subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] to dave"

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Lance Muir




CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' 
(SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably 
low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in 
part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, 
Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor 
and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and 
theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry 
ground.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dave Hansen 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand 
your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, 
Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I 
explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to 
denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light 
Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh 
to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that 
doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that 
they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under 
Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are 
you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your 
temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore 
wrote: 

  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and 
  DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are 
  you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you 
  give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you 
  here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about 
  one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon 
  belief-you refuse? Why are you here?
  
  
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Judy Taylor




Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD 
reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological 
instinct?
You have just categorized the things you hold most dear 
and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT?

For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time 
when you acknowledge and see your need for what 
you criticize about Dean. 
For now it's to be expected because these things are considered foolishness bytheworldly 
minded- better to be entertained 
by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' 
  (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a 
  remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, 
  at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, 
  Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill 
  Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. 
  exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an 
  otherwise dry ground.
  
From: Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  We ask about one of you ceremonies to better 
  understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive 
  me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I 
  explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to 
  denigrate that which I hold sacred.
  
  cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light 
  Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither 
  cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that 
  doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that 
  they are wrought in God.
  We give you all you ask for to be examined under 
  Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What 
  are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in 
  your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean 
  Moore wrote: 
  

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and 
DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are 
you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you 
give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you 
here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask 
about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon 
belief-you refuse? Why are you here?


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Suppose it wassecretly Satan that is worshipped. Would you expect to be told so?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to
knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you
Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Terry Clifton





Those rare treats are much like water...all wet!
Terry



Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church
lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and,
demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I
acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement
provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David
(Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John
Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and
theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise
dry ground.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Dave Hansen





We give you all you ask for to be examined
under Satan microscope. 

DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire
to be examined under Satan microscope, which is
why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons.

  

DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere
about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you
will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.
We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your
Mormon belief

cd: What are you afraid to bring into
the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the
light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be
manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be
examined under Satan microscope. All we get is
half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you
chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is
Satan invoked in you Temple?

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof
for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing
but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't
regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the
dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we
ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand
your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?
  
  

  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Sorry Judy, Lance isBUSY watching TVJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological instinct? You have just categorized the things you hold most dear and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT?For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time when you acknowledge and see your need for what you criticize about Dean. For now it's to be expected because these things are considered
foolishness bytheworldly minded- better to be entertained by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination
of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH:
Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote:
cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

maybe you Three should start a Church yourselves. Trinity UNbelievers ChapelLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your
Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 7:00:07 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.
cd: I imagine from you point of view it would be better to call DaH a brother and preach God loves everybody then we can sing Com-baa-rya and every thing will be ok-The only problem is that is not Biblical.How can one teach the bible and leave Satan and Hell out of it?Unless you too have one of those newfangled bibles that removes those parts-If not then you are happy (and amused) preaching a half gospel? If 2/3 thirds of Christs ministry had to do with hell I can do the same.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 8:09:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Suppose it wassecretly Satan that is worshipped.
Would you expect to be told so?
cd: No because he is afraid of the light.Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

- Original Message - 

From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

--   ~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

It is not because you do not have good answers for some of the questions? it is not because some things do not fit nicely inside of your theological house of cards and might jeopardize the structure?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons. DAVEH:
Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefcd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six
email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 9:56:08 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons.
cd:If one is not being examined by Satan them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. I would much rather be anti-Mormon then Anti- Christian as you are.

DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Dave Hansen





cd:If one is not being examined by Satan
them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. 

DAVEH: Your wisdom continues to astound me, Dean.


  
We give you all
you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. 

DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire
to be examined under Satan microscope, which is
why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons.
cd:If one is not being examined by
Satan them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. I
would much rather be anti-Mormon then Anti- Christian as you are.


  

DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere
about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you
will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.
We ask about one of you ceremonies to better
understand your Mormon belief

cd: What are you afraid to bring
into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the
light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be
manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for
to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is
half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you
chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is
Satan invoked in you Temple?

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after
proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing
nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who
doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead
bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the
truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better
understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-11 Thread Dean Moore

cd: Both are in the questions below brother:-)

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/10/2005 8:15:53 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Do you refer to the usage of Lucifer or Bible translations?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject-and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter
 s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASVis a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helpsus understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that weunderstand moreabout ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used.The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS)as you did with Strong's on Isaiah-
 b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give usa versionthat uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water andI would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to whatI am saying.Thank bro.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"!

Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions
The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. 

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Te

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-10 Thread Dean Moore

cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject-and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter
 s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASVis a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helpsus understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that weunderstand moreabout ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used.The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS)as you did with Strong's on Isaiah-
b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give usa versionthat uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water andI would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to whatI am saying.Thank bro.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"!

Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions
The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. 

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Temple CHANT "PAY LAY ALE". http://www.singlesaints.com/lds-single-forum/4831 The hebrew 'pale' means 'marvelous', and the word 'ale' means 'true god or false god.' Lucifer is the god of this world (statement in Temple Ceremony - LUCIFER: I am the god of this world.) and the only god with whom the LDS have to do. It is i

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-10 Thread Kevin Deegan

Do you refer to the usage of Lucifer or Bible translations?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject-and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore




- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that
 the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASVis a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helpsus understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that weunderstand moreabout ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used.The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB
 and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS)as you did with Strong's on Isaiah- b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give usa versionthat uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water andI would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to whatI am saying.Thank bro.




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know


In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"!


Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions
The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. 

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Temple CHANT "PAY LAY ALE". http://www.singlesaints.com/lds-single-forum/4831 The hebrew 'pale' means 'marvelous', and the word 'ale' means 'true god or false god.' Lucifer is the god of this world (statement in Temple Cere

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-08 Thread Dave Hansen





 Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church.

DAVEH: Thank you for lending a little more insight, Perry.
FWIW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Baptist_Church

.WIKI has a little to say about it that clarifies what I think
Kevin has been implying. It seems.

The leaders of what would become known as the Landmark movement were
James Robinson Graves, James Madison Pendleton, and Amos Cooper Dayton
(sometimes called the Great Triumvirate).

..lived in the mid 19th Century and fostered the notion that
organization had its inception at the time of Jesus. Do you believe
that as they do, Perry? Or...do you believe they were founded by the Great
Triumvirate?

 As you know, Perry.my interest is in the Protestants. So,
those Baptists who lay claim to Protestant roots are those who I tend
to cast my focus. That there are small congregations or individuals
who claim not to be Protestant don't capture my attention at this
point. ButIf there are Baptists who are rooted in
Protestantismthat's what I am curious about. Sothat Kevin (or
you) are referring to small groups who are not associated with
Protestantism is really not pertinent to my interests.

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable
source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church
historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has
no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than
the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make?
  
  
But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you
should have read on...
  
  
"The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do
not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic
Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and
Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church.
Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept
that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura,
sola fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that
Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman
Catholic Church in the 1500s."
  
  
Notice that first line?
  
  
On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other
labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of
from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they
attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also
include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and
principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by
or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter
disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.
  
  
Perry
  
  
  
  From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
    
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800


DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided,
Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from
WIKI


/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group
baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to
them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters,
or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The
use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to
uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants
of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish,
Hutterites,  Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as
Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were
also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly
Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority
of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing"
in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized
by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church historians
generally believe that there is no historical continuity between
anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later
anabaptist groups._/


..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are
Protestants.

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

If Baptists did not exist in 1524
What is a Cardinal doing talking about them?

Well I guess if quotes about a supposedly non existant group (baptists) is not enough, I do not know what would be ***SIGH***Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong. Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote:

SupposeI found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon!

200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote:

How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?

As far as the Baptists:
200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants!
Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!

Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them.
Ask a Methodist, John Wesley
Ask a Mormon Joe Smith
Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope"
Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther
Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL
Who founded the baptist church?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote:

I don't accept fairy tales.

What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names.
As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though?Kevin Deegan wrote:

I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts.

Where was the break in authority DH?
Who was the last group to Hold it?
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

DH says
"just assuming that you are somehow connected?""From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time frame"
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.DAVEH: Seems to me that you are the one who needs to show your roots, Kevin. I've shown you where the Southern Baptists had Protestant roots. If yours are not Protestant, then to where do you trace your roots? And...can you detail the linage of those roots, or are you just assuming that you are somehow connected? BTWI do not recall you explaining to which faction of Christianity you belong. Do you have a denominational affiliation? And if so, what is it?Kevin Deegan wrote:

I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the Protestants.
I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they are NOT Protestants)
Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time of Christ.
You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles without a shred of evidence.

Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote:
CD wrote:
... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope.
nbsp; In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. --
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. --
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

can you nail down an exact time when it was authored?
When the Apostles put their pen to "paper"Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?DAVEH: This may surprise you, Kevinbut, I do not see him as being the author of the TD. I view him as more the promoter, motivator and facilitatoror perhaps catalyst. Does that make any sense? Who do you view as the originator of the TD, Kevin? And can you nail down an exact time when it was authored?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Question DH,
Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?
If not it was originated at this time correct?
What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine?
From: Dave Hansen Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act
 in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not ma ke that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.David Miller wrote:CD wrote:... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace backto Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he foughtunder the Christian flag and Christianity became a nationalmovement under the proceding Emperors?*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not
 exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bis hops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of
 interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner.Peace be with you.David Miller.-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

And I suppose the fact that the AMERICAN Baptists were founded in the US proves that Baptists did not exist in Europe too!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: You tell me, Kevin. You claim to know the roots. I can only quote that which I've learned.that the First Southern Baptist Church.was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...from my limited searching on the net. IF that is not correct, please tell us who the real founder is, and when he founded it, Kevin.Kevin Deegan wrote:

And who was the founder of the Baptist church?Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make?But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on..."The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, so
la fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s."Notice that first line?On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.PerryFrom: Dave Hansen Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet
other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accep ted sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups._/..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are Protestants.--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-08 Thread Terry Clifton





Maine is now Southern???


Dave Hansen wrote:

  
DAVEH: You tell me, Kevin. You claim to know the roots. I can only
quote that which I've learned.that the First Southern Baptist
Church.
  
was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by
the Rev. William Screven.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Anyone can steal a word.

Consider the "Church of Jesus Christ" "Church of Christ" 
meant to imply they are the ONE!

cath·o·lic (kãth'-lk, kãth'lk) adj. 

Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found (Scientific American). 
Including or concerning all humankind; universal: what was of catholic rather than national interest (J.A. Froude). 
Catholic 

Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church. 
Of or relating to the universal Christian church. 
Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church. 
Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Perhaps it is similar to Catholicism being talked about prior to the RCC being founded.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over 100 years in the future? -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-08 Thread Dean Moore

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/8/2005 2:10:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong.  Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote: 

SupposeI found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 

200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: 
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?

As far as the Baptists: 
200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: 
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 

The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants!
Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." 

Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." 

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." 

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!

Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them.
Ask a Methodist, John Wesley
Ask a Mormon Joe Smith
Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope"
Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther
Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL
Who founded the baptist church?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I don't accept fairy tales.

What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. 
As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?

Let Dave answer that:
"DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin"Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?




- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/8/2005 2:10:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong.  Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote: 


SupposeI found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 

200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: 
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?


As far as the Baptists: 
200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: 
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 

The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants!
Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." 

Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." 

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." 

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!

Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them.
Ask a Methodist, John Wesley
Ask a Mormon Joe Smith
Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope"
Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther
Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL
Who founded the baptist church?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I don't accept fairy tales.

What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. 
As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? Th

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.

DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and
Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine,
but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines
covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of
Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act
in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to
political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we
(LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our
religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism
is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. 

David Miller wrote:
CD
wrote:
  
  ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that
trace back

to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought

under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national

movement under the proceding Emperors?

  
  
  All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of
Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that
period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate
from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that
time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more
central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably
5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop
of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of
the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of
that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the
Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical
Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have
primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the
capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In
the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires
with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting
history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when
there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at
once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".
  
  
The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a
vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern
Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the
pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner.
  
  
Peace be with you.
  
David Miller. 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





Your religion is ambiguous and confusing

DAVEH: Only when described by an anti-Mormon, Perry.

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
You are absolutely right, Dave. Your religion is
ambiguous and confusing. If you go completely by what JS said, you
will at the same times have to ignore the erroneaous and heretical
claims he made (or just flat out deny them in spite of the testimony of
your fellow mormons), or follow the heretical doctrines he invented.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
  
  
  DAVEH: I find it interesting that at times
TTers accuse me of ignoring what JS said, and at other times I am
accused of believing what JS said. As I see it, no matter what I say
or believe.there are going to be some TTers who just won't be
happy!


ShieldsFamily wrote:


You forget, Terry, that mormons ignore what
the Bible says for what JSmith says. iz
  
  
  
  

  
  
**
  
  
  
  
Hate to butt in here folks, but if memory serves me correctly, the
Bible teaches us to always be ready to give an answer for what we
believe.
  
  
Terry
  
=
  
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  
  
DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously
said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to
discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. Did you not understand that I
consider it futile to *due business* with an anti-Mormon? As I see
it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they are seeking to attack.
  
  
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
  
  
Dave,
  
  
 Perhaps my question has not been clear...
  
  
 What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean?
  
  
 If we are going to *do business *your way than lay your cards face up
on the table.
  
  
Perry
  
  

  
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.

DAVEH: I've tried to do that in times past, Perry. But despite what
I say, you believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth. Your
intent seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather
you want to destroy LDS theology. Am I perceiving your agenda
correctly, Perry?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set
me straight. You will not talk about Temple rituals because you
have taken oaths not to, and have been told of the penalties that you
will endure of you reveal them, like having your throat cut from ear to
ear, or having you belly cut and your intestines spilled on the ground
(if I am in error heere please correct me by revealing tthe correct
penalties), just like the Masons (who incorporated gripd, signs,
tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a mason) from which parts of
the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I must rely on ex-mormons
who have been brought into the light, left the mormon cult, and now
reveal the rituals that are performed inside the temple. The mormon
temple rites are no different than any secret organization...the cultic
structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know what "pay lay ale"
means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and will admit it.
  
  
 The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay
lip service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS.
You can certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can
you demonstrate that?
  
  
Perry
  
  
  

DAVEH: It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you
lack understanding, perception and truth, Perry. I understand your
need to /wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by chance hit a soft
spot in my armor. Instead, as I see it by making incorrect
assumptions, you are simply proving your lack of insight.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,
  
  
 My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and
chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that
which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your
allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that
means, where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are
praying when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your
ritual, in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant
those words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment
defines your religion. You are invoking who you invoke.
  
  
 On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone
or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no
argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know
what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free
to do it blindly, too, if you wish. But if you are, pleading ignorance
at your jusgement will not be a valid excuse, "...they [men] are
without excuse" - Romans 1).
  
  
 You and millions of other mormons may not really know what is going
on at that moment. You may be doing it just because someone told you
that is the thing to do, or because you think, "If it happens in the
temple it can't be wrong". Think again, Dave. Think about exactly what
is it that you are doing and saying at that moment. If your leaders
cannot answer the questions with certainty and proof of their meaning,
rather than with side-steps and cute answers, then you just may be
paying homage to something other than the God you think you are
invoking. Do you know for sure? Your burning bosom can't answer that
question. I will pray for your deliverance, and the deliverance of your
family, and all mormons, that the veil of darkness will be lifted and
the light of Jesus Christ will shine in.
  
  
Perry
  
  
  

  
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





I am not trying to squeeze you into a corner.

DAVEH: And I realize and appreciate that, Terry. FWIWI do not
consider you to be an anti-Mormon. At least you have not exhibited
such tendencies as far as I can remember.

 YesI agree with vs 15. However, the Lord does not always
answer in a way we might expect. Nor, did Jesus answer his accusers in
a way they were expecting. Many of his answers were veiled in a double
meaning, that were intended to convey a truth without falling victim to
their ploys to destroy him. I don't mind responding to those who have
honest questions about what I believe. I've done that on many
occasions here on TT, but as you knownot everybody likes or even
believes my answers. (And notethere are apparently some TTers who
believe I should not be posting anything on TT.)  But on the other
hand, I'm not going to set myself up to be a punching bag. I simply
don't feel compelled to respond to those who want to denigrate my
beliefs any more than the Lord answered
nothing when his enemies were beseeching him. For anybody to
use vs 15 as a reason for me to do so, I believe does not truly
understand the gospel.

 FTRI have explained that I am not going to discuss those
things we do in the Temple that I feel are sacred. I have also said
that I do not want to further discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons on
TT. (That's a tough one, as I tend to get sucked in on occasion.)  If
you want to know what I believe, go ahead and ask. Sometimes I fail
to answer due to time constraints, or my inability to keep up with all
the posts. If I don't respond to an important question, feel free to
ask again, Terry.

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
Yes Dave, I have a reference and am ready to give an answer. Check out
first Peter, 3:15.
You appear to be a nice guy,Dave, or at least you did up to this
point. Now you are making yourself suspect by hiding your light under
a bushel. I, for one, would respect you more if you were forthright
instead of elusive, and for what it is worth, I try not to be anti-
anyone. I am not trying to squeeze you into a corner. If you
are
prohibited from discussing you faith, tell me and I will ask no more.
If you are free to discuss your faith, answer a brother or brothers.
You will be criticized either way you turn, but that is to be expected
by people who choose to follow Christ.
Terry
=
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  

DAVEH: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that, Terry. Do you have a
reference? It seems to me that there was a lot of stuff that was
meant to be hiddenespecially from those whose intent is to do
harm. Seems like Jesus set an example in Mk 15 when he refused to
answer those who made false accusations against him

[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
[3] And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered
nothing.
[4] And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold
how many things they witness against thee.
[5] But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.

If all things were meant to be revealed to anybody who asked,
then why are there any mysteries in the Bible?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
Hate to butt in here folks, but if memory serves me correctly, the
Bible teaches us to always be ready to give an answer for what we
believe.
  
Terry
=
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  

DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously
said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to
discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. Did you not understand that I
consider it futile to due business with an anti-Mormon? As I
see it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they are seeking to
attack. 

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, 
  
 Perhaps my question has not been clear... 
  
 What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean? 
  
 If we are going to do business your way than lay your cards
face up on the table. 
  
Perry 
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





When at least are you going to becomeCONSISTENT? : )

DAVEH: Perhaps when you stop being OBNOXIOUS!.  :-P 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  When at least are you going to becomeCONSISTENT? : )
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
I find it interesting that at times TTers accuse me of ignoring what JS
said, and at other times I am accused of believing what JS said. As I
see it, no matter what I say or believe.there are going to be some
TTers who just won't be happy!

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  You forget,
Terry, that mormons ignore what the Bible says for what JSmith says. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Hate to butt in here folks,
but if memory serves me correctly, the Bible teaches us to always be
ready to give an answer for what we believe.
  
Terry
=
  
Dave Hansen wrote: 
  DAVEH: Nor has my implied
answer been clear to you. I've previously said I would not discuss our
  Temple
ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons.
Did you not understand that I consider it futile to due business with an
anti-Mormon? As I see it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they
are seeking to attack. 
  
Charles Perry Locke wrote: 
  Dave, 
  
 Perhaps my question has not been clear... 
  
 What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean? 
  
 If we are going to do business your
way than lay your cards face up on the table. 
  
Perry 
  

  
  
  
   

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

DAVEH:   We (LDS) don't discuss much of what happens inside the Temple 
outside the Templenot even amongst LDS people who go to the Temple.  
So, if TTers want to ask me questions about my beliefs, I'll answer 
themregardless of whether they are pro-Mormon or not.  However, as 
you knowit is futile for me to discuss LDS theology with 
anti-Mormons, who are intent on denigrating my beliefs.


   ButI did not come to TT to discuss LDS theology with other 
Mormons.  I can do that anytime I want, and for the most part doing so 
does not intrigue me nearly as much as discussing Protestant theology 
with TTers.


ShieldsFamily wrote:


Just wondering, DaveH, which pro-mormons are you here to discuss LDS
theology with? Izzy


 

 DAVEH:  Nor has my implied answer been clear to you.  I've previously 
said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss 
LDS theology with anti-Mormons.  
 



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Thanks anyway DH I was not sure how you would see the issue.
Now I know.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Oooops.Now I see that it was Kevin who posted the below questions to me. FTRI posted my reply assuming it was John's question.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
Where they the one true church but Apostacized?


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in 
Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory 
that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is 
doctrinally correct.


Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because 
to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of 
it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the 
Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy 
of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture.


Perry


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are
ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible.  To me,
your comment...

You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy
of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture.


.seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many
Protestants do. 

 Kevin also implied.

the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible

.and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does
the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

  
  From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in
Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the
theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is
doctrinally correct.

  
  
Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement,
because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine!
Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the
Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had
not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close
your eyes to the truth of Scripture.
  
  
Perry
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who 
wrote the article? Who are these Christian church historians. Why is the 
word protestant in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. 
Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few 
points you are trying to make?


But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you 
should have read on...


The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not 
have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. 
They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists 
believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the 
Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share 
similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all 
believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers 
held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s.


Notice that first line?

On the other hand, I prefer the term Christian to any other labels...those 
who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition 
they come, what denomination of fellowship they attend, and who get their 
truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that 
is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical 
extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing 
peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.


Perry



From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800

DAVEH:  Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin?  
DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI


/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a *Protestant* group 
baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them 
from other bodies, any of the 16th century radical dissenters, or the 
denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the 
term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the 
groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European 
movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites,  Mennonites) are the most 
common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the 
early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as 
Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of 
the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others 
consider rebaptizing in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers 
who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church 
historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between 
anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later 
anabaptist groups._/


..Does that not explain the situation?  Modern day Baptists are 
Protestants.



--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Dave, you say, assuming the above website is correct. If it is not 
can we accuse you spreading lies?

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:51:03 -0800

DAVEH:   Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their 
roots to the Rev Wm Screven

The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine 
by the Rev. William Screven.

..according to...

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm

assuming the above website is correct.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

*How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not 
exist?*

*As far as the Baptists:*

*200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:*

Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off 
with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in 
greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, /Letters, Apud Opera/, 
pp. 112, 113.)

/*The twelve hundred years were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the 
Protestants! */

*Sir Isaac Newton:* The Baptists are the only body of known Christians 
that have never symbolized with Rome.

*Mosheim (Lutheran historian):* Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, 
there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who 
adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.

*/Edinburg Cyclopedia/ (Presbyterian):* It must have already occurred to 
our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were 
formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their 
leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.

/*Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle 
John!*/

Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded 
them.

Ask a Methodist, John Wesley

Ask a Mormon Joe Smith

Ask a Catholic Peter the pope

Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther

Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL

Who founded the baptist church?

*/Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

*What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist
church going all the way back to John the Baptist?*

DAVEH:   Can that be done?

You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim.   But, at least
they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood
authority.  Do you know of another religion that makes a similar
claim?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

I don't accept fairy tales.
 *What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist
church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* We would need
to have a history of that Church to go along with the names.
As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no
history that the RCC can point to.

*/Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

DAVEH:   Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible)
possess the authority of God?  Do you know of any who you are
certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived
after they (the Biblical apostles) died?

The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was
then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can
presumably name them all.  I assume you do not accept that
lineage of authority though.  I am curious why you would not
accept it though?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory
holds water after seeing these facts.
 Where was the break in authority DH?
Who was the last group to Hold it?

*/David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

Kevin wrote:
 Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD.
 The RCC came along generations later.

CD wrote:
 Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad.

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence
in 1054, when it
split away from the churches of the East. About 500
years later it
splintered into the various Protestant groups.

Peace be with you.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know



Dave,

  Other than the heresy of JS, you can not historically substantiate ANY of 
the following claim, our religious roots predate that time frame. If you 
can, then do so. If you are going to ask me to rely on the claims made by an 
occultic treasure hunter, count me out. Your whole faith appears to be based 
on believing what JS said, and heartburn. No history. No archeology. No 
internal or external consistency. Aberrant translations of the book of the 
dead, revelations that favor the revelator and his friends (except for poor 
Emma!) and his philandering. And, who is Oliver Granger? (Inquiring minds 
want to know.)


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800

*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*

DAVEH:  I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM.  The RCC and 
Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but 
have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered 
with his fingerprints.   I believe that by the time of Constantine, the 
apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf 
was lost.  That left the field wide open to political figures intervening 
in doctrinal theology.  That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim.  From 
our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich 
is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.


David Miller wrote:


CD wrote:


... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back
to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought
under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national
movement under the proceding Emperors?



*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*  
The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period.  The truth is 
that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of 
Christianity, did not exist back then.  At that time when many of the 
Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, 
there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of 
the large cities they oversaw.  The bishop of Rome was considered to have 
primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire.  However, the 
meaning of primacy to the bishops of that time is not the same as what 
Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope.  In fact, in 381, a canon was 
decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of 
Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome.  
This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome 
to Constantinople.  In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was 
split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome.  A 
lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper.  There was even a 
short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two 
popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne.


The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, 
and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches 
than with Roman Catholicism.  The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears 
no resemblance to Constantine's banner.


Peace be with you.
David Miller.




--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.




--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


Dave,

  I went right to the source, as you have asked me to do many times. I 
asked you about raising arms to the square and what Pale Ale means. If you 
refuse to answer, perhaps it is because either you are ashamed that you do 
not know what you are chanting, (or maybe you do know!). So, set me straight 
on this pale ale thing, Dave. I cannot do what you ask if those who have 
the truth won't share it!


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:15:47 -0800

*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.*

DAVEH:   I've tried to do that in times past, Perry.  But despite what I 
say, you believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth.  Your intent 
seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather you want to 
destroy LDS theology.  Am I perceiving your agenda correctly, Perry?


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.* You 
will not talk about Temple rituals because you have taken oaths not to, 
and have been told of the penalties that you will endure of you reveal 
them, like having your throat cut from ear to ear, or having you belly cut 
and your intestines spilled on the ground (if I am in error heere please 
correct me by revealing tthe correct penalties), just like the Masons (who 
incorporated gripd, signs, tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a 
mason) from which parts of the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I 
must rely on ex-mormons who have been brought into the light, left the 
mormon cult, and now reveal the rituals that are performed inside the 
temple. The mormon temple rites are no different than any secret 
organization...the cultic structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know 
what pay lay ale means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and 
will admit it.


  The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay lip 
service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS. You can 
certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can you 
demonstrate that?


Perry




DAVEH:   It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you lack 
understanding, perception and truth, Perry.   I understand your need to 
/wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by chance hit a soft spot in my 
armor.  Instead, as I see it by making incorrect assumptions, you are 
simply proving your lack of insight.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

  My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and 
chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that 
which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your 
allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that means, 
where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are praying 
when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your ritual, 
in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant those 
words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment defines your 
religion. You are invoking who you invoke.


  On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone 
or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no 
argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know 
what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free 
to do it blindly, too, if you wish. But if you are, pleading ignorance 
at your jusgement will not be a valid excuse, ...they [men] are without 
excuse - Romans 1).


  You and millions of other mormons may not really know what is going 
on at that moment. You may be doing it just because someone told you 
that is the thing to do, or because you think, If it happens in the 
temple it can't be wrong. Think again, Dave. Think about exactly what 
is it that you are doing and saying at that moment. If your leaders 
cannot answer the questions with certainty and proof of their meaning, 
rather than with side-steps and cute answers, then you just may be 
paying homage to something other than the God you think you are 
invoking. Do you know for sure? Your burning bosom can't answer that 
question. I will pray for your deliverance, and the deliverance of your 
family, and all mormons, that the veil of darkness will be lifted and 
the light of Jesus Christ will shine in.


Perry







--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.




--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Scripture includes more than just the Bible

What does it include?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible.  To me, your comment...You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. .seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many Protestants do..  Kevin also implied.the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible.and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance?Charles Perry Locke wrote: 

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

And who was the founder of the Baptist church?Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make?But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on..."The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide,
the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s."Notice that first line?On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.PerryFrom: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Sun, 06 Nov
2005 23:45:56 -0800DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted
sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups._/..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are Protestants.--"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over 100 years in the future? Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, you say, "assuming the above website is correct." If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies?From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:51:03 -0800DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote:*How can they possibly claim Apostolic
succession, when they did not exist?**As far as the Baptists:**200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:*"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, /Letters, Apud Opera/, pp. 112, 113.)/*The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! */*Sir Isaac Newton:* "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."*Mosheim (Lutheran historian):* "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who
adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."*/Edinburg Cyclopedia/ (Presbyterian):* "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."/*Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!*/Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them.Ask a Methodist, John WesleyAsk a Mormon Joe SmithAsk a Catholic Peter the "pope"Ask a Lutheran Martin LutherAsk a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger
Williams! LOLWho founded the baptist church?*/Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: *What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim? Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. *What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There
is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to. */Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these
facts. Where was the break in authority DH? Who was the last group to Hold it? */David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Kevin wrote: Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later. CD wrote: Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when it split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it splintered into the various Protestant groups. Peace be with you.--~~~Dave
Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Question DH,
Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?
If not it was originated at this time correct?
What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine?
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that
 claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.David Miller wrote:CD wrote:... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace backto Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he foughtunder the Christian flag and Christianity became a nationalmovement under the proceding Emperors?*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops,
 with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once,
 each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner.Peace be with you.David Miller.--~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"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.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Ashamed?

Mormon Doctrine on Deity, pp. 42-43; B. H. Roberts.
Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that anyone at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe---the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means---not shame--- for the doctrine Brigham Young taught.Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,I went right to the source, as you have asked me to do many times. I asked you about raising arms to the square and what "Pale Ale" means. If you refuse to answer, perhaps it is because either you are ashamed that you do not know what you are chanting, (or maybe you do know!). So, set me straight on this "pale ale" thing, Dave. I cannot do what you ask if those who "have the truth" won't share it!PerryFrom: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowDate: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:15:47 -0800*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.*DAVEH: I've tried to do that in times past, Perry. But despite what I say, you
believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth. Your intent seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather you want to destroy LDS theology. Am I perceiving your agenda correctly, Perry?Charles Perry Locke wrote:*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.* You will not talk about Temple rituals because you have taken oaths not to, and have been told of the penalties that you will endure of you reveal them, like having your throat cut from ear to ear, or having you belly cut and your intestines spilled on the ground (if I am in error heere please correct me by revealing tthe correct penalties), just like the Masons (who incorporated gripd, signs, tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a mason) from which parts of the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I must rely on ex-mormons who
have been brought into the light, left the mormon cult, and now reveal the rituals that are performed inside the temple. The mormon temple rites are no different than any secret organization...the cultic structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know what "pay lay ale" means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and will admit it. The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay lip service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS. You can certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can you demonstrate that?PerryDAVEH: It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you lack understanding, perception and truth, Perry. I understand your need to /wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by
chance hit a soft spot in my armor. Instead, as I see it by making incorrect assumptions, you are simply proving your lack of insight.Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that means, where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are praying when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your ritual, in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant those words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment
defines your religion. You are invoking who you invoke. On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free to do it blindly, too, if you wish. But if you are, pleading ignorance at your jusgement will not be a valid excuse, "...they [men] are without excuse" - Romans 1). You and millions of other mormons may not really know what is going on at that moment. You may be doing it just because someone told you that is the thing to do, or because you think, "If it happens in the temple it
can't be wrong". Think again, Dave. Think about exactly what is it that you are doing and saying at that moment. If your leaders cannot answer the questions with certainty and proof of their meaning, rather than with side-steps and cute answers, then you just may be paying homage to s

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?

The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants!
Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!

I don't accept fairy tales.

I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote:
CD wrote:
... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In
fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. --
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-07 Thread David Miller


DAVEH wrote:

If the faith of a believer is all that is needed to gain
the authority to act in God's behalf, then do you
recognize the faith of the believers of the RCC?
Orhow about the faith of the believers in Mormonism?


Whether or not there are believers either in the RCC or Mormonism is hotly 
debated among Protestant believers.  The belief that authority rests in the 
church hierarchy frustrates faith, and thereby frustrates receiving 
authority directly from God.  One cannot have faith in Jesus Christ and in 
an institutional structure at the same time.  I have to admit that the 
possibility of Joseph Smith truly having authority with God was very high in 
my opinion when I first studied him, for the very simple reason that his 
faith clearly was not in the institution of Christianity.  This would have 
put him in a position to truly receive authority from Jesus Christ. 
Unfortunately, my studies of his teachings have shown him to be another 
charlatan.


DAVEH wrote:

... it seems illogical to me for you to draw that conclusion
due to the apostles previous receipt of the power of God
as described at the time Jesus ordained them.  Don't you
believe that the apostles already had the power of God
prior to Jesus giving Peter the keys in Mt 16? IF your
scenario is correct, Jesus would not have had to give Peter
the authority in the first placeit would have been automatic
due to Peter's belief.


That's like trying to say that an employee automatically gets a promotion at 
his job just because he has faithful.  No, the faithfulness brings about the 
added authority, but it is not automatic.  The Lord confers it upon a person 
as they show themselves faithful.


DaveH wrote:

Yet Jesus obviously gave something to Peter at that
time due to his belief.  Logically, my assertion that
it was a special commission (keys) makes more sense.
ButI do have my LDS bias that reinforces that notion.
I just fail to see how you would build your case on such
a passage.  Are there other passages that support your
perspective?


You speak as if I do not believe in ordination.  I think you misunderstand 
my perspective.  The way you characterize me, I would not find any value in 
a wedding ceremony, because all you need is love, and then voila, the couple 
is automatically married and there is no need to exchange vows or have 
witnesses.  This is not my perspective at all.


As for another passage, consider John 14:12-14.

John 14:12-14
(12) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that 
I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I 
go unto my Father.
(13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father 
may be glorified in the Son.

(14) If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

David Miller wote:

The entire church is to inherit the
keys to the kingdom of heaven.


DAVEH:

As you know, that seems to be an illogical conclusion
from my perspective.  Those keys were only given
to Peter at that time, and to conclude that it applies
to anybody with faith would bring a lot of confusion
due to many believers of faith of different religious
persuasions may be at odds with how they handle
those keys.  Does that make any sense, DavidM?


Your view of the church is different than mine.  I see a church in 
agreement.  You see a church divided.


The church *IS* the body of Christ.  Therefore, how can it not have the keys 
of the kingdom?


DH wrote:

Perhaps I should ask you how you define keys?


The keys are that which a believer receives which enables him or her to 
bring the kingdom of God into reality in this present world.


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-07 Thread David Miller


DAVEH wrote:
For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation 
stretches the imagination.


I would not argue that.  I agree with you that the bias existed for them to 
accept the Trinity, just as the bias existed for them to accept 
transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, the authority of 
the clergy, etc.


DaveH wrote:
As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of 
opinion.  If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their 
beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition.


Agreed.  My point is only that they did not accept the Trinity only because 
of their bias.  They studied it out pretty thoroughly.


DAVEH:
I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it 
does not change its nature.which as I see it was a politically 
motivated doctrine of obfuscation.  I would not be surprised if Calvin 
felt the need to retain it for the same reason.  From his perspective, 
anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious 
foundation.


We have been over the history before.  Your argument that the Trininty came 
about because of politics is faulty.  The Trinity Doctrine existed long 
before Constantine, and it was politically unacceptable to believe in the 
Trinity for generations after Constantine.


DAVEH wrote:
Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you 
would think the theology did likewise.  There were doctrines (TD, infant 
baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC 
adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted.  I don't see any of 
that in Mormonism.do you?  I'm perhaps too close to LDS theology to 
see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it.


My comment was that from a HISTORICAL point of view, Mormonism is a branch 
of Protestant Christianity.  From a theological point of view, Mormonism 
differs significantly from the majority of Protestant Christianity. 
Nevertheless, there is still quite a bit of commonality.  You still preach 
Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, you evangelize by sharing the gospel, 
you baptize converts, you practice the laying on of hands for ordination, 
you have similar meetings in the sense of singing and teaching.


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-07 Thread David Miller


David Miller wrote:

All Christians can trace their roots back
to the time of Constantine.


DAVEH wrote:

I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM.
The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots
back to the time of Constantine, but have found
themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines
covered with his fingerprints.   I believe that by the
time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and
hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost.
That left the field wide open to political figures intervening
in doctrinal theology.  That is why we (LDS) do not make
that claim.  From our perspective, our religious roots predate
that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted
in Catholicism or Protestantism.


Again, I'm talking about from the perspective of historical Christianity. 
You may not want to trace your roots through Roman Catholicism back to the 
time of Constantine, but any historian can do it, and you could too if you 
allowed yourself to do it.


What you are saying here, however, is that you want to skip over history. 
Your idea that Mormonism is rooted in something prior to either Catholicism 
or Protestantism is nothing but fantasy.  It is like the schizophrenic 
claiming that he is Napoleon or God.  And you wonder why most Christians do 
not consider you guys to be Christian?  Here you are practically admitting 
that you are not Christian.  :-)  Can't you see that?


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript
74 AD The Letter of Barnabas
80 AD Hermas
140 AD Aristides
150 AD Justin Martyr
150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna
160 AD Mathetes
170 AD Tatian the Syrian
177 AD Athenagoras
177 AD Melito of Sardis
180 AD Theophilus of Antioch
180 AD Irenaeus
190 AD Clement Of Alexandria
200 AD Tertullian
200 AD Hippolytus
225 AD Origen
235 AD Novatian
250 AD Ignatius of Antioch
253 AD Cyprian of Carthage
262 AD Dionysius
262 AD Gregory the Wonder-worker
305 AD Methodius
305 AD Arnobius
307 AD Lactantius

Facts are stubborn things:
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htmDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH wrote: For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation stretches the imagination.I would not argue that. I agree with you that the bias existed for them to accept the Trinity, just as the bias existed for them to accept transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, the authority of the clergy, etc.DaveH wrote: As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of opinion. If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition.Agreed. My point is only that they did not accept the Trinity only because of their bias. They studied it out pretty thoroughly.DAVEH: I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it does not
change its nature.which as I see it was a politically motivated doctrine of obfuscation. I would not be surprised if Calvin felt the need to retain it for the same reason. From his perspective, anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious foundation.We have been over the history before. Your argument that the Trininty came about because of politics is faulty. The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine, and it was politically unacceptable to believe in the Trinity for generations after Constantine.DAVEH wrote: Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you would think the theology did likewise. There were doctrines (TD, infant baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted. I don't see any of that in Mormonism.do you? I'm perhaps too
close to LDS theology to see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it.My comment was that from a HISTORICAL point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. From a theological point of view, Mormonism differs significantly from the majority of Protestant Christianity. Nevertheless, there is still quite a bit of commonality. You still preach Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, you evangelize by sharing the gospel, you baptize converts, you practice the laying on of hands for ordination, you have similar meetings in the sense of singing and teaching.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

One substance?

So you want to discuss "homoousios"?
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Col. 2:9 
"I and the Father are one" John 10:30
"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" John 14:11 
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself'' 2Cor. 5:19Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible.  To me, your comment...You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. .seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many Protestants do..  Kevin also implied.the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible.and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance?Charles Perry Locke wrote: 

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.


DAVEH: Seems to me that you are the one who needs to show your roots,
Kevin. I've shown you where the Southern Baptists had Protestant
roots. If yours are not Protestant, then to where do you trace your
roots? And...can you detail the linage of those roots, or are you just
assuming that you are somehow connected?

 BTWI do not recall you explaining to which faction of
Christianity you belong. Do you have a denominational affiliation?
And if so, what is it?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the
Protestants.
  I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they
are NOT Protestants)
  Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time
of Christ.
  You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles
without a shred of evidence.
  
  Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your
assertions.
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  All
Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.

DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and
Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine,
but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines
covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of
Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act
in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to
political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we
(LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious
roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not
rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. 

David Miller wrote:
CD wrote: 
  ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots
that trace back 
to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought 
under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national 
movement under the proceding Emperors? 
  
  
  All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of
Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that
period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate
from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that
time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more
central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably
5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop
of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of
the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of
that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the
Pope. nbsp; In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second
Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople
should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done
because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to
Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was
split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome.
A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even
a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were
two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the
"throne". 
  
The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a
vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern
Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the
pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. 
  
Peace be with you. 
David Miller. 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
  
   
   Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?

DAVEH: This may surprise you, Kevinbut, I do not see him as being
the author of the TD. I view him as more the promoter, motivator and
facilitatoror perhaps catalyst. Does that make any sense?

 Who do you view as the originator of the TD, Kevin? And can you
nail down an exact time when it was authored?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Question DH,
  Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?
  If not it was originated at this time correct?
  What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine?
  
  From:
Dave Hansen 
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to
know
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800

*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of
Constantine.*

DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC
and 
Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of
Constantine, but 
have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines
covered 
with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine,
the 
apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's
behalf 
was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures
intervening 
in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not ma ke that
claim. From 
our perspective, our religious roots predate that time
framewhich 
is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.

David Miller wrote:

CD wrote:

... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back
to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought
under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national
movement under the proceding Emperors?


*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of
Constantine.* 
The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The
truth is 
that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other
churches of 
Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many
of the 
Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly
government, 
there were about 150 bis hops, with probably 5 being prominent
because of 
the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was
considered to have 
primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire.
However, the 
meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the
same as what 
Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a
canon was 
decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that
the bishop of 
Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of
Rome. 
This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved
from Rome 
to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman
empire was 
split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one
being Rome. A 
lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was
even a 
short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when
there were two 
popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the
"throne".

The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in
a vision, 
and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern
Orthodox churches 
than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the
tiara, bears 
no resemblance to Constantine's banner.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.



-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when
the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology
in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you
material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church
as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are
wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that
my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism
is not wrong. 

 Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not
rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not
know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such
recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know
of any???

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  
  SupposeI found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ
Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730
that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from
1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the
Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in
1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 
  
  200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council
of Trent: 
  "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and
cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would
swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters,
Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots
to the Rev Wm Screven

The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery,
Maine by the Rev. William Screven.

..according to...

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm

assuming the above website is correct.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession,
when they did not exist?
  
  
  As far as the Baptists: 
  200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the
Council of Trent: 
  "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented
and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they
would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters,
Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 
  
  The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING
the Reformation and the Protestants!
  
  Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of
known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." 
  
  Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of
Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of
Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern
Dutch Baptists." 
  
  Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must
have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same
sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed
this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of
Tertullian to the present time." 
  
  Tertullian was born just fifty years after the
death of the Apostle John!
  
  Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches
who founded them.
  Ask a Methodist, John Wesley
  Ask a Mormon Joe Smith
  Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope"
  Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther
  Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL
  Who founded the baptist church?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
  What
ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going
all the way back to John the Baptist?

DAVEH: Can that be done?

 You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they
lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do
you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I don't accept fairy tales.
  
  What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the
Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would
need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. 
  As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is
absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the
authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the
authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical
apostles) died?

 The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed
down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them
all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I
am curious why you would not accept it though?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Perhaps it is similar to Catholicism being talked about prior
to the RCC being founded.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing
talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over
100 years in the future? 
  
  
  
   

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies?

DAVEH:  No Perry...you can only accuse me of believing a
professed Christian. 

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, you say, "assuming the above website is
correct." If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies?
  
  
  
DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace
their roots to the Rev Wm Screven


The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery,
Maine by the Rev. William Screven.


..according to...


http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm


assuming the above website is correct.


  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: That was not my post, Kevin. The Bishop of TT was apparently
asking me (DH) a question.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Thanks DH!


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of
the Message.   In the First Church,  the population was Jewish and
the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation
of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the
Message of Christ.   They continued to offer sacrifice,  give
attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the
like.  They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for
righteousness to those who believed.   
 
JD 
 
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know


DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
Where they the one true church but Apostacized?




Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 


  
  


		
__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--
"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.



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DH Do you believe
that the RCC had the truth but
lost it?
Where they the one true church but Apostacized?

DAVEH: I'm not sure if you wrote the above, John...or if another TTer
(Dean perhaps) wrote it. But, to respond...

 No, I do not believe the RCC had the priesthood as they claimed.
NoteI've changed truth to priesthood, as I believe
the RCC does have some truth, but I do not believe they ever had the
proper power to act for God. Hence, I do not believe they ever
represented the True Church.

 If I understand the Protestant theory of having authority of God
merely by belief of believersthen it would seem that
Protestants would allow that the RCC folks do have proper authority of
God, since many of them are sincere believers. Is that correct? To me
that would lump both in the same sinking boat.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Thechurch was never "right" based on its collective
understanding of the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and the
_expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation of all
that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the Message
of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give attention to
their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths
, and the like.They did not understand
that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those who
believed. 
  
  JD

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  
  
  DH Do you believe
that the RCC had the truth but
lost it?
  Where they the one true church but Apostacized?
  
  
  
  
   

  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Oooops.Now I see that it was Kevin who posted the
below questions to me. FTRI posted my reply assuming it was John's
question.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
  Where they the one true church but Apostacized?
  
  
   
   
   

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know







Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  

  cd: Ignorance in our language isn't a bad word or a
put down-it means that one simple doesn't know certain topics or facts.
I am ignorant about many areas of Mormon religion such as what is
Pay-lay ale? Yet I understand that to be the brother of Christ-Satan
isn't viewed in your religion to be such a bad guy.So to you doing a
chant invoking his name isn't the worst one can do. 

DAVEH: So why do you make assumptions about something you do
not know about, Dean? Your ignorance may cause you to draw incorrect
conclusions.

cd: So where amI wrong Dave? Help me overcome
myignorance as we try to do you.



DAVEH: If you don't understand something about LDS theology, why would
you make incorrect claims about what we believe rather than asking what
we believe? (I may be wrong, but I think you were one who claimed that
we believe God had sex with Mary.correct me if I am wrong.)

  

  But for the matter of our discussion Lucifer is
notanother name of Satan

DAVEH: Do you not consider Lucifer and Satan to be one in
the same entity???

 cd: No and if you follow mine and Kevin's debate
you will see why.



DAVEH: I find that interesting, Dean. I thought that was commonly
believed. I have not been following your exchange with Kevin very
closely, so I do not know your reasons for believing they are two
separate entities. Does your believe represent mainstream Protestant
thinking on that?

  

  -this is a mistake in the meaning of the
translation.In the ancient Greek the word was "Day Star" and refereed
to the Babylon Prince Belshazzar ( I think that was his name) and was
comparing men to stars and Belshazzar was the most powerful man as
Venus was the brightest morning star hence to name Lucifer-which by the
way the only time this name is used in the bible (Isaiah 14:12).In a d
eeper search The word actually means "Howl"The NASB is mo re correct
here then the KJV.




-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know







Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  

  
DAVEH: My interjection did not prevent
you from continuing to discuss it with Jeff.

  cd: Correct butand in our truth God gives times of
salvation and once rejection is made He may withdraw the light-for a
time or forever-

DAVEH: Why do you think God would withdraw
the light, Dean? That seems counter to what the Bible
teaches about the prodigal son.

cd: Actually it is more serious than just withdrawing
the light. 2 Thess. 2 :10-12 States that because they rejected God's
offered love He sends them strong a strong deluding influence so that
they will believe a lie and be damned.A smack in the face for the God
loves everybody crowd huh? Once this happens one could talk to them
until one is blue in the face and get nowhere-sound like anybody you
know?Hope not.



DAVEH: Were you not aware of my position here in TT, Dean? I've
previously explained that I did not join TT to be converted away from
my LDS beliefs. Now that you know that, you do not need to talk to me
for that purpose until you are blue in the face.

 Regarding vss 10-12.If one truly embraced truth, would they
attempt to use untruth to smear another's beliefs?

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know







David Miller wrote:
DAVEH:
  
  Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the
Bible) possess

the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are

certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who

lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died?

  
  
I think St. Martin might be a proper example, but rather than get
bogged down in names and history, how about we simply examine the
Biblical basis for authority.
  
  
We find Jesus conferring authority in the following passage:
  
  
Matthew 16:15-19
  
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
  
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.
  
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven.
  
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.
  
(19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
  
  
Now Peter had already been given authority prior to this event (see
Matthew 10:1).
DAVEH: As I see it, Jesus gave them that authority through the
ordination process as mentioned in Mk 3...

[13] And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he
would: and they came unto him.
[14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he
might send them forth to preach,
[15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

.or Jn 15...

[15] Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not
what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that
I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
[16] Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,
that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should
remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may
give it you.

Acts 13 suggests that laying on of hands is the method of
setting them apart for the work they are prescribed to do

[1] Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets
and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius
of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the
tetrarch, and Saul.
[2] As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
[3] And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them,
they sent them away.

..When the Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom to seal, Peter
already had the authority to act in behalf of God, and was commissioned
in Mt 10:1-8 to preach, heal and cast out devils, etc...but he had
not previously been given the commission to do the specific action of
sealing. 

 So DavidM.no, I do not see that Jesus was giving Peter power in
Mt 16. Peter already had the power to act in behalf of God, but the
keys were a special commission to do a specific act that had not
previously been requested. As I see it, the power to act in behalf of
God was given upon their (Peter and the other apostles) ordination.

Therefore, what we are seeing here is insight from Jesus into how
authority is conferred upon a person. It comes from the faith of the
believer.
DAVEH: That seem illogical. If the faith of a believer is all that is
needed to gain the authority to act in God's behalf, then do you
recognize the faith of the believers of the RCC? Orhow about the
faith of the believers in Mormonism?

The confession of faith is what brought Simon authority, causing his
name to be changed to Peter (meaning rock), and giving him the keys to
the kingdom of heaven. Every believer receives the keys of the kingdom
of heaven when he steps into this realm of faith. After all, the
promise of the kingdom was not made to one person, but to many. 

DAVEH: Ohh..that's an interesting insight, DavidM. Now I'm
beginning to see why you believe as you do. However, it seems
illogical to me for you to draw that conclusion due to the apostles
previous receipt of the power of God as described at the time Jesus
ordained them. Don't you believe that the apostles already had the
power of God prior to Jesus giving Peter the keys in Mt 16? IF your
scenario is correct, Jesus would not have had to give Peter the
authority in the first placeit would have been automatic due to
Peter's belief. Yet Jesus obviously gave something to Peter at that
time due to his belief. Logically, my assertion that it was a special
commission (keys) makes more sense. ButI do have my LDS bias that
reinforces that notion. I just fail to see how you would build your
case on such a passage. Are there other passages that support your
perspective?

The entire church is to inherit the keys to the

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know




David Miller wrote:


DAVEH:

Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity 
with RCC doctrines?



There is no doubt that tradition is a powerful force, even among those 
who break away from what they consider to be bad tradition.  
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the Reformers believed the 
Trinity because of their own studies on the subject.


DAVEH:   For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC 
affiliation stretches the imagination.  As I see it, their break with 
the RCC was based on their differences of opinion.  If they had studied 
the TD and not found it distasteful to their beliefs, then there would 
be no reason to break from that tradition.




DaveH wrote:

IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers 
would have taken it as their own doctrine?



Just consider that John Calvin's primary contention against Michael 
Servetus was the doctrine of the Trinity.  Calvin considered anyone 
who taught against the Trinity to be a heretic who deserved to be 
burned at the stake.


DAVEH:  An interestingif not harshChristian attitude!

Read his own arguments against Servetus's sebellianism and you cannot 
possibly think that he simply adopted the Trinity because of 
tradition. Calvin clearly studied it for himself.


DAVEH:  I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance 
of it does not change its nature.which as I see it was a politically 
motivated doctrine of obfuscation.  I would not be surprised if Calvin 
felt the need to retain it for the same reason.  From his perspective, 
anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious 
foundation.




DaveH wrote:

BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons 
believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would 
have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.



Good point.  I have made the case many times in this forum that from a 
historical point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant 
Christianity. 


DAVEH:  Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see 
why you would think the theology did likewise.  There were doctrines 
(TD, infant baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity 
that the RCC adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted.  I 
don't see any of that in Mormonism.do you?  I'm perhaps too close to 
LDS theology to see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it.


The interesting thing is that you consider Mormonism to be a 
restoration of primitive Christianity, while many of us view Mormonism 
as an extreme furtherance of the apostasy.


Peace be with you.
David Miller.



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures

DAVEH: Where do you find one substance in the Bible,
Kevin?

 As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in
Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the
theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is
doctrinally correct.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I believe the Reformers tried to rely on the scripture alone as
best they could. 
  I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures so I
have no problem with one even discovering it purely from a reading of
the scriptures Alone! SOLA SCRIPTURA! NO Church authority or Pope or
Tradition or Prophet required!
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their 
familiarity with RCC doctrines? IOW, had the RCC folks not been using 
it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own
doctrine?

BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons 
believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have

been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.

David Miller wrote:

 Kevin wrote:

 Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe
 the protestants retained from the RCC


 DAVEH:

 Trinity Doctrine


 Why should this be surprising to you? The Trinity Doctrine came
about 
 long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other 
 Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some of the LDS
leaders in 
 the early days of the LDS.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: That seems to support my assumption that (modern day) Baptists
are Protestants, as I read it. Do you disagree, DavidM??? If so,
what baptist groups can you point to today that have not descended
from the Protestant Baptists

The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "Protestant" group
baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to
them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters,
or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The
use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to
uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants
of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish,
Hutterites,  Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as
Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were
also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly
Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority
of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing"
in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized
by some mode other than immersion. Christian church historians
generally believe that there is no historical continuity between
anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later
anabaptist groups.

.considering the last line of this paragraph?

David Miller wrote:
DAVEH:
  
  I was under the impression that Baptists
are Protestants.

Here's a WIKI definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

  
  
Perhaps the following paragraph describes Kevin's perspective:
  
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist
  
  
Apostolic succession
  
Another popular theory is that the 16th century Anabaptists were part
of an apostolic succession of churches (or church perpetuity) from the
time of Christ. According to this idea there had been a continuity of
small groups outside the Catholic Church from A.D. 30 to 1525 (which
continues also to the present). Proponents of this view point out many
common expressions of belief in these Catholic dissenters. The
opponents of this theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups
differed from each other, that they held some heretical views, and/or
that they had no connection with one another. This view is held by some
Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.
The writings of John T. Christian, New Orleans Baptist Theological
Seminary professor, contain perhaps the best scholarly presentation of
this successionist view. Somewhat related to this is that the
Anabaptists are of Waldensian origin. Some hold the idea that the
Waldenses are part of the apostolic succession, while others simply
believe they were an independent group out of whom the Anabaptists
arose. Estep asserts "the Waldenses disappeared in Switzerland a
century before the rise of the Anabaptist movement." Ludwig Keller,
Thomas M. Lindsay, H. C. Vedder, Delbert Grtz, and Thieleman van
Braght all held, in varying degrees, the position that the Anabaptists
were of Waldensian origin.
  
  
  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided,
Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from
WIKI

The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "Protestant"
group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come
to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical"
dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno
Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply
claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the
descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the
Amish, Hutterites,  Mennonites) are the most common bodies
referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English
Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and
are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term.
The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider
"rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who
were baptized by some mode other than immersion. Christian church
historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity
between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and
later anabaptist groups.

..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are
Protestants.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Some folks claim baptists come from Holland and Roger Williams,
but as I have shown quotes by even enemies of baptists that date them
to before the reformation, it can not be so.
  
  So who was the founder of the baptists?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Then why are they defined as Protestants? When did they first take on
an identity?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Of course they are not protestants they existed before the
protestant movement.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a
WIKI definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

.Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Would you say Baptists have a significant number?
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the
protestantsand therefore can not by any definition be considered
"protestant"
  AnaBaptists
  Waldensians
  Montanists
  
  Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The
RCC came along generations later.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which
non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you leave out a very important piece of
the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the
equation.
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! 

 I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy
that affected the entire Church.

 It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they
never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted
(such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism)
the doctrinal principles of the RCC.

 Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly
intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend
to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC
authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the
theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only
the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED?
  And what of those that continued as neither
part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before
the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC?
They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Are
Protestants, Christians?

DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants
because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC
level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC
fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better
word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and
is the focal point of my participation in TT.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace
their roots to the Rev Wm Screven

The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery,
Maine by the Rev. William Screven.

..according to...

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm

assuming the above website is correct.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when
they did not exist?
  
  
  As far as the Baptists:
  
  200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council
of Trent: 
  "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and
cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would
swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters,
Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 
  
  The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the
Reformation and the Protestants!
  
  Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known
Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." 
  
  Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther
and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe
persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch
Baptists." 
  
  Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have
already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of
Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this
seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian
to the present time." 
  
  Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death
of the Apostle John!
  
  Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who
founded them.
  Ask a Methodist, John Wesley
  Ask a Mormon Joe Smith
  Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope"
  Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther
  Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL
  Who founded the baptist church?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  What
ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going
all the way back to John the Baptist?

DAVEH: Can that be done?

 You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they
lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do
you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I don't accept fairy tales.
  
  What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the
Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would
need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. 
  As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is
absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the
authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the
authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical
apostles) died?

 The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed
down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them
all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I
am curious why you would not accept it though?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory
holds water after seeing these facts.
  
  Where was the break in authority DH?
  Who was the last group to Hold it?
  
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Kevin
wrote:
 Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD.
 The RCC came along generations later.

CD wrote:
 Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad.

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when
it 
split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it 
splintered into the various Protestant groups.

Peace be with you.
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-03 Thread Kevin Deegan

DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
Where they the one true church but Apostacized?
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-03 Thread knpraise


Thechurch was never "right" based on its collective understanding of the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the like.They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those who believed. 

JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know



DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
Where they the one true church but Apostacized?


Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-03 Thread Kevin Deegan


Thanks DH!


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The church was never right based on its collective understanding of
 the Message.   In the First Church,  the population was Jewish and
 the expression of their corporate activity combined the continuation
 of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the
 Message of Christ.   They continued to offer sacrifice,  give
 attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the
 like.  They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for
 righteousness to those who believed.   
  
 JD 
  
 -Original Message-
 From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
 
 
 DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
 Where they the one true church but Apostacized?
 
 
 
 
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-03 Thread knpraise


Thank Paul and Luke. I got most of my info from them.

JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:52:59 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know



Thanks DH!


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of
 the Message.   In the First Church,  the population was Jewish and
 the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation
 of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the
 Message of Christ.   They continued to offer sacrifice,  give
 attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the
 like.  They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for
 righteousness to those who believed.   
  
 JD 
  
 -Original Message-
 From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
 
 
 DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it?
 Where they the one true church but Apostacized?
 
 
 
 
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--
"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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-01 Thread Kevin Deegan

It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity

Thye following Standard Work shows the Trinity and that there is ONE God. (Nowhere in the BoM or anywhere else does it say "One in purpose"

Mosiah 15:1,5 I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men,...
And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God
(Notice the contrast of Son-Flesh Father - Spirit)

Alma 11:28-29 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.

Alma 11:44 every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The Father is a Spirit!
Alma 18:2 Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders?
Alma 18:24-29And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea

22:8-11 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words.

More available upon request.

Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave wrote: BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it [the Trinity], as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity...I understand that the Trinity was taught in official church educational materials. In the front of the Bom, there is a statement that affirms the Trinity (unless it has been changed since I got my version!) Unless I am mistaken they distinctly state that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God. That sure sounds like the Trinity to me!Perry--"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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-01 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Thanks for the extensive demonstration of my point, Kevin. Looks to me like 
the mormons, at least according to the Bom, are Trinitarians. Or were. 
When do you think the mormon apostasy occured and they began to deny the 
Trinity? I guess that makes mormons today apostate in their own religion. 
That is an intersting situation.


Perry



From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 05:14:07 -0800 (PST)


It was not a matter of a few biased people believing in the Trinity



Thye following Standard Work shows the Trinity and that there is ONE God. 
(Nowhere in the BoM or anywhere else does it say One in purpose




Mosiah 15:1,5 I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come 
down among the children of men,...


And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the 
Father, being one God


(Notice the contrast of Son-Flesh Father - Spirit)



Alma 11:28-29 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he 
answered, No.




Alma 11:44 every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is 
now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar 
of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one 
Eternal God




2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and 
there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be 
saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of 
Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.




The Father is a Spirit!

Alma 18:2 Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great 
punishments upon this people, because of their murders?



Alma 18:24-29And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto 
him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto 
him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou 
that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is 
God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, 
who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he 
said: Yea




22:8-11 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he 
said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. And the 
king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the 
land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, 
and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? 
And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I 
desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will 
believe thy words.




More available upon request.



Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave wrote:

 BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons
believed it [the Trinity], as most of them came from Protestant stock, 
and

would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.

It was not a matter of a few biased people believing in the Trinity...I
understand that the Trinity was taught in official church educational
materials. In the front of the Bom, there is a statement that affirms the
Trinity (unless it has been changed since I got my version!) Unless I am
mistaken they distinctly state that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one
God. That sure sounds like the Trinity to me!

Perry


--
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.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-01 Thread Kevin Deegan

All of the doctrines of the Church are demonstratably Evolutionary.
That is why the 1830 BoM does not even include most of the unique doctrines held today. Very interesting is the development of the priesthood doctrine. We have testimony outside of the standard works http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htmshowing it was not brought into the church until around 1832
"This matter of 'Priesthood,' since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church--until Sydney Rigdon's days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their heartsaccording to the desires of the heart, the inspiration comes, but it may be the spirit of man that gives it This is the way the High Priests and the
'priesthood' as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning--and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer p. 64)
SO
The Book of Commandments being 1833 HAS NOT ONE Priesthood Revelation even though they supposedly happened years earlier!
Revelations that were recieved in 1830 did not appear until the 1835 DC

"I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James, and John's visit and ordination till I was told some year afterward in Ohio." Apostle William E. McLellin

A much more believable understanding would be that the revelations were created at a later date and inserted into the record. We have testimony to that fact in these two places.
1) One only need compare some Revelations, that are in the BC to those same ones in the DC to see the books have been cooked!
2) "You have CHANGED THE REVELATIONS from the way they were first given and as they are today in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, p. 49) NOTE check the revelation that says joe was only given the power to translate in the BC that one had to be fixed real quick.

"The important details that are missing from the 'full history' of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. The student would expect to find all the particulars of the Restoration in this first treasured set of 65 revelations, the dates of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent... The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants before referred to, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years. More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of August, 1829 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the additions made to include the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph's apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchezedek Priesthood, High Priesthood,
Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68." (Problems in Mormon Text, by La Mar Petersen, pp. 7-8) Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the extensive demonstration of my point, Kevin. Looks to me like the mormons, at least according to the Bom, are Trinitarians. Or "were". When do you think the mormon apostasy occured and they began to deny the Trinity? I guess that makes mormons today apostate in their own religion. That is an intersting situation.PerryFrom: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring min

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-10-31 Thread Dean Moore



cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter
s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASVis a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helpsus understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that weunderstand moreabout ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used.The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS)as you did with Strong's on Isaiah-b
ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give usa versionthat uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water andI would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to whatI am saying.Thank bro.




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know


In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"!


Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions
The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. 

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Temple CHANT "PAY LAY ALE". http://www.singlesaints.com/lds-single-forum/4831 The hebrew 'pale' means 'marvelous', and the word 'ale' means 'true god or false god.' Lucifer is the god of this world (statement in Temple Ceremony - LUCIFER: I am the god of this world.) and the only god with whom the LDS have to do. It is important to note that when the CHANT is performed it is LUCIFER not God that answers the LDS worshipful who stand making secret (occult) signs and gestures, while wearing the fig leaf aprons! Remember also the LDS make the SURE SIGN of the NAIL! The Rock group NIN make sure you get the point of the Nine Inch Nails! Lyrics to RINGFINGER: "you just left me nailed here. hanging like Jesus on the cross." Anton LaVey, author of 
THE SATANIC BIBLE and head of the Church of Satan prophesied that someday soon Satan would raise up churches with the sign of Satan on their spires instead of the sign of the Cross. http://2thin

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Of course they are not protestants they existed before the protestant movement.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a WIKI definitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist.Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote:

Would you say Baptists have a significant number?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?Kevin Deegan wrote:

There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestantsand therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant"
AnaBaptists
Waldensians
Montanists

Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote:

Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy that affected the entire Church. It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted (such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism) the doctrinal principles of the RCC. Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved.Kevin Deegan wrote:

So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED?
And what of those that continued as neither part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC?They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are Protestants, Christians?DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and is the focal point of my participation in TT.Kevin Deegan wrote:

Why do you draw a line between Protestants and LDS?
Are Protestants, Christians?
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

I don't accept fairy tales.

I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts.

Where was the break in authority DH?
Who was the last group to Hold it?
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote: Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later.CD wrote: Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad.Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when it split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it splintered into the various Protestant groups.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"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.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

If it is morning star then it atributes a fall to the morning star who is Christ.
That is a serious error and Blasphemy.
There is absolutely NO "STAR" in the verse Helel is not star,"kokhav"the word forstaris not in there.

Ok there is a lot of data here. I was trying to show that the great Deciever has had his hand in the insertion of Morning star. He claims this as his title, to pass himself off as the white horse rider. I showed every different angle  occult group which believe this junk.
Anyway the use of Morning star in Is 14 is an out out ERROR. That is demonstratable. Helel is "shining one" not Star! Close no cigar. The additional info is to show a Satanic influence on any bible that inserts Morning or day star in the verse!

As far as the other stuff there are lots of questions and lots of replies will be required. let's take it slow. Can't answwer it all in one post unlessI post a whole books worth.
Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the
 word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASVis a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helpsus understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that weunderstand moreabout ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used.The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and
 compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS)as you did with Strong's on Isaiah-b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give usa versionthat uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water andI would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to whatI am saying.Thank bro.




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know


In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"!


Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions
The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. 

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





What ifI gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church
going all the way back to John the Baptist?

DAVEH: Can that be done?

 You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they
lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do
you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I don't accept fairy tales.
  
  What ifI gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist
church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to
have a history of that Church to go along with the names. 
  As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no
history that the RCC can point to.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the
authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the
authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical
apostles) died?

 The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed
down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them
all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I
am curious why you would not accept it though?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory
holds water after seeing these facts.
  
  Where was the break in authority DH?
  Who was the last group to Hold it?
  
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Kevin
wrote:
 Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD.
 The RCC came along generations later.

CD wrote:
 Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad.

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when
it 
split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it 
splintered into the various Protestant groups.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





DAVEH: Then why are they defined as Protestants? When did they
first take on an identity?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Of course they are not protestants they existed before the
protestant movement.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a
WIKI definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

.Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Would you say Baptists have a significant number?
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the
protestantsand therefore can not by any definition be considered
"protestant"
  AnaBaptists
  Waldensians
  Montanists
  
  Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC
came along generations later.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which
non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the
puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation.
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! 

 I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy
that affected the entire Church.

 It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they
never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted
(such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism)
the doctrinal principles of the RCC.

 Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly
intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend
to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC
authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the
theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the
RCC not the Protestants who ERRED?
  And what of those that continued as neither part
of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the
protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC?
They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Are
Protestants, Christians?

DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants
because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC
level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC
fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better
word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and
is the focal point of my participation in TT.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Why do you draw a line between Protestants
and LDS?
  Are Protestants, Christians?
  

  

  

  

  
  


  
  
   
   
   

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

DAVEH:   Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their 
familiarity with RCC doctrines?   IOW, had the RCC folks not been using 
it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine?


   BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons 
believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have 
been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.


David Miller wrote:


Kevin wrote:


Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe
the protestants retained from the RCC




DAVEH:


Trinity Doctrine



Why should this be surprising to you?  The Trinity Doctrine came about 
long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other 
Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some of the LDS leaders in 
the early days of the LDS.


Peace be with you.
David Miller.



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


DAVEH:   Do you acknowledge that the shoe could be on the other foot?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:


And, Dave, what if that indeed is so!

*what if Dave is deceived and is indeed paying homage to Satan 
without knowing it*


DAVEH:   Perhaps that is why it's futile to discuss LDS theology with 
anti-Mormons.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Lance, *what if Dave is deceived and is indeed paying homage to 
Satan without knowing it*. Will you stand by and do nothing? At this 
moment in my life I cannot do that.




--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


CD wrote:

... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back
to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought
under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national
movement under the proceding Emperors?


All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.  The 
Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period.  The truth is that 
Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of 
Christianity, did not exist back then.  At that time when many of the 
Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, 
there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the 
large cities they oversaw.  The bishop of Rome was considered to have 
primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire.  However, the 
meaning of primacy to the bishops of that time is not the same as what 
Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope.  In fact, in 381, a canon was 
decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of 
Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome.  This 
was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to 
Constantinople.  In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split 
into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome.  A lot of 
interesting history if you dig into it deeper.  There was even a short time 
when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at 
once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne.


The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and 
this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than 
with Roman Catholicism.  The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no 
resemblance to Constantine's banner.


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


Kevin wrote:

Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle ages?


Do you have some particular group in mind? 


Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?

The "twelve hundred years" wereyears PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants!
Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!

I don't accept fairy tales.

I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Some folks claim baptists come from Holland and Roger Williams, but as I have shown quotes by even enemies of baptists that date them to before the reformation, it can not be so.

So who was the founder of the baptists?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Then why are they defined as Protestants? When did they first take on an identity?Kevin Deegan wrote:

Would you say Baptists have a significant number?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?Kevin Deegan wrote:

There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestantsand therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant"
AnaBaptists
Waldensians
Montanists

Why do you draw a line between Protestants and LDS?
Are Protestants, Christians?

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

I believe the Reformers tried to rely on the scripture alone as best they could.
I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures so I have no problem with one even discovering it purely from a reading of the scriptures Alone! SOLA SCRIPTURA! NO Church authority or Pope or Tradition or Prophet required!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine?BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.David Miller wrote: Kevin wrote: Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe the protestants retained from the RCC DAVEH: Trinity Doctrine Why should this be surprising to you? The Trinity Doctrine came about long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some
of the LDS leaders in the early days of the LDS. Peace be with you. David Miller.-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Thanks DM I hope this clarifies some things AFA the RCC,for DH
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors?All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the
bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's
banner.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Do you have some particular group in mind?
No particular group other than the RCC was trying to exterminate those that disagreed with RCC doctrine practice. Those being primarily the continuous line of True Believers down thru time. These were folks who could have just said OK whatever you say to the RCC and walked away.Instead they Stood on their beliefs till the death! The true Church of Jesus Christ left a TRAIL OF BLOOD just as the OT Jew had a Bloodline to follow!

If you are familiar with the layout of the Jewish scriptures, you will see the Bloodline starts in the first book ends in the last! This is the Bloodline of the correct scriptures correct believers, outlined by Christ.
MT That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

So too their is a Bloodline from righteous Stephen till

Hell itself can not prevail against the church of Christ!
I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Church exists thru out all ages:
Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote: Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle ages?Do you have some particular group in mind? Peace be with you.David Miller.--"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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know




Prior to the beginning of the Middle Ages (~500A.D.), can you give me 
any specific example of the "RCC" trying to exterminate those who disagreed with 
"RCC" doctrine and practice?

The Arian versus Trinity controversy could be considered perhaps one of the 
tensions of the fourth century that you have in mind, but even in this, 
banishment rather than extermination seemed to be the tool. Furthermore, 
this was not "Roman Catholic" but a problem for all the churches, both 
forthe most ancient churches of the East and for the newerchurches 
ofthe West.

You mention the bloodline from Stephen, but that came not from the "RCC" 
but from those outside the church. Who killed Stephen? Who killed 
James? Who killed Peter and Paul? Not the RCC.

Peace be with you.David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:42 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  Do you have some particular group in mind? 
  
  No particular group other than the RCC was trying to exterminate those 
  that disagreed with RCC doctrine  practice. Those being primarily the 
  continuous line of True Believers down thru time. These were folks who could 
  have just said OK whatever you say to the RCC and walked away.Instead 
  they Stood on their beliefs till the death! The true Church of Jesus Christ 
  left a TRAIL OF BLOOD just as the OT Jew had a Bloodline to follow!
  
  If you are familiar with the layout of the Jewish scriptures, you will 
  see the Bloodline starts in the first book ends in the last! This is the 
  Bloodline of the correct scriptures  correct believers, outlined by 
  Christ.
  MT That upon you may come all the righteous 
  blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of 
  Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the 
  altar.
  
  So too their is a Bloodline from righteous Stephen till 
  
  
  Hell itself can not prevail against the church of 
  Christ!
  I will build my church; and the gates of hell 
  shall not prevail against it.
  Church exists thru out all ages:
  Unto him [be] glory in the church by 
  Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. 
  Amen
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  Kevin 
wrote: Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle 
ages?Do you have some particular group in mind? Peace be 
with you.David Miller.--"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.
  
  
  Yahoo! 
  FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


DAVEH:
Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with 
RCC doctrines?


There is no doubt that tradition is a powerful force, even among those who 
break away from what they consider to be bad tradition.  Nevertheless, there 
is evidence that the Reformers believed the Trinity because of their own 
studies on the subject.


DaveH wrote:
IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would 
have taken it as their own doctrine?


Just consider that John Calvin's primary contention against Michael Servetus 
was the doctrine of the Trinity.  Calvin considered anyone who taught 
against the Trinity to be a heretic who deserved to be burned at the stake. 
Read his own arguments against Servetus's sebellianism and you cannot 
possibly think that he simply adopted the Trinity because of tradition. 
Calvin clearly studied it for himself.


DaveH wrote:
BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed 
it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed 
(and biased) in Protestant doctrines.


Good point.  I have made the case many times in this forum that from a 
historical point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. 
The interesting thing is that you consider Mormonism to be a restoration of 
primitive Christianity, while many of us view Mormonism as an extreme 
furtherance of the apostasy.


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know


DAVEH:

Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess
the authority of God?  Do you know of any who you are
certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who
lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died?


I think St. Martin might be a proper example, but rather than get bogged 
down in names and history, how about we simply examine the Biblical basis 
for authority.


We find Jesus conferring authority in the following passage:

Matthew 16:15-19
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God.
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: 
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is 
in heaven.
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever 
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Now Peter had already been given authority prior to this event (see Matthew 
10:1).  Therefore, what we are seeing here is insight from Jesus into how 
authority is conferred upon a person.  It comes from the faith of the 
believer.  The confession of faith is what brought Simon authority, causing 
his name to be changed to Peter (meaning rock), and giving him the keys to 
the kingdom of heaven.  Every believer receives the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven when he steps into this realm of faith.  After all, the promise of 
the kingdom was not made to one person, but to many.  The entire church is 
to inherit the keys to the kingdom of heaven.


Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know