|
************************IMPORTANT*************************
Here's another fine mess you gotten me into,
Ollie!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 16, 2006 18:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kiss off illumination
Judy / DM - are you two just having a simple
discussion about matters that are not really that
important? Is that why you can disagree so thoroughly with each
other -- neither of you are speaking from a position of
illumination? And how can us common folk tell the difference?
Go ahead and tell me this is not a critical issue.
I think the discussion among the three of you, Bill, David and Judy
has been a very good discussion - even excellent at
times . But it has surely shot to hell this notion of
illumination, hasn't it !!??
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which part of the Jesus I believe in is
not according to scripture Bill?
What makes Him impotent in your opinion?
David,
I am not saying that the Jesus I believe in -- that is,
the Jesus of Scripture -- cannot save her,
or that she is not saved by that same Jesus. I am saying that the Jesus she describes cannot save her,
as he is impotent to save her or
anyone else, and if it were true what she says about the hybrid she
believes in,
we are all doomed.
And so my apologies for not being more specific. I can see
where you misunderstood me.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY
OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
> Judy wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything earthy about him.
> >> Temptation
or no temptation.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > ... then you are
still in your sins and you
> > do not have a Savior.
>
> I would have to disagree with you here, Bill. Such would make
salvation
> dependent upon her intellectual understanding.
>
> It seems to me that Judy knows her Savior. She just does not
understand the
> aspects of humanity about him that we are now
discussing. Nevertheless, she
> has placed faith in him,
despite this, and she knows him well enough through
> the Spirit to
have experienced the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Taylor
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
Mond ay, January 16, 2006 4:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
> I don't see anything earthy about him. Temptation or no
temptation.
>
> Well, Judy, then you are still in your sins and
you do not have a Savior.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2006 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
> The first Adam after the fall did indeed need saving from the wrath
of God
> Bill
> and so do we. Our "humanity" is under a
curse along with the rest of
> creation Bill
> Which i s
spelled out in scripture. Jesus went to the cross in order to
>
institute a
> "New Creation" and this is why he is called the Second
Adam. The first Adam
> is earthy or of the earthy (as we
are). The Second Adam is the Lord from
> heaven.
>
> Your gospel is inverted Bill. It is not Jesus who takes on
our likeness
> although he
> passed in all the areas where the
first Adam failed; and was without sin
> where we
> are for the
most part loaded down with it. Read 1 Cor 15:42-52. Sounds to
> me
> like the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. I
don't see anything earthy
> about
> him. Temptation or no
temptation.
>
>
>
> From: Taylor
>
>
Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be like US in every way? Why couldn't he
have
> been like the
> first Adam before the fall, ...
>
> Because the first Adam before the fall did not need to be saved
Judy. We do.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2006 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT
> DIVINE
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:01 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.
>
>
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen
> 1.26).
>
> Yes they did created the first Adam in
their nature and character
> spiritually - which "likeness"
>
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the
> wrong fruit.
>
> Thereafter all men (including us) are
born into this world by procreation in
> the likeness of
> the
first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
>
> The
only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is
> to become
> conformed to the image of the second Adam which
is the sole purpose for His
> coming
> and His willingness to
lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our
>
place.
>
> Laying aside the fact that you are making much too
much of Seth having been
> born in the image
> of Adam (see Gen
9.6 and answer for me what would be wrong, then, with
> killing
someone who
> was no longer created in God's image, but in
Adam's),
>
> At the beginnign they were created in God's image
and now Noah who found
> grace is starting
> over even though
it didn't take too many generations for the whole of
> humanity (all
but 8 ppl)
> to be destroyed. I don't believe God is interested
in fellowshipping with a
> bunch of devils.
>
> Judy, I
fail to understand why that should even prevent Christ from being
>
united in his person,
> his humanness with his divinity.
>
> I understand. It is mixture; joining the holy with the
profane which is
> something God hates.
>
> The only
thing which could have severed that union was the one thing which
>
he did not do:
> sin. Hence in his person, he was able to undo that
which had indeed produced
> schizophrenia
> in the relationship
between humanity and God.
>
> Tell me why he (Jesus) HAD to be
like US in every way? Why couldn't he have
> been like
the
> first Adam before the fall, the one who was created? Jesus
was not exactly
> procreated like
> us since he had no human
father so that must mess up your thesis at least a
> little.
>
> And were he not like us in every way, he could not have produced
this
> reconciliation; for what
> he would have done in a flesh
unlike our own would have had no bearing upon
> human flesh,
>
and we would therefore still be in sin. Bill
>
> Not so;
all he had to do was meet God's conditions which apparently involved
> passing the
> test that A&E failed and he did that in the
wilderness... right after his
> baptism.
> From: Judy
Taylor
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:57:12 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so
there is no way that this would be the same concept Bill.
>
>
Why is that, Judy? Did "they" not create us in "their" likeness? (cf. Gen
> 1.26).
>
> Yes they did created the first Adam in
their nature and character
> spiritually - which "likeness"
>
Adam forfeited when he chose to go with Eve into disobedience by eating the
> wrong fruit.
>
> Thereafter all men (including us) are
born into this world by procreation in
> the likeness of
> the
first Adam rather than the likeness of God (Gen 5:3)
>
> The
only possible way to regain the image of God lost by the first Adam is
> to become
> conformed to the image of the second Adam which
is the sole purpose for His
> coming
> and His willingness to
lay down His human life as a perfect sacrifice in our
>
place.
> .
>
> From: Judy Taylor
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2006 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK -
I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what schism?
>
> Oh, I
thought you were married. The bible says that you and your husband (if
> you had one) were to become "one" flesh, in other words the two of
you in
> coming together would be united -- and not just physically,
I might add; it
> is the marriage "union" after all. The same is true
with God. The bible
> teaches that the Lord is "one" and it uses the
same word when saying this;
> hence there is a oneness or unity
within the nature of God, a coming
> together of a plurality in
union.
>
> God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24) so there is no way that
this would be the same
> concept Bill. Sure the Godhead are One
and united
> in Spirit.
>
> And so, since you suggested
that if Christ be fully God and fully human
> there must be a schism,
I was just wondering about the schism you have with
> your man. Why
instead of schism aren't you united?
>
> In marriage between
humans it is "one flesh" Bill
>
> There would only be a schism
between the two natures of Christ if there were
> disunity between
the two.
> The person of Christ had no disunity; hence no
schism. Bill
>
> There would have been disunity "big
time" if he had a human nature - just
> like us and was in fact
wholly God ATST; schizophrenic
> would be the right term. Also
"Flesh and blood DO NOT inherit God's
> Kingdom" Bill so what would
be the purpose??
>
>
> From: Judy Taylor
>
>
> OK - I'm asking Bill, what husband, and what
schism?
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:28:15 -0700 "Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And
while you're at it, will you explain your schism with your husband,
too?
>
> (If this needs clarification, just ask)
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean
Moore
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love
and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: Judy Taylor
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent:
1/14/2006 1:07:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> NOTDIVINE
>
>
>
Dean,
> I think this is where "theology" gets itself tied in knots .
This is what JD
> has been accusing me of for so long.
> How
ironic that his mentor Bill would write something like this. I think
> Lance just repeated it to qualify something.
> So their Jesus
must have a schism in his personality (or nature). What
> about
his saying to Philip "If you have
> seen me you have seen the
Father" We know he wasn't speaking of his
> physical body here;
so does God
> The Father also have a schismatic personality.
>
> cd: Judy can you define your usage of 'schismatic'.
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
writes:
> Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love
in the way that
> Christ's humanity is included in that relationship.
But as the humanity of
> Christ is not divine, neither am I
divine.
>
> cd: Lance at this point- How do you define
"Divine"?
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
--
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
> ----------
> "Let
your spe ech 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.
>
>
|
