sure to have collected some interest from them by the time your master returns. Bear in mind that if you invest in the wrong people, you will lose everything when the time of reckoning comes upon you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Do women regularly tell you that you're a really funny guy? BTW, David, my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in them. --- Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 09:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance wrote: I'm content to express myself within the framework of those who do a better job than I, David. Then you had better invest heavily in them, or you will be like the coward who buried his talent in the ground and returned it to his master when he returned. If you are going to leave the job to others, be sure to have collected some interest from them by the time your master returns. Bear in mind that if you invest in the wrong people, you will lose everything when the time of reckoning comes upon you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance wrote: ... my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in them. If your investment is in Him, NOT them, then think for yourself and speak from the Spirit of God. Don't leave the framework for your speech to those you consider able to do a better job. Be who you are called to be in Christ. Don't be afraid of obtaining infallible truth from the Spirit of God. This is a promise given to you as well as to Judy. Be not unbelieving, but believing. In regards to your previous language, I'm certain that HE did not give you that line about how I am a philosophical rationalist. The term philosophical rationalist was invented by men, not God. It is a divisive, contradictory term that most of the time does not serve a useful, godly purpose. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
words are in
context, Bro--many times the context is incomplete
humor=joke/s?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:31:41 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
cd: You lost me again bro? Are you saying that you were joking
about taking the words out of context or do youview my comment on
God giving you light in a higher way as a joke?
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 11:00:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
..or is it,
Bro?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the
KJV
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you
candefine humor, Bro--what is it?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..'the fathers hold no authority whatsoever' is correct, Bro--e.g., the referenced fathers are the fathers bec they recognize to a man, uncontested,that 'Jesus Christ', partic in the writing of the Ap John is 'the Father's son'--the one Father whose only son himself, in and through the flesh,is now in possession of all authority you wanna contest it, that's you: your aimless philosophy whichhas nothin' to do with revelation in Church history || On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:44:14 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Attaching you to the fathers ..is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons."
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
When you speak, David, you speak as David Miller and, NOT as the Spirit of God. You do know that don't you? Anyone with a modicum of discernment is able to tell who's voice they're listening to. You speak often as one trapped in a framework that is alien to the 'all truth' to which you so often allude. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 11, 2006 10:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance wrote: ... my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in them. If your investment is in Him, NOT them, then think for yourself and speak from the Spirit of God. Don't leave the framework for your speech to those you consider able to do a better job. Be who you are called to be in Christ. Don't be afraid of obtaining infallible truth from the Spirit of God. This is a promise given to you as well as to Judy. Be not unbelieving, but believing. In regards to your previous language, I'm certain that HE did not give you that line about how I am a philosophical rationalist. The term philosophical rationalist was invented by men, not God. It is a divisive, contradictory term that most of the time does not serve a useful, godly purpose. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor Oophs! Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus? And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier -- hm. Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." Joshua means the same - it is another way of saying Jesus. If your theology is such that the fall was eitherpredetermined or inevitable from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, hisidentification as such comingby revelation to Joseph. The angel spoke to Mary before Joseph had any revelation and Mary was told "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:31) IF the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. How about when he was begotten in the womb of Mary? Shall call, shall be, shall be, and shall give all sound like future tense to me. At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say thathumans were chosen in"Yah saves" beforeany were even created;i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the nameimplies the eventual necessity.Bill That's because God is transcendent, omnipresent, and omnicient so that He knows all things before they happen... However, ATST this does not mean that he ordains or decrees them, and especially not if they are evil, since he can not be tempted by/with evil. On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy wrote: We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit because it is written that God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him (John 3:34) This passage says that God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure, indicating that it was a present thing, something that was happening at the time it was being spoken. John 3:34 was speaking about a time AFTER John saw the Spirit descending upon him, after his baptism. Therefore, this passage does not settle the question concerning when Jesus was FULL of the Spirit... without measure. Note also, that this perhaps should be looked at as a continual thing, a process, rather than an event in history. The Spirit was constantly flowing through him without measure. Judy wrote: ... so my belief is that he was full of the Holy Spirit and pure/holy from birth which is how he could sit in the midst of the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask such questions that all who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luke 2:46,47). Sitting with the doctors at age 12 and being found to be full of wisdom does not settle the question of whether he was FULL of the Spirit either. I have had this experience myself, with my pastors asking me, how much do you read the Bible... you must spend hours every day reading the Bible to know it by heart so well. We need to be careful not to read more into what Luke is saying than is warranted. Jesus certainly had the Spirit working in his life, but if part of what Jesus came to do was to experience what we experience, then I think he also experienced a time when he was not FULL. From my consideration of Scripture, I think I am inclined to agree with Bill that this happened at the time of his baptism. I tend to differ from him about whether or not it would be proper to call him Jesus prior to his birth as a man, but I will leave that discussion for another time. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: Bro I just don't know what I maybe should know that you know-if indeed you truly know it. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/11/2006 10:30:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) words are in context, Bro--many times the context is incomplete humor=joke/s? On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:31:41 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: You lost me again bro? Are you saying that you were joking about taking the words out of context or do youview my comment on God giving you light in a higher way as a joke? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/10/2006 11:00:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) ..or is it, Bro? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the KJV On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you candefine humor, Bro--what is it? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)
RE: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd; Good point Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/11/2006 2:14:01 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit because it is written that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 3:34) This passage says that God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure, indicating that it was a present thing, something that was happening at the time it was being spoken. John 3:34 was speaking about a time AFTER John saw the Spirit descending upon him, after his baptism. Therefore, this passage does not settle the question concerning when Jesus was FULL of the Spirit... without measure. Note also, that this perhaps should be looked at as a continual thing, a process, rather than an event in history. The Spirit was constantly flowing through him without measure. Judy wrote: ... so my belief is that he was full of the Holy Spirit and pure/holy from birth which is how he could sit in the midst of the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask such questions that all who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luke 2:46,47). Sitting with the doctors at age 12 and being found to be full of wisdom does not settle the question of whether he was FULL of the Spirit either. I have had this experience myself, with my pastors asking me, "how much do you read the Bible... you must spend hours every day reading the Bible to know it by heart so well." We need to be careful not to read more into what Luke is saying than is warranted. Well we see in Luke 1:15 that the angel told Zacharias that John the Baptist would be full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and John himself says he is not fit to remove Jesus' sandals (John 3:11) so wouldn't it be safe to assume that Jesus was also full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, especially since she concieved him by the ministry of the Holy Spirit - how could he be anything else?. Jesus certainly had the Spirit working in his life, but if part of what Jesus came to do was to experience what we experience, then I think he also experienced a time when he was not FULL. My understanding is that in his humanity he was hungry and tired as we are - well we know he was in the wilderness of temptation; but he was also the recipient ofevery sin along withthe curse it carries with it during those three hours on the cross when everything was dark. Wouldn't this be enough? From my consideration of Scripture, I think I am inclined to agree with Bill that this happened at the time of his baptism. I tend to differ from him about whether or not it would be proper to call him Jesus prior to his birth as a man, but I will leave that discussion for another time. Hmmm! Then why would God the Father fill John in his mother's womb and make Jesus wait for 30yrs? Makes no sense to me David.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
No. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Are you saying that God decreed the fall of man Bill? On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor Oophs! Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus? And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier -- hm. Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If your theology is such that the fall was eitherpredetermined or inevitable from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, hisidentification as such comingby revelation to Joseph. IF the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say thathumans were chosen in"Yah saves" beforeany were even created;i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the nameimplies the eventual necessity.Bill On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy and David, I will let you work this out. I will be posting on Phi. 2 ASAP but do not see it as necessarily pertinent to my answer here. It was not the Holy Spirit"in" Jesus that made him divine, if it were then all believers would be equally divine. AS the Word of God Jesus was always the Second Person of the Trinity, and as such was alwaysfully God. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:55:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this is beside the point I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, Judy. No Bill I don't think itpossible to know how every person I speak to thinks. All I can possibly be is "me in the Lord" and ppl will either accept or reject me as is; I have no control over that. I know Paul tried to speak as a Jew to the Jews etc. but we are all in the same culture here on TT so far as I know Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" Was? Yes, from his baptism. Had to have been before his baptism; his birth was precipitated by the Holy Spirit and there was spiritual recognition between he and John while both were in utero when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth. The Spirit descending at his baptism was to anoint him for ministry. Jewish men were baptised and anointed for ministry as priestsat age 33. He fulfilled all righteousness. Is? Yes. On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions thatI cannot answer without affirming a belief I do not hold.Please post your question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it then. Thanks, Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:47:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . . . and since I am already branded the heretic by you .. Oh well!! It is I who called you a heretic, Judy: that is correct. I know and JD who sits in your "amen" corner seconded it, of course But you branded yourself with your continued linking of me to the "Church Fathers."The truth is you had ample opportunity to recognize the validity of my rebuttal, before actually being labeled, thus having plenting of time to relent.But rather than do that,you intesified the rhetoric,several more times attaching both John and myself to the Church fathers, even picking up on my use of the term"patristics," addingit to your assault.If you do like the label, then pleasecease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that,you are employinga fallacious form of argumentation. Bill, you are off in a rhetorical world of theological words that I know nothing about. I am interested in God and His Word which could be common ground for us but you appear to want to drag anyone who dialogues with you off into this "other" and thenget upset when I identify it's roots. Just what do Baxter and the boys teach? Where does the concept of Perichoresis come from? Judy, I am asking you toplease address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like touse --but leave the attacks and attachments out of it. Do this and youwill find that the brand was not deep enough to scar and will soon heal over. If you're as right as you think you are, your arguments will stand sans the fallacies. So far as I am concerned Bill I am not attacking and assaulting you and it saddens me that you would see it that way. I can not control anyone's tongue; if you want to throw verbal stones at me - then this is your responsibility before the Lord, not mine. Even if you do see me as your enemy. Thank you, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum Mormons. It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the Mormon church taught you that, so you must be wrong! Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad hom. Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation" should be enough to cause one tobe more consistent in one's presentation. Regardingthe use of the word "Moromon:" if such application takes one from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching one to the early church fathers is abad thing (for starters) and forces Bill to leave the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter that is off subject. The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch fathers and whether or not Bill appreciateds theirvalue. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, "but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the t; Mormon church taught you that, so you must be wrong!" Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:44:14 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Be glad to oblige David only I am not sure that Bill has made any statements. He has asked some questions. One I answered and he rejected my answer. Making the observation that I can not even answer a "simple question". I asked him a question in dealing with the other.A question he has as yet failed to acknowledge. Bills recentstatements have had to do with his assessment of me personally along with accusations that I do not understand much less relate to along with the demand that I repent or something like that. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad hom. What on earth are you talking about JD, I never bagged any of his questions. I answered one and the other is on hold until he responds to mine. Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation" should be enough to cause one tobe more consistent in one's presentation. I have not dismissed anyone because of association, identifying the source of something as being the Church Fathers rather than the Word of God is not exactly doing this even if Bill thinks it so. Regardingthe use of the word "Moromon:" if such application takes one from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching one to the early church fathers is abad thing (for starters) and forces Bill to leave the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter that is off subject. You have no idea what goes on in Judy's mind JD and I thought we had agreed thatI would not be the topic of your discussions or rantings. The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch fathers and whether or not Bill appreciateds theirvalue. jd There were no debated questionsIt began as follows about this hypostatic union which came out of the Council at Nicea. What is so offensive about calling it what it is?. None of the apostles taughtthis, nor did Jesus say it of Himself. From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding maynot be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen. Bill From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, "but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the g t; Mormon church taught you that, so you must be wrong!" Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Text should read "begging" the question. It is your M.O. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad hom. What on earth are you talking about JD, I never bagged any of his questions. I answered one and the other is on hold until he responds to mine. Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation" should be enough to cause one tobe more consistent in one's presentation. I have not dismissed anyone because of association, identifying the source of something as being the Church Fathers rather than the Word of God is not exactly doing this even if Bill thinks it so. Regardingthe use of the word "Moromon:" if such application takes one from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching one to the early church fathers is abad thing (for starters) and forces Bill to leave the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter that is off subject. You have no idea what goes on in Judy's mind JD and I thought we had agreed thatI would not be the topic of your discussions or rantings. The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch fathers and whether or not Bill appreciateds theirvalue. jd There were no debated questionsIt began as follows about this hypostatic union which came out of the Council at Nicea. What is so offensive about calling it what it is?. None of the apostles taughtthis, nor did Jesus say it of Himself. From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding maynot be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen. Bill From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, "but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the g t; Mormon church taught you that, so you m ust be wrong!" Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Do you, DM, understand the 'spirit' of freemasonry and the 'spirit' of mormonism to be one and the same 'spirit'? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 10, 2006 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum Mormons. It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the Mormon church taught you that, so you must be wrong! Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM. Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are to some others. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 10, 2006 07:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) As I have already stated FYI JD; at the start there was NO QUESTION You are off on another flight of fancy. A child of the King never has to beg for anything Yours is the wisdom of Aristotle. When will you fellows learn? judyt On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:42:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Text should read "begging" the question. It is your M.O. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad hom. What on earth are you talking about JD, I never bagged any of his questions. I answered one and the other is on hold until he responds to mine. Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation" should be enough to cause one tobe more consistent in one's presentation. I have not dismissed anyone because of association, identifying the source of something as being the Church Fathers rather than the Word of God is not exactly doing this even if Bill thinks it so. Regardingthe use of the word "Moromon:" if such application takes one from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching one to the early church fathers is abad thing (for starters) and forces Bill to leave the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter that is off subject. You have no idea what goes on in Judy's mind JD and I thought we had agreed thatI would not be the topic of your discussions or rantings. The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch fathers and whether or not Bill appreciateds theirvalue. jd There were no debated questionsIt began as follows about this hypostatic union which came out of the Council at Nicea. What is so offensive about calling it what it is?. None of the apostles taughtthis, nor did Jesus say it of Himself. From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding maynot be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen. Bill From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Have I gone over your head with the use of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you will find "begging the question" in there somewhere. You have no idea just how ridiculous this makes you sound. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have already stated FYI JD; at the start there was NO QUESTION You are off on another flight of fancy. A child of the King never has to beg for anything Yours is the wisdom of Aristotle. When will you fellows learn? judyt On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:42:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Text should read "begging" the question. It is your M.O. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad hom. What on earth are you talking about JD, I never bagged any of his questions. I answered one and the other is on hold until he responds to mine. Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation" should be enough to cause one tobe more consistent in one's presentation. I have not dismissed anyone because of association, identifying the source of something as being the Church Fathers rather than the Word of God is not exactly doing this even if Bill thinks it so. Regardingthe use of the word "Moromon:" if such application takes one from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching one to the early church fathers is abad thing (for starters) and forces Bill to leave the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter that is off subject. You have no idea what goes on in Judy's mind JD and I thought we had agreed thatI would not be the topic of your discussions or rantings. The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch fathers and whether or not Bill appreciateds theirvalue. jd There were no debated questionsIt began as follows about this hypostatic union which came out of the Council at Nicea. What is so offensive about calling it what it is?. None of the apostles taughtthis, nor did Jesus say it of Himself. From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding maynot be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen. Bill From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill wrote: If you do like the label, then please cease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that, you are employing a fallacious form of argumentation. Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to argue with DaveH by saying, "but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the g t; Mormon church taught you that, so you m ust be wrong!" Bill wrote: Judy, I am asking you to please address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like to use ... Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
you candefine humor, Bro--what is it? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the KJV On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you candefine humor, Bro--what is it? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..or is it, Bro? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the KJV On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you candefine humor, Bro--what is it? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I note that DM identified your position with sabellianism (God is one being, one person who takes on three different forms or manifestations - 3rd century). He also recollected his own , unsuccessful, attempts to address both the humanity of Christ and the Incarnation in dialogue with you. DM has made much of your/his position on 'inspired' interpretation. It'd appear that such has its limitations. Iff there is truth concernation the person and work of Christ. Iff his position differs from yours then, one of you has NOT apprehended the truth concerning the person and work of Christ. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 08, 2006 16:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. You seem to have some axe to grind and come across as a very angry man. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:24:48 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. From: Judy Taylor I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I suspect not but, more importantly, is it reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 08, 2006 22:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Humble apologies profered for messing up the scenario inActs 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact that he was walking "G" Did he have a horse? Is this an important part of your orthodoxy G? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .. that she simultaneouslyre-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., thereis nodonkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar
theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of God
and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but God is
the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't
need to stone me over it or even question me closely
for that matter.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations of
himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- and
sometimes back again, and back and forth.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
Modalism -- One God, three
manifestations which is different from three
persons. That's how I remember the above -- correct?
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some analogies are better than others. None
arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away from ones
which tend towardmodalism.
Just my opinion,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the
Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this
explanation.
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in
question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that
word. That attachment is a personification and does
not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good
reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think
that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or
"God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the
text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for
confusion.
Why would Paul "want to" add to what God
says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke
on
marriage and it was his own thoughts he
said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father
is in there
because it fits and is supposed to be
there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!!
You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book
are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in
the text but think that itshould be and therefore
is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You
simply do not follow your own rules .
Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of
"Father."Areasonable argument, by the
way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is
italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is
added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is
Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is
a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a
part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to
reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe
worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His
Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission.
Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going
to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to
reconcile
ppl back to the
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
No, it reflects the fact that sometimes I am tired in the evening and should wait until the next day to respond - On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect not but, more importantly, is it reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations? From: Judy Taylor Humble apologies profered for messing up the scenario inActs 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact that he was walking "G" Did he have a horse? Is this an important part of your orthodoxy G? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .. that she simultaneouslyre-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., thereis nodonkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does not say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word be mistaken? What do you believe 'all truth' to mean? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 06:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Studying the Word is good/commendable! I know of no
one on TT who would dissuade you from that, Judy.IFO Amen you on
that!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 09, 2006 06:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar
theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of God
and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but God
is the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't
need to stone me over it or even question me closely
for that matter.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations of
himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- and
sometimes back again, and back and forth.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
Modalism -- One God, three
manifestations which is different from three
persons. That's how I remember the above --
correct?
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some analogies are better than others. None
arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away from ones
which tend towardmodalism.
Just my opinion,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006
9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the
Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of
this explanation.
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
- incarnate God (Judy)
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in
question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that
word. That attachment is a personification and does
not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are
good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just
think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or
"God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the
text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for
confusion.
Why would Paul "want to" add to what
God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he
spoke on
marriage and it was his own thoughts he
said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father
is in there
because it fits and is supposed to be
there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!!
You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the
book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is
not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore
is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You
simply do not follow your own rules .
Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion
of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the
way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is
italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is
added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
A little patronizing Lance
...
So tell me why are DM and myself accused of
modalism and sabellianism? Is it becauseyour
mentors have convinced you that - "Noone
is able to apprehend the Truth because of the
enlightenment
and the Holy Spirit is hamstrung so that he is
unable todo what Jesus said He would do in the lives
of those who believe?"
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:37:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Studying the Word is good/commendable! I know of
no one on TT who would dissuade you from that,
Judy.IFO Amen you on that!
From: Judy Taylor
You fellows are great with the sixty million dollar
theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of
God and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but
God is the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't
need to stone me over it or even question me
closely for that matter.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations
of himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit --
and sometimes back again, and back and forth.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
Modalism -- One God, three
manifestations which is different from three
persons. That's how I remember the above --
correct?
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some analogies are better than others.
None arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away
from ones which tend towardmodalism.
Just my opinion,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006
9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
- incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the
Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of
this explanation.
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word
in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that
word. That attachment is a personification and
does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There
are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I
just think that if we allow for the omission of the words
"Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added
those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less
possibility for confusion.
Why would Paul "want to" add to what
God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he
spoke on
marriage and it was his own thoughts
he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word
Father is in there
because it fits and is supposed to be
there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules
!!! You are the one who believes that adding to the
words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that
"Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Exactly what it says Lance, I did not change it to the plural did I? On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:40:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does not say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word be mistaken? What do you believe 'all truth' to mean? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Am I, and the others, then to understand that your position on the 'godhead' is THE BIBLICAL POSITION? The 'Spirit' has led you into this 'truth' has He not? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Exactly what it says Lance, I did not change it to the plural did I? On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:40:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: QUESTION:"the PromiseALL Truth' As it does not say 'truth(s)' might your interpretation of this word be mistaken? What do you believe 'all truth' to mean? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
As upsetting as it might be to you and to DM, my
answer is YES. I'm still unclear as to DM's position on this so, I cannot but
speak of yourself. I've actually said it often. You cannot see. I do not
understand why you cannot see. It is certainly not to be laid at the 'feet' of
the Spirit of God. Nor is it to be considered the lack of clarity of Scripture.
The HS appears not to be overriding your heretical understanding on this most
central of issues. I simply don't know why?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 09, 2006 06:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
A little patronizing Lance
...
So tell me why are DM and myself accused of
modalism and sabellianism? Is it becauseyour
mentors have convinced you that -
"Noone is able to apprehend the Truth because of the
enlightenment
and the Holy Spirit is hamstrung so that he
is unable todo what Jesus said He would do in the lives
of those who believe?"
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:37:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Studying the Word is good/commendable! I know
of no one on TT who would dissuade you from that,
Judy.IFO Amen you on that!
From: Judy Taylor
You fellows are great with the sixty million
dollar theological words and they are all 'isms - just like the
cults.
I don't study all that. I study the Word of
God and this is what I see there. If you want to go with those you
call
the "patristic fathers" - that's your choice but
God is the judge and vengeance still belongs to Him so you don't
need to stone me over it or even question me
closely for that matter.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:39:37 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or
manifestations of himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the
Holy Spirit -- and sometimes back again, and back and
forth.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006
9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
Modalism -- One God, three
manifestations which is different from three
persons. That's how I remember the above --
correct?
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some analogies are better than others.
None arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away
from ones which tend towardmodalism.
Just my opinion,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08,
2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God
pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came
the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded
me of this explanation.
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
--
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word
in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to
that word. That attachment is a personification
and does not actually , literally , exist in the text.
There are good reasons for this personificiation, I
admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission
of the words "Father" or "God&qu
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Billyou are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Yes. Hi Dean, sorry I missed this. I disagreed with John about Col 1:19; in his zeal to prove a doctrinal pointhe wrote: 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. I wrote: Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus Iused the NASV and Amp because they were the closest to the computer at the time. They say the same as the KJV because this verse (V.20) speaks of the Father rather thanChrist. On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:35:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, could you answr this question from Dean? Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Characterof the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in timeI may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the presenthave no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:12:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt cd: Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Characterof the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in timeI may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the presenthave no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 08:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I have never ever said anything about "interpreting or unpacking" scripture The scriptures are spiritually discerned Lance... and God the Holy Spirit is the one appointed to lead us through them. Not one of you so far has refuted anything I have written byscripture except Gary who was on the ball and noted that I added a donkey to the scenario in Acts 9:4. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:15:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: But what an answer she gave Bill-Glory be to God asI too see this Great King sitting on the right hand of the Father and Beauty is His name!Praise be to this Great King as I too can see Him! Holy, Holy ,Holy is the God of Israel ! May His name be blessed forever!May His throne shine forth forever as an exceeding bright light to show the cross for all to see as His grace alone is sufficient! Thank you for the seeing God! Help me to proclaim it clearer mighty one. Help me grow to be that light as He was!Thank you Judy for this answer. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 4:14:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Well, Judy,you have gotten in a couple digs, accused me of arguing against scripture, and completely missed the point once again. If you don't mind, I think I'll just go home early. Have a nice day, Bill By the way, patristic means "father";"patristic fathers" istherefore redundant. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? No Bill I don't ... when all I am doing is quoting what has already been written and is sealed in heaven. Bill From: Judy Taylor From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 7:30:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) cd; Be so kind as to explain this statement -in term I can relate to Gary. Thanks. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
If this is your choice then I respect that JD However, I stillthink it a shame that you do not consider any of my objections seriously enough to check them out even though they are grounded in the truth of God's Word like the one in Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 This may seen like a small point to you but nothing is small when it comes to God, His will and His ways. When we have to strive and wrest scripture so that we must change the clear Word of Truth to make our point ... well enough said. Wishing you all the best in Christ, judyt On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 05:09:03 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am not going to discuss with you anymore. I am tired, after two years, of the constant argument. As regards myself, your only purpose is to oppose anything I say. Things like this: You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. do not come from the spirit of God. I already know your response -- almost word for word, so why bother? anyway -- you and I are done. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Indeed, Judy, you have not. However, I have. Refutations abound but, you've failed, thus far, to 'see' them. IMO you'll continue to be 'blind' to them. Once again, I don't know why? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 08:24 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I have never ever said anything about "interpreting or unpacking" scripture The scriptures are spiritually discerned Lance... and God the Holy Spirit is the one appointed to lead us through them. Not one of you so far has refuted anything I have written byscripture except Gary who was on the ball and noted that I added a donkey to the scenario in Acts 9:4. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:15:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by beingreconciled to the Father. Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Sorry about the wrong term Bill but I'm sure you know
what I meant, I should have written "early fathers"
Am also sorry that you don't feel inclined to stick
around and explain the point I missed. If you all go home
then it will just be Dean and I here this morning
praisin' the Lord together Glory!!!
Oh I forgot about Lance you are welcome to join us
:)
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:46:25 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, Judy,you have gotten in a couple digs, accused
me of arguing against scripture, and completely missed the point once again.
If you don't mind, I think I'll just go home early.
Have a nice day,
Bill
By the way, patristic means "father";"patristic
fathers" istherefore redundant.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:07
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because He said it and since you
hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find
this an important pointalso.
Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one
possible meaning.
So what other meaning do you
ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the
Father
is "greater and mightier" I
can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve
rather than
to be served and stated clearly
that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were
the
Father's works. It is
written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of
meto do thy will OGod"
(Heb 10:7) How can you argue
with the scriptures?
Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct.
So it is what you decide which
determines truth regardless of what is written?
You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish
Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that
and I know that.
I am not diminishing
anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of
God.
And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you
calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit.
The conflict is in where your
faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not
agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less
divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to
make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand
the 'mystery of godliness'
I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is
addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that
he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I
think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I
do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it
and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at
all.
At this point I don't know what to
believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't
agree with scripture.
Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I believe he has equal status in
the Godhead with the other two members. God
is ONE - remember?
That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why
then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father
was greater than he?
Because He said it and since
you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you
would find this an important pointalso. His time spent on this earth as a
man was for a purpose. He came to demonstrate for us how to live
as well as to lay down His human life so that we could live by
beingreconciled to the
Father.
Correction, she writes as
one who knows the One who knows all
truth
I was only trying to be respectful of your position,
Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being
able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Great the accolades, Dean, and glory to God! I too see the Great King at the RH of the Father. But tell me: how does Judy's response answer my questions? I asked, When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? I can't tell where she addresses any of it.Please enlighten me. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: But what an answer she gave Bill-Glory be to God asI too see this Great King sitting on the right hand of the Father and Beauty is His name!Praise be to this Great King as I too can see Him! Holy, Holy ,Holy is the God of Israel ! May His name be blessed forever!May His throne shine forth forever as an exceeding bright light to show the cross for all to see as His grace alone is sufficient! Thank you for the seeing God! Help me to proclaim it clearer mighty one. Help me grow to be that light as He was!Thank you Judy for this answer. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 4:14:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
BILL, SHE DOES NOT ADDRESS IT!! - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 08:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Great the accolades, Dean, and glory to God! I too see the Great King at the RH of the Father. But tell me: how does Judy's response answer my questions? I asked, When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? I can't tell where she addresses any of it.Please enlighten me. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: But what an answer she gave Bill-Glory be to God asI too see this Great King sitting on the right hand of the Father and Beauty is His name!Praise be to this Great King as I too can see Him! Holy, Holy ,Holy is the God of Israel ! May His name be blessed forever!May His throne shine forth forever as an exceeding bright light to show the cross for all to see as His grace alone is sufficient! Thank you for the seeing God! Help me to proclaim it clearer mighty one. Help me grow to be that light as He was!Thank you Judy for this answer. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 4:14:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Refutations abound, I agree but only as opinions. I want to see where I am wrong IN GOD'S WORD rather thanby men's opinions or some theology which distorts other parts of God's Word which are what abounds around here. I am not blind to them, they just hold no weight. I see them as cisterns without water.If you can show me where I am missing it in His Word in balance and in context then you will have my full attention. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:44:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, Judy, you have not. However, I have. Refutations abound but, you've failed, thus far, to 'see' them. IMO you'll continue to be 'blind' to them. Once again, I don't know why? From: Judy Taylor I have never ever said anything about "interpreting or unpacking" scripture The scriptures are spiritually discerned Lance... and God the Holy Spirit is the one appointed to lead us through them. Not one of you so far has refuted anything I have written byscripture except Gary who was on the ball and noted that I added a donkey to the scenario in Acts 9:4. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:15:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or important at all. At this point I don't know what to believe - about you and your doctrines - that is other than they don't agree with scripture. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:36:39 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Dean is responding to the question before - that
response was to your question Who is Jesus?
I haven't answered your question below yet because I
suspect it is a setup and since I am already
branded the heretic by you .. Oh well!!
Let me ask you - Do you believe God the Word had the
Holy Spirit??
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:58:43 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Great the accolades, Dean, and glory to God! I
too see the Great King at the RH of the Father. But tell me: how does Judy's
response answer my questions? I asked, When did
Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christbefore that
time? I can't tell where she addresses any of it.Please enlighten
me.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:27
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
cd: But what an answer she gave Bill-Glory be to God asI
too see this Great King sitting on the right hand of the Father and Beauty
is His name!Praise be to this Great King as I too can see Him! Holy,
Holy ,Holy is the God of Israel ! May His name be blessed forever!May His
throne shine forth forever as an exceeding bright light to show the cross
for all to see as His grace alone is sufficient! Thank you for the seeing
God! Help me to proclaim it clearer mighty one. Help me grow to be that
light as He was!Thank you Judy for this answer.
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 4:14:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
And I believe that you can't answer a simple
question.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ -
incarnate God (Judy)
I believe He is King of Kings and Lord
of Lords
Head of the Church which is His
body
Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits
at the RH of the Father in Heaven.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Because I'm trying to understand what you believe
concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your
house on shifting sand.
Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
Why would you ask such a
question?
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Are you now saying that Christ
was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether?
It was God in Christ -- that
makes Him deity, in this case.
Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus
the son of man, making himChrist the Son of
God.
When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was
he the divine Christbefore that time?
From: Judy Taylor
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word
in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that
word. That attachment is a personification and
does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There
are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I
just think that if we allow for the omission of the words
"Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added
those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less
possibility for confusion.
Why would Paul "want to" add to
what God says when there are warnings against doing this.
When he spoke on marriage and
it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't
believe Paul added and the word Father is in there
because it fits and is supposed
to be there for reasons of clarity.
Your logic versus your
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
ReVIEW the posts of BT, JD and DM over the last couple of YEARS on this matter. Scriptures refuting your apprehension abound. You 'see' those Scriptures differently than they. THUS MY POINT! This is THE POINT I've been making for a couple of years.Your SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION on this matter differs from the one The Spirit has shown THEM.. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 09, 2006 08:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Refutations abound, I agree but only as opinions. I want to see where I am wrong IN GOD'S WORD rather thanby men's opinions or some theology which distorts other parts of God's Word which are what abounds around here. I am not blind to them, they just hold no weight. I see them as cisterns without water.If you can show me where I am missing it in His Word in balance and in context then you will have my full attention. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:44:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, Judy, you have not. However, I have. Refutations abound but, you've failed, thus far, to 'see' them. IMO you'll continue to be 'blind' to them. Once again, I don't know why? From: Judy Taylor I have never ever said anything about "interpreting or unpacking" scripture The scriptures are spiritually discerned Lance... and God the Holy Spirit is the one appointed to lead us through them. Not one of you so far has refuted anything I have written byscripture except Gary who was on the ball and noted that I added a donkey to the scenario in Acts 9:4. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:15:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not understand the 'mystery of godliness' I read the same verse and conclude that Jesus is addressing something other than his divinity because I already know that he is fully divine, hence equally divine(I could go into what I think he meant but that is beside the point). Don't assume that because I do not read it and come away with the same meaning as you that I read it and conclude, therefore,that it is not meaningful or
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I don't really trust your statistics Lance, you are generalizing by using what your memory tells you The Mormon boys use a lot of scripturesto refute what they think comes against their teachings Scriptures wrested out of context don't count, nor do scriptures used solely for the purpose of refuting my apprehension though I don't recall mostof those. So what point are you alluding to and where does your and their scriptural interpretation differ from what the Spirit has shown me?? On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:10:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ReVIEW the posts of BT, JD and DM over the last couple of YEARS on this matter. Scriptures refuting your apprehension abound. You 'see' those Scriptures differently than they. THUS MY POINT! This is THE POINT I've been making for a couple of years.Your SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION on this matter differs from the one The Spirit has shown THEM.. From: Judy Taylor Refutations abound, I agree but only as opinions. I want to see where I am wrong IN GOD'S WORD rather thanby men's opinions or some theology which distorts other parts of God's Word which are what abounds around here. I am not blind to them, they just hold no weight. I see them as cisterns without water.If you can show me where I am missing it in His Word in balance and in context then you will have my full attention. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:44:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, Judy, you have not. However, I have. Refutations abound but, you've failed, thus far, to 'see' them. IMO you'll continue to be 'blind' to them. Once again, I don't know why? From: Judy Taylor I have never ever said anything about "interpreting or unpacking" scripture The scriptures are spiritually discerned Lance... and God the Holy Spirit is the one appointed to lead us through them. Not one of you so far has refuted anything I have written byscripture except Gary who was on the ball and noted that I added a donkey to the scenario in Acts 9:4. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:15:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture is NOT self-interpreting. No matter what you may think, Judy, the meaning/interpretation YOU draw from Scripture is not always the correct one. NOT you nor DM nor anyone else has been promised otherwise. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 05:45:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because He said it and since you hold Him in such high esteem yourself, I would think that you would find this an important pointalso. Things can be said, Judy, and have more than one possible meaning. So what other meaning do you ascribe to John 14:28 Bill? The Amp Version even adds 'mightier' - so the Father is "greater and mightier" I can not see why you have a problem with this since Jesus came to serve rather than to be served and stated clearly that the words he spoke were those of the Father and the works he did were the Father's works. It is written of Him "Lo I come in the volume of the book, it is written of meto do thy will OGod" (Heb 10:7) How can you argue with the scriptures? Ours is to decide which of those meanings is correct. So it is what you decide which determines truth regardless of what is written? You have used the "greater than I" verse to diminish Jesus' divinity, at the very least, on numerous occasions. You know that and I know that. I am not diminishing anything Bill. I am agreeing with what is written and known as the Word of God. And that is why it is surprising for us to then read you calling him equal in divinity to the both the Father and Holy Spirit. The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. Accepting and believing the Word of God makes him no less divine. It is best to accept what God says about Himself than to make him into something he is not. You apparently do not
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Gabriel to.. a town in Galilee, to a virgin .."You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. .The Holy Spirit will come upon you..the power of the Most High ..the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. .. nothing is impossible with God." [Luke, NIV] On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..[but this is] reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations: || || On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
So what are you saying Gary, that mary gave birth by the power of the Holy Spirit to a baby boy called Jesus the Son of God? Is Luke or are you saying something other?? On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:11:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gabriel to.. a town in Galilee, to a virgin .."You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. .The Holy Spirit will come upon you..the power of the Most High ..the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. .. nothing is impossible with God." [Luke, NIV] On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..[but this is] reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations: || || On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
ask an apostle On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:19:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what are you saying Gary.. On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:11:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gabriel to.. a town in Galilee, to a virgin .."You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. .The Holy Spirit will come upon you..the power of the Most High ..the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. .. nothing is impossible with God." [Luke, NIV] On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..[but this is] reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations: || || On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/9/2006 7:52:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Yes. Hi Dean, sorry I missed this. I disagreed with John about Col 1:19; in his zeal to prove a doctrinal pointhe wrote: 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. I wrote: Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. cd: I see and agree with you Judy as the one whom has done the wrong needs to be reconciled to the one they have wronged. In this example God was wronged by us and Christ "cleansed" that wrong. But what I see John doing is placing Christ in the role of the Father which in my opinion would not fit his subject role in this situation-in my opinion. I view Christ as being sent -by the father-to remove the condemnation that existed because they were condemned already. To me God held the condemnation in his hand and Christ held the cloth to cleanse that hand which was done on the cross. John feel free to correct me ifI am incorrectlystating you role in this discussion- Thanks. For support I offer John 3 and the below word of Dave Clark. oh 3:17 For1063 God2316 sent649 not3756 his848 Son5207 into1519 the3588 world2889 to2443 condemn2919 the3588 world;2889 but235 that2443 the3588 world2889 through1223 him846 might be saved.4982 < /FONT> Joh 3:18 He that believeth4100 on1519 him846 is not3756 condemned:2919 but1161 he that believeth4100 not3361 is condemned2919 already,2235 because3754 he hath not3361 believed4100 in1519 the3588 name3686 of the3588 only begotten3439 Son5207 of God.2316 Joh 3:19 And1161 this3778 is2076 the3588 condemnation,2920 that3754 light5457 is come2064 into1519 the3588 world,2889 and2532 men444 loved25 darkness4655 rather3123 than2228 light,5457 because1063 their846 deeds2041 were2258 evil.4190 Joh 3:20 For1063 every one3956 that doeth4238 evil5337 hateth3404 the3588 light,5457 neither2532, 3756 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 lest3363 his846 deeds2041 should be reproved.1651 Joh 3:21 But1161 he that doeth4160 truth225 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 that2443 his846 deeds2041 may be made manifest,5319 that3754 they are2076 wrought2038 in1722 God.2316 Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:20 - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross - Peace between God and man; for man being in a sinful state, and there being no peace to the wicked, it required a reconciliation to be made to restore peace between heaven and earth; but peace could not be made without an atonement for sin, and the consequence shows that the blood of Christ shed on the cross was necessary to make this atonement.To reconcile all things unto himself - The enmity was on the part of the creature; though God is angry with the wicked every day, yet he is never unwilling to be reconciled. But man, whose carnal mind is enmity to God, is naturally averse from this reconciliation; it requires, therefore, the blood of the cross to atone for the sin, and the influence of the Spirit to reconcile the transgressor to him against whom he has offended! See the notes on 2Co_5:19, etc.Things in earth, or things in heaven - Much has been said on this very obscure clause; but, as it is my object not to write dissertations but notes, I shall not introduce the opinions of learned men, which have as much ingenuity as variety to recommend them. If the phrase be not a kind of collective phrase to signify all the world, or all mankind, as Dr. Hammond supposed the things in heaven may refer, according to some, to those persons who died under the Old Testament dispensation, and who could not have a title to glory but through the sacrificial death of Christ: and the apostle may have intended these merely to show that without this sacrifice no human beings could be saved, not only those who were then on the earth, and to whom in their successive generations the Gospel should be preached, but even those who had died before the incarnation; and, as those of them that were faithful were now in a state of blessedness, they could not have arrived there but through the blood of the cross, for the blood of calves and goats could not take away sin. After all, the apos tle probably means the Jews and the Gentiles; the state of the former being always considered a sort of Divine or celestial state, while that of the latter was reputed to be merely earthly, without any mixture of spiritual or heavenly good. It is certain that a grand part of our LordÂ’s design, in his incarnation and death, was to reconcile the Jews and the Gentiles, a
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy wrote: The conflict is in where your faith is rooted Bill; the patristic fathers and the scriptures do not agree. This is not entirely accurate, Judy. Sometimes the church fathers and the Scriptures DO agree. I don't see Bill as having his faith rooted in the church fathers. Rather, he considers their views, and he compares the views of modern theologians too, comparing them with Scripture, and he hopes for the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide him to the proper understanding of Scripture. The primary difference between you two, from my perspective, is that you focus more upon Scripture and the Holy Spirit as your teacher, excluding other influences. In contrast, Bill opens himself up a great deal to other sources of information. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance wrote to Judy: Your SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION on this matter differs from the one The Spirit has shown THEM.. In regards to me, I do not see too much doctrinal difference between Judy and me. Our difference is primarily one of emphasis. Our biggest difference concerns the humanity of Jesus, but this again probably has more to do with emphasis. There are some passages of Scripture that from my perspective are ignored by her in regards to this, namely, Phil. 2, Heb. 2, Heb. 5. She probably thinks that I ignore the idea of Jesus being the second Adam. I should probably point out, however, that you operate from a perspective where it is very important to have right theological words for defining the person of Jesus. For me, this is not as important. I think recognizing his Divinity is important, but whether a person believes in 3 persons or 1 person is not as critical. Even though I am a Trinitarian myself, I do not consider sabellianism to be heresy. I realize that this departs from the early church fathers and historical Christianity. Nevertheless, I have good Christian fellowship with a number of people who are not Trinitarians. You probably would have a great deal of difficulty with me even saying this. Nevertheless, from my perspective, much of this has to do with a different emphasis upon a Christology which is termed by Scripture, the mystery of godliness. If it is a mystery, then there needs to be latitude for talking about different aspects about it, without fear of being labeled a heretic and removed from fellowship. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Well 1161 and 225 back at ya !! These dern computers. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/9/2006 7:52:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Yes. Hi Dean, sorry I missed this. I disagreed with John about Col 1:19; in his zeal to prove a doctrinal pointhe wrote: 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. I wrote: Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. cd: I see and agree with you Judy as the one whom has done the wrong needs to be reconciled to the one they have wronged. In this example God was wronged by us and Christ "cleansed" that wrong. But what I see John doing is placing Christ in the role of the Father which in my opinion would not fit his subject role in this situation-in my opinion. I view Christ as being sent -by the father-to remove the condemnation that existed because they were condemned already. To me God held the condemnation in his hand and Christ held the cloth to cleanse that hand which was done on the cross. John feel free to correct me ifI am incorrectlystating you role in this discussion- Thanks. For support I offer John 3 and the below word of Dave Clark. oh 3:17 For1063 God2316 sent649 not3756 his848 Son5207 into1519 the3588 world2889 to2443 condemn2919 the3588 world;2889 but235 that2443 the3588 world2889 through1223 him846 might be saved.4982 /FONT Joh 3:18 He that believeth4100 on1519 him846 is not3756 condemned:2919 but1161 he that believeth4100 not3361 is condemned2919 already,2235 because3754 he hath not3361 believed4100 in1519 the3588 name3686 of the3588 only begotten3439 Son5207 of God.2316 Joh 3:19 And1161 this3778 is2076 the3588 condemnation,2920 that3754 light5457 is come2064 into1519 the3588 world,2889 and2532 men444 loved25 darkness4655 rather3123 than2228 light,5457 because1063 their846 deeds2041 were2258 evil.4190 Joh 3:20 For1063 every one3956 that doeth4238 evil5337 hateth3404 the3588 light,5457 neither2532, 3756 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 lest3363 his846 deeds2041 should be reproved.1651 Joh 3:21 But1161 he that doeth4160 truth225 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 that2443 his846 deeds2041 may be made manifest,5319 that3754 they are2076 wrought2038 in1722 God.2316 Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:20 - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross - Peace between God and man; for man being in a sinful state, and there being no peace to the wicked, it required a reconciliation to be made to restore peace between heaven and earth; but peace could not be made without an atonement for sin, and the consequence shows that the blood of Christ shed on the cross was necessary to make this atonement.To reconcile all things unto himself - The enmity was on the part of the creature; though God is angry with the wicked every day, yet he is never unwilling to be reconciled. But man, whose carnal mind is enmity to God, is naturally averse from this reconciliation; it requires, therefore, the blood of the cross to atone for the sin, and the influence of the Spirit to reconcile the transgressor to him against whom he has offended! See the notes on 2Co_5:19, etc.Things in earth, or things in heaven - Much has been said on this very obscure clause; but, as it is my object not to write dissertations but notes, I shall not introduce the opinions of learned men, which have as much ingenuity as variety to recommend them. If the phrase be not a kind of collective phrase to signify all the world, or all mankind, as Dr. Hammond supposed the things in heaven may refer, according to some, to those persons who died under the Old Testament dispensation, and who could not have a title to glory but through the sacrificial death of Christ: and the apostle may have intended these merely to show that without this sacrifice no human beings could be saved, not only those who were then on the earth, and to whom in their successive generations the Gospel should be preached, but even those who had died before the incarnation; and, as those of them that were faithful were now in a state of blessedness, they could not have arrived there but through the blood of the cross, for the blood of calves and goats could not take away sin. After all, the apo s tle probably means the Jews and the Gentiles; the state of the former being always considered a sort of Divine or celestial state, while that of the latter was reputed to be merely earthly, without any mixture of spirit
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
classic/tt hall of fame quote: To me these other versions only add confusion..the KJV is enough for me -- cd || ..Iused the NASV and Amp because they were the closest to the computer at the time. They say the same as the KJV because this verse (V.20) speaks of the Father rather thanChrist. cd: To me these other versions only add confusion-which I do need any more of because there seems to be more than enough to go around-So I will quote you as saying" the KJV is enough for me":-) ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
. . . and since I am already branded the heretic by you .. Oh well!! It is I who called you a heretic, Judy: that is correct. But you branded yourself with your continued linking of me to the "Church Fathers."The truth is you had ample opportunity to recognize the validity of my rebuttal, before actually being labeled, thus having plenting of time to relent.But rather than do that,you intesified the rhetoric,several more times attaching both John and myself to the Church fathers, even picking up on my use of the term"patristics," addingit to your assault.If you do like the label, then pleasecease with the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to the fathers and dismissing my comments on the basis of that association; for when you do that,you are employinga fallacious form of argumentation. Judy, I am asking you toplease address the content of my statements. Rebut them if you wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source you would like touse --but leave the attacks and attachments out of it. Do this and youwill find that the brand was not deep enough to scar and will soon heal over. If you're as right as you think you are, your arguments will stand sans the fallacies. Thank you, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/9/2006 5:31:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Well 1161 and 225 back at ya !! These dern computers. jd cd: :-) lol-very funny. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/9/2006 7:52:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Yes. Hi Dean, sorry I missed this. I disagreed with John about Col 1:19; in his zeal to prove a doctrinal pointhe wrote: 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. I wrote: Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. cd: I see and agree with you Judy as the one whom has done the wrong needs to be reconciled to the one they have wronged. In this example God was wronged by us and Christ "cleansed" that wrong. But what I see John doing is placing Christ in the role of the Father which in my opinion would not fit his subject role in this situation-in my opinion. I view Christ as being sent -by the father-to remove the condemnation that existed because they were condemned already. To me God held the condemnation in his hand and Christ held the cloth to cleanse that hand which was done on the cross. John feel free to correct me ifI am incorrectlystating you role in this discussion- Thanks. For support I offer John 3 and the below word of Dave Clark. oh 3:17 For1063 God2316 sent649 not3756 his848 Son5207 into1519 the3588 world2889 to2443 condemn2919 the3588 world;2889 but235 that2443 the3588 world2889 through1223 him846 might be saved.4982 /FONT Joh 3:18 He that believeth4100 on1519 him846 is not3756 condemned:2919 but1161 he that believeth4100 not3361 is condemned2919 already,2235 because3754 he hath not3361 believed4100 in1519 the3588 name3686 of the3588 only begotten3439 Son5207 of God.2316 Joh 3:19 And1161 this3778 is2076 the3588 condemnation,2920 that3754 light5457 is come2064 into1519 the3588 world,2889 and2532 men444 loved25 darkness4655 rather3123 than2228 light,5457 because1063 their846 deeds2041 were2258 evil.4190 Joh 3:20 For1063 every one3956 that doeth4238 evil5337 hateth3404 the3588 light,5457 neither2532, 3756 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 lest3363 his846 deeds2041 should be reproved.1651 Joh 3:21 But1161 he that doeth4160 truth225 cometh2064 to4314 the3588 light,5457 that2443 his846 deeds2041 may be made manifest,5319 that3754 they are2076 wrought2038 in1722 God.2316 Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:20 - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross - Peace between God and man; for man being in a sinful state, and there being no peace to the wicked, it required a reconciliation to be made to restore peace between heaven and earth; but peace could not be made without an atonement for sin, and the consequence shows that the blood of Christ shed on the cross was necessary to make this atonement.To reconcile all things unto himself - The enmity was on the part of the creature; though God is angry with the wicked every day, yet he is never unwilling to be reconciled. But man, whose carnal mind is enmity to God, is naturally averse from this reconciliation; it requires, therefore, the blood of the cross to atone for the sin, and the influence of the Spirit to reconcile the transgressor to him against whom he has offended! See the notes on 2Co_5:19, etc.Things in earth, or things in heaven - Much has been said on this very obscure clause; but, as it is my object not to write dissertations but notes, I shall not introduce the opinions of learned men, which have as much ingenuity as variety to recommend them. If the phrase be not a kind of collective phrase to signify all the world, or all mankind, as Dr. Hammond supposed the things in heaven may refer, according to some, to those persons who died under the Old Testament dispensation, and who could not have a title to glory but through the sacrificial death of Christ: and the apostle may have intended these merely to show that without this sacrifice no human beings could be saved, not only those who were then on the earth, and to whom in their successive generations the Gospel should be preached, but even those who had died before the incarnation; and, as those of them that were faithful were now in a state of blessedness, they could not have arrived there but through the blood of the cross, for the blood of calves and goats could not take away sin. After all, the apo s tle pro
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 1/9/2006 10:34:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) classic/tt hall of fame quote: cd; Why? In language I can understand please Gary? With all due respect-I am almost sure that you converse with other people in your typical day with "clear" audible language-so why not me;-) I once knew a guy who everyone said was tough but after listen to him I learned that he chose his fights as to get advantage-do you also chose you fights Gary? If soI am standing here Gary- with the hope of helping you understand the bible for the sake of your eternal soul.:-) To me these other versions only add confusion..the KJV is enough for me -- cd || ..Iused the NASV and Amp because they were the closest to the computer at the time. They say the same as the KJV because this verse (V.20) speaks of the Father rather thanChrist. cd: To me these other versions only add confusion-which I do need any more of because there seems to be more than enough to go around-So I will quote you as saying" the KJV is enough for me":-) ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
this is veryfunny Bro, esp coming from a KJV-only dude like yourself--but i'll honestlytry to quit laughing about it, just for you On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:14:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me these other versions only add confusion..the KJV is enough for me -- cd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/10/2006 12:23:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) this is veryfunny Bro, esp coming from a KJV-only dude like yourself--but i'll honestlytry to quit laughing about it, just for you cd: well at least thank you for that effort Gary:-) On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:14:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me these other versions only add confusion..the KJV is enough for me -- cd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: Actually you have taken my words out of context and misquoted me Gary-Shame on you- But I am willing to forgive just ask- if not you are forgiven anyway-andI do mean that-may God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-) - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 1/9/2006 10:34:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) classic/tt hall of fame quote: To me these other versions only add confusion..the KJV is enough for me -- cd || ..Iused the NASV and Amp because they were the closest to the computer at the time. They say the same as the KJV because this verse (V.20) speaks of the Father rather thanChrist. cd: To me these other versions only add confusion-which I do need any more of because there seems to be more than enough to go around-So I will quote you as saying" the KJV is enough for me":-) ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
do you believe in teh Father, Son and Sprit (Matthew 28:19) or not. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't use the word "trinity" since I prefer Godhead but have never believed any differently. Where have you been? On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 00:22:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd I agree that it does not explain the diety. While He was without the glory he had with the Father, having set it aside before coming to earth and inhabiting a body of flesh Jesus was not joined at the hip with the Father. Why did he get up early every day and pray to Him? Why did he make the statement in John 14 that "the Father is greater" if they are one and the same? No they are unified in purpose as the Godhead but are not always the same.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I do but obviously not in the exact same way that you do. jt On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: do you believe in teh Father, Son and Sprit (Matthew 28:19) or not. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Idon't use the word "trinity" since I prefer Godhead but have never believed any differently. Where have you been? On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 00:22:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 7:22:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found i
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
myth [examing existential evidence,e.g.,] On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:54:05 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God.. || for ref: 1. James 1:21(King James Version) ..receive with meekness the engrafted word.. || On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:28:48 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || only come to Christ one way..by being drawn by the Father through the Spirit by the Word and it is the "engrafted Word" which is able to save the soul as we choose to walk in it. - 2. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:57:56 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Saul..after being knocked from his donkey ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:12:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt cd: Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Characterof the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in timeI may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the presenthave no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Some analogies are better than others. None arefully adequate.It is probably best to stay away from ones which tend towardmodalism. Just my opinion, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table.Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ --
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. You seem to have some axe to grind and come across as a very angry man. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:24:48 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. From: Judy Taylor I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that itshould be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about himoften enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father."Areasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text.The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure --and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himselffrom the foundations ofthe worldmeets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. Fair enough, then answer a tough question: When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christbefore that time? I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christbefore that time?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
.. that she simultaneouslyre-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., thereis nodonkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelationcan be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making himChrist the Son of God.
