from:"Knpraise"

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


Your use of "Barf" is both a contradiction to your shallow claim thatyou do not judge Barth and a clear statement to the fact that you know nothing of what this man believes and the concerns he dealt with in his battle against liberal theologies (among otherconsiderations.) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:46:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)





I am not in any position to judge Barf's personal life and neither are you Lance. Calvins' was a bit more public.
And didn't you write the following "I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . "
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, isn't the above a truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricature reprehensible?


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:35:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This man served our Lord faithfully throughout his life as did John Calvin. To take note of these truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricatures is reprehensible. What 'spirit' inhabits such an one as this? Take care Judy"

From: Judy Taylor 

Footnotes?? Only if the original thought makes any sense. Barf definitely would not qualify.


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 06:06:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One would not have thought you so easily impressed, Judy. Ya wants footnotes? May I suggest Karl Barth? I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . 
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


Total chunky style barnyard.By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on.And "ad hom" has no such limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary.) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)





Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your descriptive subject line
It is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after perusing some of the subject's
theological ideas I found it appropriate.

Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my comment reflects my
response to his theology which has been made very public..

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


Frankly, the most ridiculous criticism of Barth I have ever seen. 

An absolutely laughable commentary.

Barth's regard for the scripture's far exceeds anything I have read in your post. He appeals to no other source of information. You criticize him for denying the infallibility of scripture (something that is an outright lie) while, at the same time, having no clue (talking about you, Judy) as to a definition for "inspiration." Heck, you can't even tell the difference between inspiration and revelation !!! 

Don't waste our time with some internet BSquotation that seems to show that Barth is in line with your claim about inerrancy. The fact of the matter is this : I challenge you to find a statement of Barth in his Dogmatics that challenges the wording of scripture and places his opinion above holy writ. 


-Original Message- From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:10:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)



I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact thatHitler and his occult socialist system gainedthat much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.


On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:05:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Your use of "Barf" is both a contradiction to your shallow claim thatyou do not judge Barth and a clear statement to the fact that you know nothing of what this man believes and the concerns he dealt with in his battle against liberal theologies (among otherconsiderations.) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:46:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once aga
in employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)





I am not in any position to judge Barf's personal life and neither are you Lance. Calvins' was a bit more public.
And didn't you write the following "I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . "
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, isn't the above a truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricature reprehensible?


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:35:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This man served our Lord faithfully throughout his life as did John Calvin. To take note of these truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricatures is reprehensible. What 'spirit' inhabits such an one as this? Take care Judy"

From: Judy Taylor 

Footnotes?? Only if the original thought makes any sense. Barf definitely would not qualify.


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 06:06:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One would not have thought you so easily impressed, Judy. Ya wants footnotes? May I suggest Karl Barth? I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . 
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] What is an argumentum ad hominem - for Lance JD Smithson

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

are you calling Webster "carnal?" Incredible. And what carnal quotation is yours?? I don't need to readyour submittal. Mine is quite adequate. This is what Webster's says and thatsettles it. The only reason why - the ONLY reason why you continue to debate this, why you want to elevate one stated definition over another --- is that the former definition finds you at fault.

And you wonder why some think you are in the wrong league when you write stuff like this:
Carnal reasoning is neverpure JD - see definition of Ad hom attack below.

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:35:53 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] What is an argumentum ad hominem - for Lance JD Smithson

JD writes: By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on.And "ad hom" has no such limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary.)
Carnal reasoning is neverpure JD - see definition of Ad hom attack below.
Attacking the Person(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, theperson's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands togain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between theperson making the assertion and the person's circumstances.(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:45:39 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)





On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:35:48 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Frankly, the most ridiculous criticism of Barth I have ever seen.
An absolutely laughable commentary.

It's a short note and hardly a commentary but have a good laugh on me ...

Barth's regard for the scripture's far exceeds anything I have read in your post. 
He appeals to no other source of information.

When you don't believe your source to be accurate it opens the door to adding or subtracting at will. Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about making up stuff. Quite a difference. 

You criticize him for denying the infallibility of scripture (something that is an outright lie) while, at the same time, having no clue (talking about you, Judy) as to a definition for "inspiration." Heck, you can't even tell the difference between inspiration and revelation !!! 

The Holy Spirit is both inspiration and the source of divine revelation JD.Who has no clue? There's that old accuser again. In this case, the old accuser is you. Your comment verifies my point and makes no statement concerning Barth. 
 
Don't waste our time with some internet BSquotation that seems to show that Barth is in line with your claim about inerrancy.

Correction: Barth is NOT in line with my claim that the scriptures are inerrant. Prove it. 

The fact of the matter is this : I challenge you to find a statement of Barth in his Dogmatics that challenges the wording of scripture and places his opinion above holy writ. 

You really think I would spend time wadingthrough his "dogmatics" to find something like that for you to shoot down JD? So you admit that you have NOTHING against Barth except your own judgmentalism. Thanks. 'Nough said. 


From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com 



I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact thatHitler and his occult socialist system gainedthat much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the only definitionWebster entertains in the referenced work. One simply cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid" without casting doubt on the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name and Judy speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the
kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions .

"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word.

What do you think?

jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's argument, and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argumentand "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to discredit a third party to which the opponent has referred as an authority. However, it is not intended to demean t
he opponent him/herself. Terry did the same by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider these critical ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or demean other TT members, although they are still a poor technique in argumentation.Side bar...in my recent survey of the ad-hominem reference I was surprised to find that it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an effective argument...and that was exclusively in political debate.PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22
-0500Total chunky style barnyard. By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on. And "ad hom" has no such limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary.)-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth
)Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your descriptive subject lineIt is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after perusing some of the subject'stheological ideas I found it appropriate.Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my comment reflects myresponse to his theology which has been made very public..--"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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed<
/SPAN>. 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] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst .... JD and Lance are infected

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

The ICBI is defunct, as far as I know. Your network copy skills have manifested themselves with abundance in the following. Hats off to Judy and the party line !

The fact of the matter is that no one offers any real evidence . You knownothing of Barth's personal battle against some whose commentary he considered tobe extremely harmful -- folks with whom you would oppose as well. You have placed your faith in the radical comments of know-it-alls who function with no heart for fairness and honesty (as they lumb Barth with Kant).

I can't argue with you about "inerrancy" since you consistently refuse to give a working definition for "inspiration," a fault I find with most radical right wingers.The articles included in your post mean nothing to me because, forstarters, they areanonymous. Secondly, they are not written by you . In the third place, they are anti-intellectual in that they do not even pretend to voice an opinion of the issues.

Not even a good try.

jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:40:34 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst JD and Lance are infected

JD writes: Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about making up stuff. Quite a difference.
No JD, it isn't only me, even though you would like it to be. Barth is one of those liberal German theologians who began the decline of belief in the authority of God's Word in this country. Lord help us! Please removethese blinders.
As Francis Schaeffer stated so eloquently, courage for confrontation over matters of truth and righteousness in the hearts of Christian leaders in North America was replaced by a kind of "knee-jerk" response committed to accommodation and "peace at any price" which sadly still reigns supreme within most evangelical circles today. This is one major reason things have disintegrated so far and so fast. At the same time, the relativistic view of truth and a dichotomy world view (that segregates the spiritual world from the material world into two separate air-tight compartments) that came from philosophers such as Hume, Kant, and Hegel had all but completely captured the university intellectuals of the entire world.
Neo-Orthodoxy infects the Evangelical Ranks - This was the kind of academic atmosphere that prevailed during the 20 years from 1947 to 1967 when many evangelical seminaries and colleges sent their bright young scholars to European universities to get their doctorates. A large percentage of these young scholars were infected with liberal and neo-orthodox views of the Bible; and then they returned to their evangelical schools to teach a neo-orthodox view of the Bible (what they sincerely believed were the "latest, most scholarly" views) to their students. These partially "corrupted" young professors did not openly challenge their denomination's or institution's historic view of inspiration of the Bible. It was more subtle than that and less obvious than the open battle over the Bible of the 1920s and 1930s. M
ost of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then fashionable "reformed" liberalism of Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Neo-orthodoxy claims that the human words of the Bible are not the very words of God, but rather are a fallible human "witness" to the words of God and are therefore in a sense, the "Word" of God to man. In some cases they claim that the words of the Bible "become" the Word of God to man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him. Others have spoken of the Bible "containing" the Word of God.
Neo-Orthodoxy Undermines the Reliability of Scripture Since most neo-orthodox theologians attempt to honor God's word in some sense, their presentation to their students of their existential and relativistic re-interpretation of the Bible does not appear to be, nor is it intended to be, an attack upon the Bible. But, since most neo-orthodox men accept most of the higher critical theories of theological liberalism and since they usually believe (with Kant and Barth) that human language is incapable of communicating absolute, unchanging, and inerrant truth from God to man, therefore they are essentially liberals in their view of scripture.
In addition, most neo-orthodox "evangelicals" believe they cannot count on the Bible being absolutely true in matters of time and space, science and history, or ethics and anthropology (that is, areas that are open to scientific verification or falsification), but they do comfort themselves by saying they believe the Bible may be capable of communicating undistorted truth in "spiritual" matters such as eternity and heaven, faith and salvation, or

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

see my comments below. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:06:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.
Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy.

She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions .

The above is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets credit for coming up with the words "verbal / plenary" -- but I am confident that these were not created to fight Barth. More than this, you can give me no example of Barth's harmful effects. Show me from his words put up or, well, shut up!!!

I'm not Perry but I would think as a grown adult who claims to be a believingpastor that you should know better JDwould someone explain to this lovely woman just what I was doing with the above. I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?

jdFrom: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


Funny, I often get the imprression that he is. 

jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:55:25 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i


It would seem that way.From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves iDate: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:50:28 -0500I get the impression Perry that Lance thinks himself as way above us onan intellectuallevel and that most of the time he just plays with us here on TT. jtOn Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:44:52 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke"[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my   questions to you remain unanswered.   PerryFrom: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people  speak of  themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY  Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).-- &
gt; "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.   judytHe that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer ev
ery man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Your heretical ignorance of thefacts of scripturecoupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scriptureis herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ.

So what's your problem?

jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:44:20 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas AE surrendered to during his
time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe thatGod the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you?Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man couldovercome sin and pay our ransom - andit is written:

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22)

So what is the problem JD???

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became theSon of God is to preach the doctrine ofAdoption.You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me.Jd

How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called manythings in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"

I don't believe this(man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh.jd

This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed
mankind as God then Jesuswould never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience
by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven.

judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Did you disagree with my assessment of the young man? Whateffort did you makeat saving the kid from a life of filthy conversation, websites that preached thw Word of Judaism while advertising for homosexual affliliations. Be sure to forget to mention that I did all that I could to meet with this young man, face to face (he lives near Fresno) while, you on the other hand, have decided to pull the comment out of context and misapply the larger effort. You have done nothing to save this boy and now, you intentionally besmurch by comments and efforts for what purpose? TO WIN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT BARTH.

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?

Here is an example of JD the "man" Pastoring in another list: "You are a Judaizing punk and an embarrassment to your parents. You have proven that in spades. I no longer believe that you would benefit from man to boy confrontation." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

jdFrom: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com

John, there

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

The first reference, highlighted below , is not where you say it is. It does not appear on page 123 of either 1.1. or 1.2.

The Romans reference is not an attack on biblical scripture.

Find thecorrect reference the Dogmatics and I will be glad to put it into the actual context.

Let me ask you Barthian scholars a question or two: Would you place Barth in the same mold as Schleiermacher. Do you consider him (Barth) to be the father of natural theology? Do you confirm that Barth was in agreement with Kant , especially as Kant is used in Ritschl ? What is Barth's stated - I said 'stated" -- beliefon the place and function of written scripture and the Living Christ? Do either of you have a clue, or are we just all talk? Quick -- see if the internet can be of some help !!!

I mean, if you aregoingto own up to the bar -- fine and good. Let's talk shop. Kevin or Judy? Still there?
Hello!!!???

That Barth believed in the resurrection is beyond doubt. That he believed that such a recorded historical event is beyond challenge is, also, quite clear, he didn't.For Barth, we accept the resurrection account by faith.More specifically, Barth, the person, believed in a literal resurrection of the death (and we are talking about the Christ.)

Ditto for the written "word of God." We have taken the word "inspired" as applied to the protestant Bible and have created a teaching based on our view of logical necessity.We find no definition of scripture on TT or anywhere else, for that matter, that has any attachment to scripture. Scripture affirms itself to be "inspired" but gives not further discussion of the matter -- beyond the affirmation. Why? That should be an important question.

Look at what we have done with our logical necessities. I mean, if God speaks or writes without error, then wecan cram the resurrection, the miracles, the ascension , the notion of eternal Sonship and "God in the flesh" -- we can force all this down the collective throats of the unbeliever !! And in so doing, we assert that faith is not required !!Heck, verbal / plenary inspiration is a fact that we can prove with the same assurance and methodolgy as we can prove or demonstrate 2 = 2 = 4. Nonsense !!! To make this argument is to deny faith as faith AND todeny
sp;faith as it functions for the foundations of science and even mathematics !!! Before a fact becomes "scientific fact," what must transpire? Research !! Experiment after experiment. And what is the motivating factor in such a course? FAITH. The scientist believes in his quest and continues for no other reason than that.

What drives the mathematician as he works on the TOE? FAith -- perhaps blind faith !!

A postulate is what if it not a statement of faith ?? !!!

It is as if we fear "faith" as the foundation of "inspiration" and, so, we make up stuff and punish those who disagree. Or, we just lie about the opposition.

We have nothing to fear of "faith alone" when it is applied to biblical "inerrancy" FAith is the single most important consideration in "what we intend to do next." Think about !!!

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:49:36 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

Hero of the FAITHless?
"The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be his Word" (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123)"THE WORD WHICH ENTERS HUMAN EARS AND IS UTTERED BY HUMAN LIPS, IS THE WORD OF GOD--ONLY WHEN THE MIRACLE TAKES PLACE. OTHERWISE, IT IS JUST A HUMAN WORD LIKE ANY OTHER. ... What stands there, in the pages of the Bible, is the witness to the Word of God ... God can be called truth only when 'truth' is understood in the sense of the Greek word 'aletheia'" (Barth, Romans)."If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected from me. ... Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither one is more than a witness to that truth which stands in the center, between every Yes and No. And therefore I have never affirmed without denying and never denied without affirming, for neither affirmation nor denial can be final. If my witness t
o the final answer you are seeking does not satisfy you, I am sorry. It may be that my witness to it is not yet sufficiently clear, that is, that I have not limited the Yes by the No and the No by the Yes incisively enough to set aside all misunderstanding-- incisively enough to let you see that nothing is left except that upon which the Yes and the No, and the No and the Yes, depend. But it may also be that your refusal of my answer arises from your not having really asked your question, from your not having asked about God--for otherwise we should understand each other" (Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, Pilgrim Press, p. 209).http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_8.phpKarl Barth was asked

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Do you get my point, Perry. Do you actually think that I am making an argument for calling Judy Jezebel ? I think you need to read with a little understanding. Your opening line is something that I thoroughly agree with -- but if your side is going to approve calling namesall in the cause of Christ, why not titfor tat? So stop with the trach talk - THAT is what I am saying.

john-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:12:15 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

What do I think? Well, I still think both the "barf" reference and the "Jezebel" reference are ad hominem references.One aspect of the meaning on "jezebel" may include a characteristic that you feel applies to Judy, but since there are many dimensions to the word, other uses of the word will undoubtedly come to mind. This is no different than Lance's saying that Judy would make a good Muslim. While he may feel that one of the characteristics of muslims applies to Judy, to say that she would make a good muslim brings to mind many other undesirable characteristics.Did you like it when Jim Elsman called you "butterball"? There may of been some nuance of that which Elsman felt was true, but I did not feel like it gave him a right to call you that.I think it all amounts to name-calling, which is ad-hominem in nature.PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the only definition Webster entertains in the referenced work. One simply cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid" without casting doubt on the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name and Judy speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these words as both ignorant and stupid -- and the glory of it all is that I get to say
such things without crossing the line of "ad hom" because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions ."Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word.What do you think?jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
;Sent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's argument, and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argumentand "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to discredit a third party to which the opponent has referred as an authority. However, it is not intended to demean the opponent him/herself. Terry did the same by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider these critical ad
-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or demean other TT members, although they are still a poor technique in argumentation.Side bar...in my recent survey of the ad-hominem reference I was surprised to find that it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an effective argument...and that was exclusively in political debate.Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500 Total chunky style barnyard. By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so o
n. And "ad hom" has no such limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary.) -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy

Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Such is my experience as well.

-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:21:38 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

John, can you explain "heretical ignorance" to me? I always thought heretics claimed to more than others...not less! :-)PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption hereseyDate: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:35:34 -0500Your heretical ignorance of the facts of scripture coupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scripture is herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ.So what's your problem?
jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:44:20 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas AE surrendered to during histime
in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written:"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22)So what is the problem JD???On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some poi
nt in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. JdHow can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jdThis man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemedmankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedienceby suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. judytHe that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandment
s is a liar (1 John 2:4)--"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.orgIf 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] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

My comments and questions remain. I was very concernedabout the young manat one time and worked to meet with him. Right now, he needs to know that is not received as a Christian,that his divisiveness and filthy languagehave placed him outside the fellowship. He isa very harmful influence, or at least he is trying to be and you know this full well. I worked to help him -- while you were in the back of your house, no doubt, folding underwear. We are done.

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:39:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

I just posted your words.
It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"
Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"?

There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to distract.knpraise@aol.com wrote:

see my comments below. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:06:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 knpraise@aol.com writes:

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

You want to discuss this off line, let's go for it. This discussion does not belong on this forum. No one here knows what you are talking about. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:10:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

AND?

If he cleans up his mouth and stops being "DIVISIVE" that alone will place him firmly within the Christian camp?

No need for a Conversion?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I just posted your words.
It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"
Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"?

There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to distract.knpraise@aol.com wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 knpraise@aol.com writes:

The above is an "ignorant" statement. The

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Off line Judyand you have not one single thing correct. Off line. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:50:51 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

I do JD; no mystery here you and Kevin are on another list where apparently you discussed the young homosexual
you were trying to help; apparently Kevin discerns some problem with your method of evangelizing because there
is no repentance and no new birth of the Spirit which are required if one is to walk in the light as He is in the light
and have fellowship with others in the body of Christ Once the heart is right the mouth will follow suit. jt

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:52:04 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You want to discuss this off line, let's go for it. This discussion does not belong on this forum. No one here knows what you are talking about. From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

AND?

If he cleans up his mouth and stops being "DIVISIVE" that alone will place him firmly within the Christian camp?

No need for a Conversion?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I just posted your words.
It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"
Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"?

There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to distract.knpraise@aol.com wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 knpraise@aol.com writes:

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says'I don't know the man/his work/his character BUT

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


:-)-Original Message-From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:24:51 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says'I don't know the man/his work/his character BUT





I typed about ten words' worth of words, copied them and pasted the rest, after which I went back and added punctuation. The really crazy thing is, by the time I was done, it was starting to make sense.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says'I don't know the man/his work/his character BUT

If this is what you read from me Lance, then it is no wonder to me that we exchange words that are
void of any kind of communication. Kind of like the one memorable post BillT sent that was a page filled 
with words words words words. I'd like to know how he didthat ...

Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:08:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I'm quite prepared to speak ill of him. Mind now, I've often criticized Lance for doing the same thing. You see, I'm the exception that proves the rule.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 03, 2005 07:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your descriptive subject line
It is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after perusing some of the subject's
theological ideas I found it appropriate.

Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my comment reflects my
response to his theology which has been made very public..

 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Karl Barth answers back

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

Does this make Barfh qualify as a Monstrous Miscreant?

CD = Church Dogmatics

Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the
distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend
on the other (CD I, 2, 509). kd

The biblical writers treated their witness of events, their offering of revelation (the revelation of God ) with the same style of writing as did those who wrote of saga and legend. There is no systematic theology written or implied. They have left the organization of the message to those who believe and read. Their declaring of the miracles is not evidenced anywhere with arguments of apologetic value. Unimpeachable evidence was never the approach. The value and acceptance of the Message, at any level, is the work of faith. jd

In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded
as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as
history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (CD IV, 1, 336). kd

Death occurs in history. Resurrection does not. Resurrection only occurs in saga or legend. Does this mean that there is no resurrection of Christ? Not at all. But this observation goes directly to how we deal with the matter -- how it is defended. Again, faith is an extremely important hermeneutic for Barth.And why shouldn't it be? jd

By the way -- thanks for the "critical examples." It gave me opportunity to read the larger context and actually see just where Barth of was coming from. I do not pretend to be an authority on Karl Barth. But I read in his Dogmatics a little each night. And the above gives me the opportunity to explain what he has written around the passages of thought produced by his enemies. Nowhere does he try to overcome scripture with his own opinion. I have said that before and I say it again.He is as bible based a writer as I have ever known.

Re: [TruthTalk] Karl Barth answers back

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise

By the way, I didn't line out Kevin's comments. That happened somehow in the transmission. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:48:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Karl Barth answers back

Does this make Barfh qualify as a Monstrous Miscreant?

CD = Church Dogmatics

Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the
distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend
on the other (CD I, 2, 509). kd

Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

2005-12-02 Thread knpraise

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy.

Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying?
Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT

More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent.

So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with
another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings.

What bothers me about the "begotten"as used in John 3:16AND 1:14 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth.

It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father
and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman.
the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not.

He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14)

If He appeared here the way He was in heavennoone No one is saying this

would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of
Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it.Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason.

More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD.

As a memberof the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside?He was God in the flesh. That is the teaching of scripture. Look to the phrase "And Jesus Christ came in the flesh." "Jesus Christ" for that writer is God and , thus, the writer sees value in telling us that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- an otherwise redundant comment. More than this, such is the foundation stone of the Christian Confession (cf. I Jo 4:2.)

The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).

Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generationHe walked amongst.

That he layed aside His form and took onthe form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical tothen argue thatHe ceased to be God.

I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying isthat while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Humility. That is how it all happened. God humbled Himself and did these things.Look at what Christ did here on earth that declare His divinity. First, he is oberved to be divine. Secondly, He forgives sin -- an exclusive function of God. He continued to have a memory of the way things were before the foundations of the world. He accepted worship. He continued to command legions of angels. And He allowed for being the Son of God
, making himself equal to God. The Great Confession of Peter's ("Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God') is completely misunderstood if one does not see that this is a confession of His diety and attachment to the God of Israel. The Confession is meaningless if not inclusive of divine nature.

How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called manythings in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"I don't believe this(man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh.

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and

Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey

2005-12-02 Thread knpraise




I think this refers to Israel beginning with John the B. I am open to suggestions. That seems to be the context of (John 1:14ff). the Jews had prophetical foundation to accept Him as the Christ of God and didn't. 







who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:)



On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).  

 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Assuming 500 more years..........

2005-12-02 Thread knpraise

3. With the population doubling every few years, we will run out of room and food.
Actually, I recently heard on network news that hte population would slow to "no growth" within the next fifty years. 





-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 09:36:14 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Assuming 500 more years..



1. No different than the 'signs' of any other times.
2. No using up goin' on 'round here
3. Ever heard of WAR?



- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 02, 2005 08:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Assuming 500 more years..
Three reasons.1. The signs of the times.2. We have just about used it up.3. With the population doubling every few years, we will run out of room and food.Lance Muir wrote: 

Terry:

Why?

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 02, 2005 07:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
Assuming that there will be an earth five hundred years from now would appear to be quite a stretch. Maybe on Kolub??[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



..and 500 years from now, John Calvin'sincreasingly interesting influenceon globalfellowship with the Christ who partook of our human sufferings as God will be as vibrant as it is now, ~500 yearsafter he wrote the Institutes, direct evidence of his historic, public faith in Christ

even as a politician he didn't hide it from anybody