On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:11:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jt: Do you believe the
first Adam was "something other than human" also?
Hi Judy,
I take it you are speaking of
the first Adam in his pre-fallen state. And so, the answer is, No, I do
not bel
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:55:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Terry wrote > I obviously see
things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp
why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none
of us can fully understand.
Izzy writes:
If Original Sin means that we are
born guilty and deserving of hell then Jesus was born guilty by His human
nature, and could never have been the Sinless Lamb of God who died for our
sins.
jt: I'm not exactly sure what the
term "Original Sin" means Izzy. I find most of wha
I can't speak for the 'and friends' but, as for
Lance; he thinks this is articulate, understandable and God-honouring.
So thanks,
Lance
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 13, 2005 23:33
Subject: [TruthTalk] J
You have a problem that only the GREEK Salesman can solve
2 Tm 3 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:55:26 -0700 "Bill
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:21:36 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That's the wrong question, Kevin. We can discuss
the particulars of those natures if you like, but Judy's claim is that
Jesus did not have TWO natures. Do you agree with her?
Bill
jt: Kevin, I say he had a huma
Bill:It would appear that you have two who disagree
(Judy, Kevin) and, one 'what's the big deal' (Terry). Are you able to 'flesh
out' (pun intended) the practical implications of your position? (focusing more
on the 'so what' aspect)
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
jt: Your point
above validates 2 Timothy 2:14 Bill. DeHaan was well meaning but he was
trying to prove a point using his natural rather than a spiritual understanding
- but this is all striving over Greek words does
anyway.
No, Judy, it is what a dishonest lack of striving to know the
m
Still trying to confuse the issue, Judy? I told
Kevin we could have a discussion on the particulars of his human nature, but
that does not suit you well, does it? Did Jesus leave footprints when he
walked in the sand? It's a little difficult to answer that question without
talking about the
Okay, now that you've begun the discussion part,
are you willing to answer the question part? Did Jesus have two natures, one
divine, the other human?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:0
I may, Lance, but not today. I need some reprieve,
for a while; besides, I have been fleshing out the 'so what' aspect of this. Did
you read my post to John regarding sanctification?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
No problem with His human body Bill, it was then just
like ours is now but without the taint of sin - like Romans 7 would not have
applied to him as it does to us. Today he has a transformed body that can
walk through walls. judyt
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:19:52 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL P
Okay, and now you are talking about the NATURE of
his humanity. Why are you too proud to admit that?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:45
AM
Subj
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005
7:46 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Nature of Jesus (God's image)
No problem with His human body Bill,
In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:35:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivities that produce evil within humanity
Thanks for the explanation. Excellent. Question: with the above in mind, what of those "evils" that tend to
Bill
Terry is a humble man. H. Honest, yes, but
humble? I don't know. Is he humble, even when he is calling people, some of
whom from the context of John's post were not acting out in sin, perverts, the
whole filthy bunch of them? I'll let you be the judge of that.
Izzy writes:
One must sin by volition, not by condition.
Preachers love words that rhyme and make sense when ties together. For that reason, the above is perhaps profoundly stated.
JD
Bill Taylor wrote:
Bill
Terry is a humble man. H. Honest, yes, but humble? I don't know. Is he humble, even when he is calling people, some of whom from the context of John's post were not acting out in sin, perverts, the whole filthy bunch of them? I'll let you be the judge of that.
===
A post well worth the reading.
JD
In a message dated 2/14/2005 12:09:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm putting my thoughts about all this squabbling about Jesus' nature under a new heading, as it had nothing to do with mormons. For what it's worth, (nothing to Lan
Bill when you use the term "the nature of humanity" you
are using a theological term and I have no idea whether or not you are saying
the same thing as I am. This is what I have been talking about all
along. You claim Jesus had a fallen Adamic nature just like us. Paul
describes how this
In a message dated 2/14/2005 1:00:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: You completely negate the ministry of the Holy Spirit in all of this Bill. Jesus gave no qualifications having to do with language when he said the Comforter would reveal truth to His disciples and it is
In a message dated 2/14/2005 3:01:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't speak for the 'and friends' but, as for Lance; he thinks this is articulate,
God's Spirit cannot work through hermeneutics and contextual studies of the original text?
OH I have been looking for the Originals, you found them?
Unless a bunch of word wranglers Collate a bunch of ms we can not get to the real meanings & nuance?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/
Just wanted to add another point: Jesus
called himself the Son of Man. He was the second Adam. He came to
restore mankind to the state that Adam was in prior to the Fall. Adam was
not created with an “original sin” sin nature. But he was
created with Free Will. Adam could choose
whethe
Gary wrote:
> didn't Servetus hold his contrarian views
> without an anti-Calvinist bias?
No. Servetus considered Calvin to be the Simon Magus of Geneva, and he
thought Calvin should be put to death. That is as anti-Calvin as one can
be.
Gary wrote:
> why was he, or, perhaps, on the basis of
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:57:12 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Jesus had to come as a descendant of
Adam, with our same human tendency to sin, and overcome it by not sinning
to restore us to Adam’s state. If we are truly in Christ we now, like the
original pre-fallen A
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:54:23 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/14/2005 1:00:46 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: You
completely negate the ministry of the Holy Spirit in all of this Bill.
Jesus gave no qualifications having to do with lan
Hi Izzy, just a few
thoughts to consider
Why would Jesus have
to come with the human tendency to sin?
I’m just using that term to say that
I believe he had the same human nature that we have—was fully human;
could have sinned if he wanted to.
The first Adam
had no
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:27:45 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John wrote > If "sanctify" is more
than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances?
Bill: Hi John, The
distinction I am drawing is not at all adverse to the idea that sanctify means
to
Bill Taylor wrote:
> Why do you think Jesus did not say,
> "And for their sakes I give them the
> example of myself, that they also may
> be sanctified by truth"?
That would be a long way of saying it. Much better to say, "... I sanctify
myself, that they also might be sanctified through the tru
Kevin wrote:
> First of all heresy and false doctrine
> are sin also
> Titus [sic] 1:10 For whoremongers, for them
> that defile themselves with mankind, for
> menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons,
> and if there be any other thing that is contrary
> to sound doctrine
Sound doctrine is tha
John wrote:
> I have some experience with gay types
> as well -- almost none of them were
> criminals
Gay types? If you mean that they were homosexuals, then they were criminals
according to the law of God. Homosexuality is a crime according to God's
law. In fact, homosexuality is a crime t
Kevin Deegan wrote:
God's Spirit cannot work through hermeneutics and contextual studies of the
original text?
OH I have been looking for the Originals, you found them?
Unless a bunch of word wranglers Collate a bunch of ms we can not get to the real
meanings & nuance?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
False ideas precede false actions
heresy is sin and as such sends people to hell
Gal 5 says HERESIES along with witchcraft, idolatry, fornication Adultery are WORKS of the flesh
2 Pt 2:21 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who pr
Luke 20 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts
Since the greekophiles use THE original text, we know there is only ONE original text, right?
How many Greek texts are there
Judy wrote:
> Why would Jesus have to come with the
> human tendency to sin?
Because those he came to save have a tendency to sin. Jesus had to enter in
through the door of the flesh. We know how we can walk because he gave us
his perfect example. If he was some alien instead, then how he liv
You'll get a big grin out of this next line. We know stuff inherently,
by the power of the Spirit, that you will never figure out by reading
everything ever written in or about Greek. I wish you could understand
that. I truly do.
Terry
--
J Well, it gave me a b
Kevin, this is a subject where the Greek CAN help you out. The
English word for heresy has changed over time. The Greek word used in
these passages, "hairesis," refers to factions, sects, cults. Galatians 5
does not list "false opinion" (=heresy) as a work of the flesh, but rather
it is t
I think it is a refusal on our part to let the
truth of who we are in Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in
fact, it can be nothing other than this, because there is no part of
our nature which has not been taken up and redeemed in Christ.
Bill
- Original Message ---
neither one's perfect, then;
readers can raise their learning curve from both
gentlemen, eh?
Gentleman
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:20:40 -0500
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>[Servetus] thought Calvin
should be put to death.
Bill, there is no
question that we can apply the word perverts to homos. They practice sexual
perversion. It takes a humble man to agree with God, even when that
doesnt sound politically correct or nice.
Iz
Where is this "humble man" who agrees with God? In
John's address he said th
thoughtful posts; people's
natures interest me
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:55:02 -0500
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I can't speak for the 'and friends'
but, as for Lance; he thinks this is articulate..
||
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
Whatever, Judy. None of what you say below
addresses the point at hand: it was you who claimed Jesus did not have two
natures: "not all of us
(me included) believe that Jesus had two
natures." Why do you now engage yourself in a cover up? The
post you criticized with that statement dealt wi
I address this more fully in a post to John. You can consider it if you
like.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > Why do you think Jesus did not say
John wrote:
>> ... what of those "evils" that tend to define us
>> (apart from the influence of Christ but remain
>> even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness,
>> selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness
>> and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> I
Great post, David.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
> Judy wrote:
> > Why would Jesus have to come with the
> > human tendency to sin?
>
> Because those he came to save have a
Bill wrote:
> ... he said that he was also speaking of
> people who have those tendencies but
> are not acting on them.
Bill, that is a cop-out of the perverts. Their agenda is to claim that
their civil rights are being violated by not allowing them free reign and
protection for their lustful p
Izzy, I loved your original post about Jesus' nature, but this point in your
second post needs reconsideration please. :-)
Izzy wrote:
> Who was the first person to sin?
> It would appear that Eve was.
> However she did not sin because
> she was deceived (much like a child
> prior to the age of
Judy wrote:
> Jesus when he walked this earth in a body
> of flesh because His flesh did not have sin
> dwelling in it.
Yes it did.
Romans 8:3-4
(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condem
Judy wrote:
> ... why a virgin birth?
> What was the point?
Carry out your thinking a little further. If being born of a virgin had to
do with keeping him separate from a sinful flesh, then why not just create
him from the dust of the ground like the first Adam? I say that he was born
of huma
jt: I have nothing at all to "cover up" Bill. If
I am wrong and you show me where in scripture that is in balance and context I
will thank you for it. Terry has a unique way of expressing himself but if
I understand him correctly he is not saying that Jesus had a fallen Adamic sin
nature
David wrote > Bill, that is a
cop-out of the perverts. Their agenda is to claim that their civil
rights are being violated by not allowing them free reign and protection
for their lustful perversions.
BT: How do you know that this is what John had
in mind when he made his statement?
SODOMITE is a BIBLE word. God calls them an ABOMINATION hardly a "NICE" thing to say
A non practicing Sodomite is still a Sodomite. When you steal that makes you a thief, if you stop has your nature changed?
The only thing that can make one righteous is the blood of Christ not going cold turkey
I
You guys are NICER than Jesus
Jesus gave us the example of just looking upon a woman is to commit adultery
To hate a brother is to commit murder
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Seems Jesus & you have two
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Izzy, I loved
your original post about Jesus' nature, but this point in your second post needs
reconsideration please. :-)
Izzy wrote:Who was the first person to
sin? It would appear that Eve was. However she did not sin
because she was deceived (
"likeness" of sinful flesh EQUALS sin dwelling in it?
Nice Isogesis
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Judy wrote:> Jesus when he walked this earth in a body> of flesh because His flesh did not have sin> dwelling in it.Yes it did.Romans 8:3-4(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was we
Bill Taylor wrote:
I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in Christ
evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing other
than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken up
and redeemed in Christ.
Bill
Let the spirit of revelation enrich you greatly.
Just what is this "spirit of revelation" and where did it come from? Is it some sort of glory spout where the blessings come out?
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL P
Bill Taylor wrote:
Bill, there is no question that we can apply the word perverts to homos. They practice
sexual perversion. It takes a humble man to agree with God, even when that doesn't sound
politically correct or "nice". Iz
Where is this "humble man" who agrees with God? In John's address
David Miller wrote:
Izzy, I loved your original post about Jesus' nature, but this point in your
second post needs reconsideration please. :-)
Izzy wrote:
Who was the first person to sin?
It would appear that Eve was.
However she did not sin because
she was deceived (much like a child
prior t
I believe that Terry was speaking of those
who do evil; not those who overcome evil temptations. Give him a break, please.
Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005
5:41 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sub
Bill Taylor wrote:
David wrote > Bill, that is a cop-out of the perverts. Their agenda is to
claim that their civil rights are being violated by not allowing them free reign
and protection for their lustful perversions.
BT: How do you know that this is what John had in mind when he made his st
John wrote:
>> ... what of those "evils" that tend to define us
>> (apart from the influence of Christ but remain
>> even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness,
>> selfishness, impatience, anger, lust, covetousness
>> and the like and John's statment in I Jo 1:8.
Those e
On what Authority do you CHANGE the Words of God?
Answer
1 Tim 6:1 that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
You still have not told us how one might Blaspheme Doctrine
Answer
Heresy means heresy except if if goes against your dee
David, then why does scripture say that sin
entered the human race thru Adam (not Eve) since she ate the apple first, and
she was deceived Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:40
Terry wrote
> If I recall correctly, Bill, John said that these particular
"Gay" people were unsaved. I believe he was patiently waiting for
them to come around. That, I believe, would indicate that their minds
were still desperately wicked, would it
not?
Terry, here is the sequence leadi
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy
wrote:Why would Jesus have to come with the human tendency to
sin?
DavidM: Because those he came to save have a tendency to sin. Jesus
had to enter in through the door of the flesh.
jt: Yes but he did not have to enter through a door of
"s
Bill Taylor wrote:
I think it is a refusal on our part to let the truth of who we are in
Christ evaluate and minister to those infirmities; in fact, it can be nothing
other than this, because there is no part of our nature which has not been taken
up and redeemed in Christ.Bill
jt: Bill our
Bill Taylor wrote:
Bill, there is no question that we can apply the word
perverts to homos. They practice sexual perversion. It takes a humble man
to agree with God, even when that doesn't sound politically correct or
"nice". IzWhere is this "humble man" who agrees with God?
In John's
I assume that you are making a point, but cannot fathom what that might be.
Terry
Bill Taylor wrote:
Terry wrote > If I recall correctly, Bill, John said that these particular
"Gay" people were unsaved. I believe he was patiently waiting for them to come
around. That, I believe, would indicate
jt: People who have been made free in Christ no longer
have "those tendencies" Jesus not only paid the price for our sin, he also
gives us freedom from the power of it in our lives when we come to Him with our
whole heart.
Judy, do you live your life completely free of
temptation? If not
Nothing here about "patiently waiting for them to come around."
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
> I assume that you are making a point, but cannot fathom what
In a message dated 2/14/2005 7:19:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God's Spirit cannot work through hermeneutics and contextual studies of the original text?
OH I have been looking for the Originals, you found them?
Unless a bunch of word wranglers Collate a bunch of m
In a message dated 2/14/2005 10:05:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JD: You know, I am completely confused, here. Did not Judy - just a couple of days ago -- give us a lesson in Greek? Quoting and writing about Greek meaning and implications?
jt: Not me JD, you ar
In a message dated 2/14/2005 6:04:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is that God is not in favor of having the "Thought police" who would discipline those who have wrong thinking. He is in favor of having BEHAVIOR POLICE who discipline those who have wrong behavior.
In a message dated 2/14/2005 6:00:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
>>... what of those "evils" that tend to define us
>>(apart from the influence of Christ but remain
>>even after His indwelling (?)) such as laziness,
>>selfishness, impatience, anger, lus
In a message dated 2/14/2005 5:21:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Bill wrote:
>>... he said that he was also speaking of
>>people who have those tendencies but
>>are not acting on them.
>
>
>
>Nevertheless, I also will point out that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns the effeminate
>rig
In a message dated 2/14/2005 5:27:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SODOMITE is a BIBLE word. God calls them an ABOMINATION hardly a "NICE" thing to say
A non practicing Sodomite is still a Sodomite. When you steal that makes you a thief, if you stop has your nature changed?
In a message dated 2/14/2005 5:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nice Isogesis
You glory in your "ignorance," and then use "isogesis." Just showin off ??
JD
79 matches
Mail list logo
