Izzy wrote:
David, do you mean my husband should
take the blame for my sins???
He should share some of the blame. The Scriptures teach men to have their
families under control, including the wife.
Izzy wrote:
Do your wife's sins accrue to your
personal account as well?
I'm not aware of
Izzy wrote:
David, do you mean my husband should
take the blame for my sins???
He should share some of the blame. The Scriptures teach men to have
their
families under control, including the wife.
I should think that God would grade on the
curve on this issue, as some men
historical present tense
John writes about the historical present tense:
this is not a grammatical distinction --
only a philosophical one, and, hence, open
for disageement.
It is more than a philosophical distinction, but perhaps you mean to point
out that there is no specific syntax or
In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:28:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
historical present tense
John writes about the "historical present tense":
this is not a grammatical distinction --
only a philosophical one, and, hence, open
for disageement.
It is more than a philosophical
: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus'
Nature
In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:28:21 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
historical present tense
John writes about the historical present tense:
this is not a grammatical distinction --
only a philosophical one, and, hence, open
for disageement
John wrote:
Any interpretation is open to disagreement, is it not?
No. This goes back to our discussion about what it means to be in unity and
speak the same thing. Much of the Bible is open to interpretation, but we
should always be working toward agreement instead of disagreement. No
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:12 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:28:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
historical present tense
In a message dated 2/16/2005 3:33:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
Any interpretation is open to disagreement, is it not?
No. This goes back to our discussion about what it means to be in unity and
speak the same thing. Much of the Bible is open to
Izzy wrote:
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
Eve was made for Adam and from Adam; therefore, Adam was in authority over
her. Her sin is attributed to Adam the same way that we say
Izzy wrote:
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
Eve was made for Adam and from Adam; therefore, Adam was in authority
over
her. Her sin is attributed to Adam the same way
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 what
] Jesus' Nature
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 Lance and friends Im sure) here are my two
cents:
1) I believe in "Original Sin" only as
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
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
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, understandable and God-honouring.
So thanks,
Lance
Think of it !!! The Righteous Triad, poor old John Smithson and
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
whether or
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 Adams state. If we are truly in Christ we now, like the
original pre-fallen Adam,
Hi Izzy, just a few
thoughts to consider
Why would Jesus have
to come with the human tendency to sin?
Im just using that term to say that
I believe he had the same human nature that we havewas fully human;
could have sinned if he wanted to.
The first Adam
had no human
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
eldsFamily
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 13,
2005 23:33
Subject:
[TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
..my thoughts about..Jesus' nature
||
Great post, David.
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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
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:
... 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
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
becauseshe was deceived (much
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
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
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy
wrote:Why would Jesus have to come with thehuman 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
"sinful
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 Lance and friends Im sure) here are my two cents:
1) I believe in Original Sin
only as it means that we are born with the
:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:33
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
