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 in a flesh body - he said he doesn't know. Who is confusing the
issue?
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
with the question as to whether Jesus was an alloy (i.e., a hybrid; thanks
Terry) or a union, and you know that. I will drop this now, but know when I do
who it is that tries to confuse the issues.
Bill
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 works in Romans 7:17
where he says that when he does what he really doesn't want to do that it is
not he who does it but sin that dwells in him and he later says that
overcoming this tendency is in the "power of the cross".
What I am saying is the Romans 7:17 did not
apply to Jesus when he walked this earth in a body of flesh because His
flesh did not have sin dwelling in it. (Note: Paul's sin here was not
volitional) judyt
Okay, and now you are
talking about the NATURE of his humanity. Why are you too proud to admit that? Bill
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
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 nature of
his human body, isn't it, Judy?
Bill
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
human body and a divine nature (meaning pure and holy and in the
image of God the Father same as the first Adam) whereas Bill
and his ppl along with the Church Fathers teach that Jesus was born
exactly like us in every way or else we are not healed because what
is not assumed is not healed - to which there is no rhyme or
reason. The very facts surrounding his birth belie such
an assumption.
Which two natures are you
asking about? Human/Divine -
Impeccability/peccability of
ChristBill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: Judy wrote > It
wasn't unnoticed Lance but not all of us (me
included) believe that Jesus had two
natures.
Would all
those who believe that Jesus did not have two natures -- one
fully human, the other fully divine -- please weigh in? (the
Mormons may exclude themselves if they wish). It would be nice
to know how lonesome it's going to be around here. Bill
It
wasn't unnoticed Lance but not all of us (me
included) believe that Jesus had two
natures. We fallen ones are the double natured and double
minded ones (after we have
received Him and have been born of the Spirit) and before we
grow into the unity of the faith. Why didn't you respond to Bill's post since you seem to be able
to relate to everything he writes? judyt
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:44:43 -0500
"Lance Muir" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes: Gary:When you are
right.........Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two
natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed. And
you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the
three of you to spend that time
together.
|