Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Slade (actually, Kay) Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6.. A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them into Bible. DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally come to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like Kay) ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my explanations...but is that a problem for you? There are many other such prooftexts, like baptism for the dead, the two sticks of ezekiel representing the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and "another flock" representing the hebrews that descended from those who migrated to America just after the tower of Babyl fell. All prooftexts. DAVEH: You say that as though it is a crime, Perry. I've got the feeling I could copy and paste the whole Bible to this post and you would consider it prooftexting. :-) That's OK though. If anybody asks me a question regarding my beliefs, I'll continue quoting Biblical passages I feel pertain to my beliefs. If you want to counter each with a prooftexting complaint, that's OK.I understand your need to undermine my comments. Though I would prefer you respond with a contrasting explanation of your perspective. I think that would benefit all of us more than simply crying...prooftextevery time I post a Bible passage and my understanding of it. After allyou really don't want me to quit responding to questions, do you??? :-\ ...Now, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defense *I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.* The term was used correctly here, but the meaning is "those who sit in judgement for God", not gods as in exalted men. DAVEH: Then why did Jesus use that as a defense from those who were claiming he was making himself as God, Perry? (Jn 10:33) Are you suggesting that acting as a judge was blasphemous? Would you explain what was meant by Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. .When I look it up in my (non-LDS) concordance, it says the root of gods is Elohim, which also applies to how it was used in verse 6. When I looked up gods as used by Jesus in Jn 10:34, it says the root is theos, an object of worship. Neither reflects implication of being a judge instead of a deity. Is my concordance dated or incorrect on this, Perry? What am I missing??? Now you've got me wondering, Perry. You quoted. those who sit in judgement for God ...as the intended meaning of gods in vss 1 6..is that correct? What root word(s) do you use to come to that conclusion? Is that something Protestantism concluded to explain an otherwise difficult passage that contradicts the T-Doctrine? The text goes to indicate that these men would still die like men...why would that be so if they were gods? It is because although they were doiong the work of God, were still mere men. Besides, why would they be called gods if they did not become gods (according to the Mormon view) until after they die, DAVEH: Could it be that they were foreordained to be such, much as was the Saviour? IOWhow could he be called the Redeemer before he died? Does that make sense, Perry? and not all do. *Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?* In many instances Jesus, when he was talking to knowledgable Jews, would merely mention a verse from what we call the Old Testament, and that would recall a whole teaching, or what we might call a chapter, to the hearers. DAVEH: When I do such, you call it prooftexting, Perry. Do you think the Lord's detractors thought the same way when he quoted a verse? There are other examples, like "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mat 27:46) as a reference to Psalm 22. Such a reference would bring to mind the whole chapter, or teaching, thus revealing to those who were present and knowledgable the prophecy that was being fulfilled at that moment. This is equivalent to our saying "the
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:11:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, I didn't know that he wasn't a part of mainstream Pentecostals. How many Pentecostal sects are there? As many as Baptists? Or what some would call Messianics? What's the difference between Pentecostals and the Four Square people? Kay The Baptist have the Exclusion Market cornered, I think. There are several kinds of pentecostals -- but the divisions are more matters of degree than fights that end in exclusion and division. You seldom hear of a split with Pentecostals. Oneness holiness types (UPC and such --- United Pentecostal Church) think they are the only ones saved but the rest of us are pretty accepting of the differences. Holiness, prosperity, and the rapture teachings are the things Pentecostals share to one degree or another --- Gifts and Spirit baptism are common to all. Oneness - Jesus only --is not a Pentecostal doctrine but the teaching has it's pentecostal fan base. These folks are not a part of the movement and their numbers are extremely small. Assembly of God, Four Square, and Church of God are your primary denominations, each very accepting of the others. This summer, I will enter a PhD program at an Assembly school. It will be accepted throughout the movement. The movement, if you will, is also heavily influenced by personalities who minister in a para-church type circumstance, different from non- Pentecostal types. The biggest difference I see, an important difference to me, is the belief that God "visits" us in the display of miracles (not as many as we claim but more than most think), the infilling or baptism of the Spirit (same thing) - with or without the evidences of tongues (my wife speaks in tongues, I, as you might expect, do not. When brethren ask if I speak in tongues, I often tell them "Yes, I call it ENGLISH !!! " -- all with a big smile on my rather roughedly handsome face.) , and confimations in prophacy and signs. Sounds wierd, I know, but there is more of a practicality to all of the above than you might suppose -- and many of you on TT have shared/similar experiences but with differing descriptions or by different names. A most memorable visitation/confirmation was the day I decided that water baptism did not save (in a unique and universal way). I had been dealing with the matter, just me myself and the Devil's Advocate (me again). I was at the Berean Bookstore, took the afternoon off to make this decision. I was lead to Gals 3:26,27 - a big big passage for us baptism types "know ye not that as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ?" While reading this passage, I came to the rather startled decision that this passage was not talking about "water baptism" at all. Rather, it was talking about IMMERSION INTO CHRIST HIMSELF. I am not one who deserts his faith.no matter what. But suddenly, there it was - something in my mind, a thought, that was pusing me away from the water -- forcing me to change a very significant belief. If that highlighted "translation" were true, IMMERSION INTO CHRIST HIMSELF, then Paul was not speaking of salvation in terms of a historic event so much as he was speaking of conduct that could only be described as an immersion into the Son. Wow !! I was afraid to accept this very different understanding. Afraid I was about to do harm to the gospel message itself. I got up and began just wondering around the book store -- totally focused on this discision about to be made (some would call this "prayer.") No one to talk to. No help. Just me and my poor old dumb self. I rounded the end of one of the book racks and started down yet another aisle. I looked to my left -- a long rack of books for sale. Sitting face out, on the top shelf was a little book - the title: "The practice of the presence of the Lord" by "brother Lawrence." For "some reason,'' I went over and took the book in hand. On the back cover were these words shouting at me as if it were the voice of God Himself : "Brother Lawrence was a man of humble beginnings who discovered the greatest secret of living in the Kingdom of God here on earth. It is the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not end.'" If that is not the same as "know ye not that as many of you as have been immersed into Christ himself have put on Christ," then I do not know how to read. Anyway, it was the same to me. A visitation. Not too weird? That is my word for such events. I like the sound. It is my way of admitting that God has a personal interest in me and that, at times, He pays me a visit - even finds ways of talking to me. One of my kids ask me, one day, "Dad, how come God doesn't just talk to us like -- you know, normal?" My answer - "because the still small voice does not run the risk of SACRING THE HELL OUT OF YOU." But He spoke to me that day - never read that little book - put it on my shelf in
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:16:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A mormon prooftext. Actually, some of the brethren at Corinth, perhaps, believed in more than one god but served only one - someone might try reading I Cor 8. John -- Founder and Happy host to the Theology known as Smithism. Thanks Pairy jt: Eating meat sacrificed to idols does not mean the believer deferred to that idol - what are you saying John? Paul is asking more mature believers to abstain from what they enjoy so as not to stumble baby believers. Corinth was a pagan city. I Cor 8:4-7 -- we were talking about "many gods" -- remember? I thought this passage kindof supported DH when he spoke of those who believe in other gods. The first church had it believers as well. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:55:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What a Judgemental Pious Gasbag!
Would you attack Satan for his beliefs?
How about Bin Laden?
So who made you the authority for truth? ("I say they are decieved and lying")
The little fat guy is smilen large "pious gasbag" This is a great phrase for clubbing folks to death.. Better than S.O.B. and the like.
Glad you're back. Truth salute and all that.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:54:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: A.Golly John, I'm not sure what to say...To remain in character, I suppose I should RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.. :-D How do you spell "two shay ?" JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:55:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is God's job. Are you filling in? 1 Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts 1 Sam 16:7 for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:51:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. Might try reading my post in total. I said "I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences .. and leave the judgments to God. Did I not speak clearly?
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/10/2005 8:39:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Unscriptural John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? John: Interesting scripture, Judy. Our names are in that book from the beginning. Wow. I had forgotten this passage. Do you see God erasing some of these names? I don't. jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus 32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the one who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of life (Rev 3:5). So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s - oh, never mind ! JD
Re: [TruthTalk] A Prophetic Word from David Miller
I'll find it and send it to ya John. It was DM speaking of himself. Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Prophetic Word from David Miller In a message dated 1/10/2005 5:01:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are who we are. Jesus told me that those whoreceive me receive him, and those who reject me reject him. Therefore, Ileave it all in the hands of my Lord.Peace be with you.David Miller.What's this? I missed this post. Is this David talking about David or some paraphrase from the bible?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Now, I don't know Kevin, but his response just shows again why I do not care for street preachers of any denomination or religion! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 22:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated. Thanks, Terry -- 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. -- 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] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:49:40 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. jt: Not my "teaching" John it is in the Book and the really important thing should be what God says even if it does conflict with your ontological model. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s- oh, never mind ! JD jt: Oh, I see. We are back to this is just my interpretation and I can't know anything because of my "enlightenment thinking?" Please yourself John. It's your future. I knew you (and the triad) wouldn't want "overcoming" on the front burner since the theological theories are so much easier. judyt __jt: Unscriptural John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? John: Interesting scripture, Judy. Our names are in that book from the beginning. Wow. I had forgotten this passage. Do you see God erasing some of these names? I don't. jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus 32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the one who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of life (Rev 3:5). So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s - oh, never mind !JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I have been contemplating lately whether I need to broaden my own definition of "Christian" -- you know with the Trinity debate and all. I'm pretty sure of this much, DaveH: you're not alone :) Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Congrats to Key. I do not mind hearing what DaveH has to say. We have been told t\more than once that affliliation does not have a requirement as far as TruthTalk is concerned. David Miller, a few weeks ago, wrote words to the effect that DaveH was THE model participants. He (Hansen) remains on TT dispite all manner of rudeness, It is as if those who oppose his religious _expression_ of Christ do not care for him. A terrible thing. To object to Hansen's shared views is certainly within the scope of this list -- to present these objections in such a manner as to convey that we do not give a krap about him as a person is beyond the pale. Kay is has not surrendered to this temptation. All of us disagree with the others on very important issues. The gospel message, the Sonship of Christ, the assertion that works have something to do with GETTING us saved are all issues that I find not only unbiblical but contrary to the biblical message. False doctrine. Lies and comments of the Devil. Wow !! At least, that is where I am emotionally. In the end, I regard those with such beliefs as brethren. Dave H has no belief that is more serious to me than those mentioned above. I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. So, while some are busy poppin off about which god I serve, they might look to themselves. Love and respect of the brethren is a text of partnership between God and man - but some on this list, no doubt, will figure out a way to avoid that part of the Message. JD JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. IzzyDAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6..I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most HighNow, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defenseJesus answered them, Is it not
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Now you're asking the right kind of questions! I may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I still owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've got that paper, please post it. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven throughout.This is very true. Allow me to add a thought or more. This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 32 (I just read the thing in less than 2 minutes). 1.) Is this parable about becoming children of God or is it about the joy the father experienced when he has his son safe at home? 2.) This "repentance" we speak of, not found in the text itself, per se, - was it a repentance based upon grief for having sinned against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal to gain acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v v17,18) 3.) Is the father's acceptance shared before or after the "statement of repentance?' If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the father? (v20) 4.) The remaining son -- selfish or not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son accepted or not (v v 31). 6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the right thing, make good decisions -- v 32. How many really mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this family? 1, 2 or 0?Can we say that the father loved both no matter what? Do we suppose that the father wanted his sons to act out in a righteous way? (v 32)Does unconditional love negate a father's concern for right actions on the part of his children?Why are the sons accepted? Their right actions? Or, simply because the father loves them?You read, you decidedPastor Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
So then what is your purpose in looking "to" the heart? How is looking to the heart accomplished? The scripture does not say you can look to the heart as long as you judge not. It says men look on the outward God looks on the heart. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:55:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is God's job. Are you filling in?1 Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts1 Sam 16:7 for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:51:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. Might try reading my post in total. I said "I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences .. and leave the judgments to God. Did I not speak clearly? __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Cool story, John. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:11:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, I didn't know that he wasn't a part of mainstream Pentecostals. How many Pentecostal sects are there? As many as Baptists? Or what some would call Messianics? What's the difference between Pentecostals and the Four Square people? KayThe Baptist have the Exclusion Market cornered, I think. There are several kinds of pentecostals -- but the divisions are more matters of degree than fights that end in exclusion and division. You seldom hear of a split with Pentecostals. Oneness holiness types (UPC and such --- United Pentecostal Church) think they are the only ones saved but the rest of us are pretty accepting of the differences. Holiness, prosperity, and the rapture teachings are the things Pentecostals share to one degree or another --- Gifts and Spirit baptism are common to all. Oneness - Jesus only --is not a Pentecostal doctrine but the teaching has it's pentecostal fan base. These folks are not a part of the movement and their numbers are extremely small. Assembly of God, Four Square, and Church of God are your primary denominations, each very accepting of the others. This summer, I will enter a PhD program at an Assembly school. It will be accepted throughout the movement. The movement, if you will, is also heavily influenced by personalities who minister in a para-church type circumstance, different from non- Pentecostal types. The biggest difference I see, an important difference to me, is the belief that God "visits" us in the display of miracles (not as many as we claim but more than most think), the infilling or baptism of the Spirit (same thing) - with or without the evidences of tongues (my wife speaks in tongues, I, as you might expect, do not. When brethren ask if I speak in tongues, I often tell them "Yes, I call it ENGLISH !!! " -- all with a big smile on my rather roughedly handsome face.) , and confimations in prophacy and signs. Sounds wierd, I know, but there is more of a practicality to all of the above than you might suppose -- and many of you on TT have shared/similar experiences but with differing descriptions or by different names. A most memorable visitation/confirmation was the day I decided that water baptism did not save (in a unique and universal way). I had been dealing with the matter, just me myself and the Devil's Advocate (me again). I was at the Berean Bookstore, took the afternoon off to make this decision. I was lead to Gals 3:26,27 - a big big passage for us baptism types "know ye not that as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ?" While reading this passage, I came to the rather startled decision that this passage was not talking about "water baptism" at all. Rather, it was talking about IMMERSION INTO CHRIST HIMSELF. I am not one who deserts his faith.no matter what. But suddenly, there it was - something in my mind, a thought, that was pusing me away from the water -- forcing me to change a very significant belief. If that highlighted "translation" were true, IMMERSION INTO CHRIST HIMSELF, then Paul was not speaking of salvation in terms of a historic event so much as he was speaking of conduct that could only be described as an immersion into the Son. Wow !! I was afraid to accept this very different understanding. Afraid I was about to do harm to the gospel message itself. I got up and began just wondering around the book store -- totally focused on this discision about to be made (some would call this "prayer.") No one to talk to. No help. Just me and my poor old dumb self. I rounded the end of one of the book racks and started down yet another aisle. I looked to my left -- a long rack of books for sale. Sitting face out, on the top shelf was a little book - the title: "The practice of the presence of the Lord" by "brother Lawrence." For "some reason,'' I went over and took the book in hand. On the back cover were these words shouting at me as if it were the voice of God Himself : "Brother Lawrence was a man of humble beginnings who discovered the greatest secret of living in the Kingdom of God here on earth. It is the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not end.'" If that is not the same as "know ye not that as many of you as have been immersed into Christ himself have put on Christ," then I do not know how to read. Anyway, it was the same to me. A visitation. Not too
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Sorry, Dave, but we don't celebrate Christmas. The next Holy day coming up is Passoverwould you like to attend our family Seder? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 02.34To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6..I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most HighNow, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defenseJesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?...against those who sought to incriminate him as making himself as God (Jn 10:33). So, yesI believe the Bible supports that there are multiple Gods, but because of the propensity of the Israelites to forget the God who brought them salvation, the emphasis was put on their worship of ONE GOD. but you only worship only ONE God? DAVEH: YesOur Heavenly Father. Or LDS believe in multiple gods and YOU personally only worship/believe in one? DAVEH: I/we accept there are many, but I/we worship only one. Do you think the Trinity doctrine is worshipping three Gods? DAVEH: Nonot necessarily. I think the T-Doctrine obfuscates the nature of God so that those who accept the T-Doctrine really don't understand what they do worship. For instance.I believe Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, which the Bible proclaims emphatically. Yet I can't tell you how many times I've found Protestants find it hard to accept that fact. I believe it is because they've become steeped in the T-Doctrine suggestion that God is everywhere, but nowhere and is only in spirit form. When you think of Jesus, Kay, do you think of him as a living being consisting of a spirit clothed with flesh and bone? Do you think that characterization compliments the T-Doctrine, or is it in conflict with it? Kay Slade Henson wrote: All I did was read the definition. As Christian is defined, lots of denominations would be included.Are you saying that Dave believes in multiple gods? DAVEH: Yes.. but I believe we are only to worship one God. IMHO the Bible supports my belief, but a lot of folks have gotten sidetracked by the T-Doctrine. KayWoops...that was me, Dave, not Slade. I forgot to sign it. I would say LDS folks fall under the Christian category. Kay Kay, I find it amazing that you believe that a believer in multiple gods is a Christian. How do you figure? izzy --
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
To the contrary, Judy, I have no problem believing that the names of those who do not reject the Christ will remain unblotted from the Lambs Book of Life. How about if you let me and the triad articulate our own beliefs. When you feel compelled to smear us with caricatures and misrepresentations, just think of how you like it when others do that to you. Then if you want to go ahead and do it, then go ahead and do it. You don't bother me so much anymore;I'll still forgive you. Your friend, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:49:40 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. jt: Not my "teaching" John it is in the Book and the really important thing should be what God says even if it does conflict with your ontological model. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s- oh, never mind ! JD jt: Oh, I see. We are back to this is just my interpretation and I can't know anything because of my "enlightenment thinking?" Please yourself John. It's your future. I knew you (and the triad) wouldn't want "overcoming" on the front burner since the theological theories are so much easier. judyt __jt: Unscriptural John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? John: Interesting scripture, Judy. Our names are in that book from the beginning. Wow. I had forgotten this passage. Do you see God erasing some of these names? I don't. jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus 32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the one who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of life (Rev 3:5). So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s - oh, never mind !JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
He was at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he comes home from work at the normal time. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.19To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Now you're asking the right kind of questions! I may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I still owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've got that paper, please post it. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven throughout.This is very true. Allow me to add a thought or more. This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 32 (I just read the thing in less than 2 minutes). 1.) Is this parable about becoming children of God or is it about the joy the father experienced when he has his son safe at home? 2.) This "repentance" we speak of, not found in the text itself, per se, - was it a repentance based upon grief for having sinned against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal to gain acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v v17,18) 3.) Is the father's acceptance shared before or after the "statement of repentance?' If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the father? (v20) 4.) The remaining son -- selfish or not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son accepted or not (v v 31). 6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the right thing, make good decisions -- v 32. How many really mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this family? 1, 2 or 0?Can we say that the father loved both no matter what? Do we suppose that the father wanted his sons to act out in a righteous way? (v 32)Does unconditional love negate a father's concern for right actions on the part of his children?Why are the sons accepted? Their right actions? Or, simply because the father loves them?You read, you decidedPastor Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] A Prophetic Word from David Miller
It was in answer to one of Slade's questions: Slade wrote: Are you willing to test the mettle of your prophetic gift? David's reply: No, not really. I don't want to tempt God. I take the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness seriously. Satan challenged him on whether or not he really was the son of God. Jesus was tempted to prove himself, but he did not. The Pharisees also asked him for a sign to prove who he was, and Jesus said that an evil and adulterous generation seeks for such signs, but no sign would be given them but the sign of Jonah. If you think that I do not measure up to what a prophet ought to be, that is your decision. What we are in the body of Christ is something we do not have to protect or defend. We are who we are. Jesus told me that those who receive me receive him, and those who reject me reject him. Therefore, I leave it all in the hands of my Lord. Peace be with you. David Miller. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 02.44To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Prophetic Word from David MillerIn a message dated 1/10/2005 5:01:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are who we are. Jesus told me that those whoreceive me receive him, and those who reject me reject him. Therefore, Ileave it all in the hands of my Lord.Peace be with you.David Miller.What's this? I missed this post. Is this David talking about David or some paraphrase from the bible?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Oh I remember those Intensives! I hope he knows he if he's too overwhelmed he does not have to bother. DaveH and I can work through this without him. I just thought it would be nice to read a well-thought-out presentation of the word. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:45 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me He was at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he comes home from work at the normal time. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.19To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Now you're asking the right kind of questions! I may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I still owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've got that paper, please post it. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven throughout.This is very true. Allow me to add a thought or more. This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 32 (I just read the thing in less than 2 minutes). 1.) Is this parable about becoming children of God or is it about the joy the father experienced when he has his son safe at home? 2.) This "repentance" we speak of, not found in the text itself, per se, - was it a repentance based upon grief for having sinned against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal to gain acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v v17,18) 3.) Is the father's acceptance shared before or after the "statement of repentance?' If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the father? (v20) 4.) The remaining son -- selfish or not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son accepted or not (v v 31). 6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the right thing, make good decisions -- v 32. How many really mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this family? 1, 2 or 0?Can we say that the father loved both no matter what? Do we suppose that the father wanted his sons to act out in a righteous way? (v 32)Does unconditional love negate a father's concern for right actions on the part of his children?Why are the sons accepted? Their right actions? Or, simply because the father loves them?You read, you decidedPastor Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of My Son, Ross
Did you know EBAY pulled the Jesus M$M when it was up around $3100.00?? It's back...this time in a sealed container due to it being a food item. Last night it was back up at $51.00 This morning the current bid is at $72.00. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=35825item=6145706524 rd=1 Try this link to see all the Jesus stuff http://search.ebay.com/Jesus-M-M_W0QQsokeywordredirectZ1QQfromZR8QQsatitleZJ esusQ20MQ26M I ate the Jesus MM and Mother of Jesus Virgin Mary Peanut to go with your MM and the Jesus MM Doll that the seller claims that when they tried to upload the photo of the doll, it blurred to a white light. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, 10 January, 2005 02.22 To: TruthTalk Subject: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of My Son, Ross http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=35825item=614538408 4rd=1ssPageName=WDVW -- ~~~ 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. -- 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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Those are pretty hard on everyone. The kids and I are stuck at home the whole time with no car. He leaves by 6 AM for work and doesn't come home until after schoolafter 11 PM. That's why I made him go away with us on the 30th. We spent two nights at a condo, then came back the 1st because he began this class on the 2nd. Last night was the last class. Now I'm making him do another family activity on Saturday because I'm going down to the condo the weekend of the 22nd! --Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.52To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Oh I remember those Intensives! I hope he knows he if he's too overwhelmed he does not have to bother. DaveH and I can work through this without him. I just thought it would be nice to read a well-thought-out presentation of the word. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:45 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me He was at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he comes home from work at the normal time. Kay
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Why would you want to be accepted as a Mormon? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.11To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon?
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
What
is said to the crowd? How is it said? I've met a few street preachers. Am
currently assisting a street preachers attorney. I am also friends with another
attorney who has represented several street preachers.
Kay
-Original Message-From: Kevin
Deegan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 10,
2005 10:54 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
What a Judgemental Pious Gasbag!
Would you attack Satan for his beliefs?
How about Bin Laden?
So who made you the authority for truth? ("I say they are decieved
and lying")
What would you know about Street Preachers?
It is open season on SP's but you pretend to not like "attacking"
seems HYPOCRITICAL
Have you ever opened your mouth in front of a crowd? Even in
Love?Get that beam out.
MT 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam
out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thy brother's eye.
Re: [TruthTalk] Bible as Hate speech - Philly
Here are some audio links about Philly http://www.theheartofthematteronline.com/archive.asp?archiveID=1174Update on Philadelphia Five: Justice Department Source Says U.S. Attorneys Complicit in Arrest of Christians There are a couple of Real audio clips on this sitehttp://www.cwfa.org/radio.asp http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20050105aProsecutors continue to press felony charges against 4 Christian men and one juvenile for their activities at Philadelphias OutFest in October. The group was organized by Repent America, a Philadelphia-based evangelism ministry. Robert Knight, director of CWAs Culture Family Institute, says the Department of Justice (DOJ) should intervene in this case, but there is troubling news from WorldNet Daily that such help may not be offered http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20041221aProsecutors continue to press felony charges against 4 Christian men and one juvenile for their activities at Philadelphias OutFest in October. The group was organized by Repent America, a Philadelphia-based evangelism ministry. Robert Knight, director of CWAs Culture Family Institute, says the Department of Justice (DOJ) should intervene in this case, but there is troubling news from WorldNet Daily that such help may not be offered.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? ==Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position.On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated.Thanks,Terry--"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!? The all-new My Yahoo! Get yours free!
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: I'm not sure why I'm defending Kevin on this, Johnbut he was trying to denigrate Mormonism by taking LDS comments out of context. So the logic of what he said makes sense, even though it is hard for a non-Mormon to follow. What you said below about Christians Baptists really doesn't relate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd -- ~~~ 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] Mormon Related #2
OK! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:08 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/10/2005 8:04:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Um...could we maybe get off the Infinite Recrimination tack? she ventured timidly DebbieJust smile, Deb. It's how the other half lives. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Bible as Hate speech - Philly
I was interviewed on Ralph's show several times. I like him and his daughter. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 09.58To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bible as Hate speech - Philly Here are some audio links about Philly http://www.theheartofthematteronline.com/archive.asp?archiveID=1174Update on Philadelphia Five: Justice Department Source Says U.S. Attorneys Complicit in Arrest of Christians There are a couple of Real audio clips on this sitehttp://www.cwfa.org/radio.asp http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20050105aProsecutors continue to press felony charges against 4 Christian men and one juvenile for their activities at Philadelphias OutFest in October. The group was organized by Repent America, a Philadelphia-based evangelism ministry. Robert Knight, director of CWAs Culture Family Institute, says the Department of Justice (DOJ) should intervene in this case, but there is troubling news from WorldNet Daily that such help may not be offered http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20041221aProsecutors continue to press felony charges against 4 Christian men and one juvenile for their activities at Philadelphias OutFest in October. The group was organized by Repent America, a Philadelphia-based evangelism ministry. Robert Knight, director of CWAs Culture Family Institute, says the Department of Justice (DOJ) should intervene in this case, but there is troubling news from WorldNet Daily that such help may not be offered.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? ==Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position.On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated.Thanks,Terry--"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!?The all-new My Yahoo! Get yours free!
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: Like most words, there is more than one definition of Christian. Some (such as myself) are quite happy thinking of it as encompassing a lot of people who have a faith in Christ or attempt to follow his teachings. This is also typical of most dictionary definitions. On the other hand, some tend to want to take a very narrow view in an effort to exclude others from their club, so to speak. I am rather amused that most of those wishing to adopt a very strict definition are usually unwilling to share that definition. It makes me wonder why they would be reluctant to do so. It could be that they realize they are wrong, and that dictionarys don't exist that support their position. Another possibility is that Christianity is not as exclusionary as they proclaim. IOWAny time they try to define a person out of Christianity, it affects those who are commonly accepted as being Christian, so they don't want to ruffle any friendly feathers. I suppose another possibility is that they are simply unable to write a precise definition that doesn't seem ridiculous to anybody who thinks logically. Can you think of any other ideas, Bill? Bill Taylor wrote: I have been contemplating lately whether I need to broaden my own definition of "Christian" -- you know with the Trinity debate and all. I'm pretty sure of this much, DaveH: you're not alone :) Bill -- ~~~ 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] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH asks for a definition You ask for a definition. DAVEH: YesI'd like to hear a real definition of Christian from both you and Perry, since you both seem so adamant to exclude Mormons from being considered Christian. After reading through all you posted below, I fail to see where you define Christian. Why is that, Kevin? I ofttimes think what you avoid saying speaks more to the topic than what you do post. BTWYes, I do have a copy of Robinson's book (AMC), but have not read it yet. Are there any particular points he made that you wish me to read that would not take too long? James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. The devils believe in God. They are seen in the NT knowing Christ Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know Something is obviously missing. The devils have a head knowledge and probably a good definition since they have even been with Jesus. According to LDS Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks the definition is "Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God." The legion that said "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?" they would qualify as Christians! Anyway Ricks peterson want the definition to be so inclusive and BROAD as to not bar anyone. Yet the Bible tells us MANY are on the BROADway to Destruction Few find the Narrow way to eternal life. MANY will be told "depart from me I never knew you." "Depart from me, ye curse d, into everlasting fire" Rather than get into the definition game (exclusion by definition etc.) Have you read Robinsons book "Are Mormons Christian"? http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/newsletters_articles/aremormonschristians.htm I thought we might see what some of the GENERAL AUTHORITIES say. They can give us authoratative information on Mormonism, we can only hold opinions. SAME OR DIFFERENT WHICH IS IT? "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity." (Brigham Young, Mormonism's Second President,Journal of Discourses 10:230.) If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie - "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail ...Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 513). THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH guess which one you are in: "And he [God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:10, see also 13:6, 14:3, 9; Alma 5:39) WHICH ONE ARE YOU? IN CASE YOU ARE NOT SURE WHO THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL IS: "What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?It is all the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel.It is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini" (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55). "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165). "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (DC 1:30) Each of us has to face the mattereither the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. (President Gordon B. Hinckley. Loyalty, April Conference, 2003. ) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) "I asked the Personages [God the Father and God the Son] who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;..." (Joseph Smith - History 1:18-19, "The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 3) also a pamphlet in use by LDS missionaries "the only organization authorized by the Almighty to
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
John wrote: You apparently teach that Christ was at one time not the Son. It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc. The word son, especially as used in the phrase, Son of Man, is a term that applies to him when he became human flesh. Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the son, he seemed to prefer son of Man to son of God. John wrote: If He existed apart from sonship, this begetting you speak of, is, in effect, a rite of adoption. It is only a role the 2nd Whatever in the Godhead plays to effect the salvation of us all. He was not but now is the son. That is the very essense of adoption. You cannot call it such for biblical reasons but that is the effect of your teaching. Not an entirely unwarranted conclusion -- just something I strongly disagree with. The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's womb. Luke 1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some reason you seem to overlook this miracle Luke 1:35 (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Why would the holy thing born of Mary be called the son of God? Because the Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and created that which was of God within her womb. This was not some adoption! This was a miracle of the Logos becoming flesh, the miracle of God begetting the son of Man. God had now begotten a son among men, something never before done, and it opened the doors of adoption whereby we all can be adopted into his family. David Miller wrote: All of us were adopted because we were born children of Satan, but he was born a child of God from the beginning. Therefore we call him the only begotten son of God. John wrote: Gosh, David, which is it? begotten son means virgin born or is He the child of God (that would make Him son) from the beginning? I was talking about the beginning of his existence in flesh and blood. This was the start of a new relationship, not just of the Logos to the father above as a son, but also a new relationship of God to man, God relating to man through the flesh. From the very first moment he partook of flesh and blood, he was son of God as well as son of man. John wrote: More than simply being confusing, the above seems to equate begetting with the English definition of that word to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth . rather than the definition of monogeno (only begotten) which has to do with uniqueness (Kittle, Arnt/Gengrich). Christ was the only unique son of God. The definition of monogenes has a long history of debate that goes back to the early church fathers. Some of the debate hinges on whether the second half of the word originates from ginomai (to become) which would lend itself toward the translation only existing, or gennao (to beget) which would lend itself toward only begotten. Kittle tends to take an extreme position on defining this word that is propelled by the theological viewpoint of eternal sonship. Not all theologians fully accept this definition. While there is no dispute regarding the concept of uniqueness being communicated, there is some debate over what kind of uniqueness is being communicated. The dictionary of New Testament words by Zodhiates acknowledges the viewpoint that I tend to adopt. Perhaps his wording will better communicate to you the perspective that I tend to accept, which relates his uniqueness to the incarnation, to his being begotten not just of the flesh, but of God. No other man is like Jesus in this way. Jesus is unique. Zodhiates says, ... it is the word logos (3056), Word, which designates His personage within the Godhead. Christ's Sonship expresses an economical relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5). Thus the appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the preincarnate Word. Therefore, monogenes can be held as syn. with the God-Man. Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God. John wrote: That He (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect of who He is, is clear in John 8:54-59 If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to My day and he saw it and was glad The Jews,
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etcfor 15 folks! J) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. Shall I pull out my tiny violin as you tug on our heartstrings? So show up on my doorstep and Ill bake you a cake. Then as you are enjoying that Ill tell you exactly why you need to get saved (as I have done in the past, as you know!) J FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. DaveH, you were on TT ever since I joined up around nine years ago for this very reason, and you STILL dont know what we believe??? (On the other hand, neither do we apparently!) Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. No problem, DaveH, as you are always pleasant (when you arent playing one of us against another.) Izzy In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6.. I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ...Now, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defense Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ...against those who sought to incriminate him as making himself as God (Jn 10:33). So, yesI believe the Bible supports that there are multiple Gods, but because of the propensity of the Israelites to forget the God who brought them salvation, the emphasis was put on their worship of ONE GOD. but you only worship only ONE God? DAVEH: YesOur Heavenly Father. Or LDS believe in multiple gods and YOU personally only worship/believe in one? DAVEH: I/we accept there are many, but I/we worship only one. Do you think the Trinity doctrine is worshipping three Gods? DAVEH: Nonot necessarily. I think the T-Doctrine obfuscates the nature of God so that those who accept the T-Doctrine really don't understand what they do worship. For instance.I believe Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, which the Bible proclaims emphatically. Yet I can't tell you how many times I've found Protestants find it hard to accept that fact. I believe it is because they've become steeped in the T-Doctrine suggestion that God is everywhere, but nowhere and is only in spirit form. When you think of Jesus, Kay, do you think of him as a living being consisting of a spirit clothed with flesh and bone? Do you think that characterization compliments the T-Doctrine, or is it in conflict with it? Kay Slade Henson wrote: All I did was read the definition. As Christian is defined, lots of denominations would be included. Are you saying that Dave believes in multiple gods? DAVEH: Yes.. but I believe we are only to worship one God. IMHO the Bible supports my belief, but a lot of folks have gotten sidetracked by the T-Doctrine. Kay Woops...that was me, Dave, not Slade. I forgot to
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Dave, Have we established that unless I join the LDS Church I can not be saved? Or am I taking these quotes out of context? I do not: exclude by definition exclude by creed ad nauseam For more of this Nauseam read Stephen Robinson's book --- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH asks for a definition You ask for a definition. DAVEH: YesI'd like to hear a real definition of /Christian /from both you and Perry, since you both seem so adamant to exclude Mormons from being considered Christian. After reading through all you posted below, I fail to see where you define /Christian/. Why is that, Kevin? I ofttimes think what you avoid saying speaks more to the topic than what you do post. BTWYes, I do have a copy of Robinson's book (AMC), but have not read it yet. Are there any particular points he made that you wish me to read that would not take too long? James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. The devils believe in God. They are seen in the NT knowing Christ Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know Something is obviously missing. The devils have a head knowledge and probably a good definition since they have even been with Jesus. According to LDS Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks the definition is Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. The legion that said What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? they would qualify as Christians! Anyway Ricks peterson want the definition to be so inclusive and BROAD as to not bar anyone. Yet the Bible tells us MANY are on the BROADway to Destruction Few find the Narrow way to eternal life. MANY will be told depart from me I never knew you. Depart from me, ye curse d, into everlasting fire Rather than get into the definition game (exclusion by definition etc.) Have you read Robinsons book Are Mormons Christian? http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/newsletters_articles/aremormonschristians.htm I thought we might see what some of the GENERAL AUTHORITIES say. They can give us authoratative information on Mormonism, we can only hold opinions. SAME OR DIFFERENT WHICH IS IT? Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity. (Brigham Young, Mormonism's Second President,Journal of Discourses 10:230.) If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie - Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail ...Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints. (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 513). THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH guess which one you are in: And he [God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10, see also 13:6, 14:3, 9; Alma 5:39) WHICH ONE ARE YOU? IN CASE YOU ARE NOT SURE WHO THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL IS: What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?...It is all the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospelIt is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55). This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth... (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165). the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth (DC 1:30) Each of us has to face the matter--either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. (President Gordon B. Hinckley. Loyalty, April Conference, 2003. ) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) I asked the Personages [God the Father and God the Son] who stood above me in the light, which of all
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
I got up and began just wondering around the book store -- totally focused on this discision about to be made (some would call this prayer.) No one to talk to. No help. Just me and my poor old dumb self. I rounded the end of one of the book racks and started down yet another aisle. I looked to my left -- a long rack of books for sale. Sitting face out, on the top shelf was a little book - the title: The practice of the presence of the Lord by brother Lawrence. For some reason,'' I went over and took the book in hand. On the back cover were these words shouting at me as if it were the voice of God Himself : Brother Lawrence was a man of humble beginnings who discovered the greatest secret of living in the Kingdom of God here on earth. It is the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not end.' If that is not the same as know ye not that as many of you as have been immersed into Christ himself have put on Christ, then I do not know how to read. Anyway, it was the same to me. A visitation. Not too weird? That is my word for such events. I like the sound. It is my way of admitting that God has a personal interest in me and that, at times, He pays me a visit - even finds ways of talking to me. One of my kids ask me, one day, Dad, how come God doesn't just talk to us like -- you know, normal? My answer - because the still small voice does not run the risk of SACRING THE HELL OUT OF YOU. But He spoke to me that day - never read that little book - put it on my shelf in plan view so I will never forget. Have read the back cover many a time. Nappy time John the Beloved -out!!! John, you should read it. It is probably the most life changing (non-Bible) book I have read in my life. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
John signed off: John -- Founder and Happy host to the Theology known as Smithism. Thanks Pairy I think when Parry used the term Smithism, he was referring to the doctrines of Joseph Smith, not John Smithson. :-) 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] Mormon Related #2
Matthew 10:41 41He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:42 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Now, I don't know Kevin, but his response just shows again why I do not care for street preachers of any denomination or religion! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 22:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated. Thanks, Terry -- 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. -- 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] Children of God?
Bill Taylor wrote: This, I believe, is John's point vis-a-vis Romans 2. A Gentile may live his entire life (especially back then) and never have an occasion to hear the name of Jesus Christ, let alone respond to him in faith; Have you read Tom Wright on Romans 2? Do you depart from Tom Wright's perspective on Romans? Bill Taylor wrote: hence the Gentile's absence of belief does not necessarily have to translate into a rejection of Christ. But the Jews grew up hearing about the coming of Messiah. Theirs was not a question of whether or not they would hear of him; theirs was one of whether they would reject him or receive/believe in him when he came. As with the Jew, so it is for the Gentile: to reject Christ is to lose your salvation. But where the Gentile is not necessarily rejecting Christ if he does not believe in him, this was not so for the Jews. To the Jew to not believe in Jesus was to not receive him, which was to reject him, which is to reject the right to become a child of God. I don't understand your perspective here. It seems to me that the Gentile who does not believe in Christ when Christ is proclaimed to him is rejecting Christ in the same way as the Jew. I certainly can track with you in some way, following the principle of those who are given more, much more is required, but it seems like you are saying that the Gentile who does not believe the gospel preached to him is not actually rejecting Christ. I have trouble with that concept. Am I misunderstanding you? 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] Mormon Related #2
Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Awesome post, David! Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- This passage of John 1:18 also continues the Word made Flesh theme from four verses earlier. The idea is that man hath not seen God, but man has seen the only begotten Son. Why? Because the son of God is a term that refers to the Word made flesh, to Jesus, the Word Incarnate. Men know the son of God because he is flesh, and men can know God only through the declaration of this unique son of God. It seems pretty clear that the phrase son of God refers to the miracle of the incarnation. 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] Many gods?
John wrote: I Cor 8:4-7 -- we were talking about many gods -- remember? I thought this passage kindof supported DH when he spoke of those who believe in other gods. The first church had it believers as well. But 1 Cor. 8 makes it clear that those who perceived that there were other gods were in error. 1 Corinthians 8:4-7 (4) ... there is none other God but one. (5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge... 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] Mormon Related #2
He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ 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 -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ 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 -- 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. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] What is a Christian?
Dave Hansen wrote: ... some tend to want to take a very narrow view in an effort to exclude others from their club, so to speak. I am rather amused that most of those wishing to adopt a very strict definition are usually unwilling to share that definition. It makes me wonder why they would be reluctant to do so. It could be that they realize they are wrong, and that dictionarys don't exist that support their position. ... Any time they try to define a person out of Christianity, it affects those who are commonly accepted as being Christian, so they don't want to ruffle any friendly feathers. I suppose another possibility is that they are simply unable to write a precise definition that doesn't seem ridiculous to anybody who thinks logically. I think all the reasons you have outlined are in play. The same club mentality is what I think overrides everything else. They view a Christian as someone who has eternal life and will spend all eternity with the Lord. The problem is that this definition is not an earthly one, and is somewhat inadequate because it cuts across a core Christian belief that only Jesus is the judge of who is and who is not saved. The only earthly belief we have that distinguishes the one who is saved from one who is not saved is that they believe in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it is apparent that not all who profess faith in Christ really possess it. They might be like the devils who believe but tremble instead of follow, or they might be like those Jews who profess Abraham and God as their father, but they actually have the devil as their father. So ultimately, those who say that Mormons are not Christians are left with using a term that is not able to be defined in concrete, earthly terms. The best they can say is that a Christian is someone who truly follows Jesus Christ, but that itself is difficult to define, so the term Christian becomes meaningless when they use the word. It is not meaningless to them, because they are referring to their personal club of followers, but it is meaningless for everybody else because who is part of that club cannot be defined except on Judgment Day. As you might remember, I have come to view the term Christian to refer to anyone who professes to follow Jesus Christ. I recognize that the term Christian includes those who profess to be disciples of Christ, but who are not. In fact, I would go a step further and say that most of those who are Christians are headed for the judgment of the lake of fire. Therefore, I readily accept Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. However, for historical reasons, I also view Mormonism as a branch of Protestantism. This is objectionable to Mormons, and they have worked successfully to expunge this label from many encyclopedias and textbooks. It seems to me, that if Mormons want the label Christian, they should be honest enough to accept the label Protestant as well. That is your historical background. I realize that you protest not just against Roman Catholicism, but also against Protestants and Protestantism, but such does not exclude you from Protestantism when one examines your sect from a historical perspective. On the other hand, you differ enough from Protestants from a theological perspective, that one might rightly argue from a theological perspective that you are not Protestant. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ 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!? === message truncated === __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! -
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Bill Taylor wrote: LOL, David, be sure to pull out your trusty Encarta the next time you need a theological explanation for a biblical term. LOL. I was very surprised to find the word there. I thought you might find it interesting, and especially looking at its definition, it might help explain difficulty you might have communicating with others when they look up words that they do not recognize. I remembered Judy expressing some questions about what the word kenosis meant. If she read this definition of partial relinquishing of divinity, she might have all the more reason to reject what you are trying to communicate. Bill Taylor wrote: As for me, I'll look to the lexicons when I need a definition and continue to draw my theology from sources a little, shall we say, closer to the mainstream of the Faith was delivered. Feel free to share your definition from such lexicons with us. I looked up many and found five different definitions and explanations that were far too lengthy to reproduce here. I could not determine which of them you would follow in your perspective. I gave the Encarta Dictionary definition without explanation partly in hopes that you might clarify the definition you follow should you differ from this popular definition. 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] What is a Christian?
DaveH Question was Abraham a Christian? __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.14 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find
Re: [TruthTalk] What is a Christian?
DavidM, We have discussed this here before. Do you believe that the jesus and god that LDS teaches are the Jesus and God that the Bible teaches? If so, then say hi to your brother Lucifer, and your once-a-man-now-a-god-from-the-planet-kolob father. If not, then why do you consider them Christians? Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is a Christian? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:05:31 -0500 Dave Hansen wrote: ... some tend to want to take a very narrow view in an effort to exclude others from their club, so to speak. I am rather amused that most of those wishing to adopt a very strict definition are usually unwilling to share that definition. It makes me wonder why they would be reluctant to do so. It could be that they realize they are wrong, and that dictionarys don't exist that support their position. ... Any time they try to define a person out of Christianity, it affects those who are commonly accepted as being Christian, so they don't want to ruffle any friendly feathers. I suppose another possibility is that they are simply unable to write a precise definition that doesn't seem ridiculous to anybody who thinks logically. I think all the reasons you have outlined are in play. The same club mentality is what I think overrides everything else. They view a Christian as someone who has eternal life and will spend all eternity with the Lord. The problem is that this definition is not an earthly one, and is somewhat inadequate because it cuts across a core Christian belief that only Jesus is the judge of who is and who is not saved. The only earthly belief we have that distinguishes the one who is saved from one who is not saved is that they believe in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it is apparent that not all who profess faith in Christ really possess it. They might be like the devils who believe but tremble instead of follow, or they might be like those Jews who profess Abraham and God as their father, but they actually have the devil as their father. So ultimately, those who say that Mormons are not Christians are left with using a term that is not able to be defined in concrete, earthly terms. The best they can say is that a Christian is someone who truly follows Jesus Christ, but that itself is difficult to define, so the term Christian becomes meaningless when they use the word. It is not meaningless to them, because they are referring to their personal club of followers, but it is meaningless for everybody else because who is part of that club cannot be defined except on Judgment Day. As you might remember, I have come to view the term Christian to refer to anyone who professes to follow Jesus Christ. I recognize that the term Christian includes those who profess to be disciples of Christ, but who are not. In fact, I would go a step further and say that most of those who are Christians are headed for the judgment of the lake of fire. Therefore, I readily accept Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. However, for historical reasons, I also view Mormonism as a branch of Protestantism. This is objectionable to Mormons, and they have worked successfully to expunge this label from many encyclopedias and textbooks. It seems to me, that if Mormons want the label Christian, they should be honest enough to accept the label Protestant as well. That is your historical background. I realize that you protest not just against Roman Catholicism, but also against Protestants and Protestantism, but such does not exclude you from Protestantism when one examines your sect from a historical perspective. On the other hand, you differ enough from Protestants from a theological perspective, that one might rightly argue from a theological perspective that you are not Protestant. 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. -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.14 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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] Ye are gods
Dave Hansen wrote: ... discuss why you think Jesus would have offered PS 82:6 as a defense against those who were accusing him of equating himself with God? John 10:31-39 (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (37) If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. (38) But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (39) Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand. Psalms 82:6-7 (6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. From my perspective, Jesus was addressing primarily the syntax which was at the heart of the charge against him. The Scriptures refer to these individuals as gods (Elohim) and children of the most High (ben elyon). His point was not that these truly were gods, but rather that if the Scriptures would use such loaded language, not just calling them children of the Most High, but also Elohim, then why should they object to his language of son of God? In other words, if they were going to accuse him of blasphemy based upon his phrase son of God, then they would have to charge the Scriptures (which cannot be broken) with blasphemy because it uses even stronger language concerning those called to be representatives of God. Interestingly, this passage he is quoting speaks of judgment against these who were gods. It speaks of their injustices, that while it was declared to them, ye are gods, all of you children of the Most High, they would die like men because they had judged unjustly and accepted the persons of the wicked. Perhaps a secondary meaning that might be conveyed here is, lighten up... God will judge me along with these in Psalm 82 who were called to a similar role if my actions do not line up with my speech. His primary meaning was the error of thinking that his syntax alone (son of God) constituted blasphemy, but perhaps this secondary meaning might register with some. 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] Mormon Related #2
Hes had it before. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Maybe he's slow or forgot...he did say he was getting up there in age. Alzheimer's? I would think it would only take a few seconds to give it to him again. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.58To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Hes had it before. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Kay And spiders dont mind fellowshipping with flies, either. J Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) We are not talking fellowship, we are talking NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE LDS CHURCH That is Pretty EXCLUSIVE Groups that claim to be O.T.C. (ONE TRUE CHURCH) JW's Mormons Roman Catholic (Refernces on request) Kay contends: Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Please provide One Quote from a sect or Church Authority claiming to be the O.T.C. Baptist? Methodist? Prebyterian? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
LOL : ) Good one, IZZY --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Kay And spiders don't mind fellowshipping with flies, either. :-) Izzy __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.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] What is a Christian?
Perry wrote: Do you believe that the jesus and god that LDS teaches are the Jesus and God that the Bible teaches? The Mormon testimony is that the Jesus and God of the Bible is the true Savior through whom we receive the redemption of our sins. I accept that testimony. The Mormon testimony also is that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants represent the testimony of Jesus Christ in the earth. I reject that testimony. Perry wrote: If so, then say hi to your brother Lucifer, and your once-a-man-now-a-god-from-the-planet-kolob father. If not, then why do you consider them Christians? I consider them Christians because they embrace the Biblical testimony that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man may come to the Father but by him. This does not mean that I consider them to be born again or that they will inherit eternal life. Their religion is an apostate religion of men, just as many other sects in Christianity are. Joseph Smith was a false prophet, even though he too was a Christian. Joseph Smith is burning in the flames of hell as we speak, even though he was a Christian. Being a Christian does not save you. Believing in Jesus Christ is what saves you. Perry, do you consider Roman Catholics to be Christians? 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] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:13:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd Baptist don't accept me as a Baptist without a rite of membership. They don't accept you, either. But you, I and the Baptist are all Christians. Why isn't that so. I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. I accept Dave as a Christian based upon that agreement -- I also accept Presbyterians, Oneness Holiness types, disciples or followers of Benny HindEnd, RCC members (members - not the RCC) and the eviil Messianics (don't panic K-S-J I just like saying "evl") and I know so little about their faith ... but I certianly know enouugh to conclude without reservation that the Messianic Triad and I are very much brethren. Why not Handsome Hanson? Look, my mother-in-law is a Mormon. She went back to Colorado last year, Xmas time, and attended one of those 20,000 member Pentecostal churches in Colorado Springs. She attended a hugh Christian celebration -- a presentation of the trial, death and resurrection of my Christ. At the end, she prayed with others THE prayer. She will never convert to denominationalism, remaining a Mormon during her life time. She loves Bill Graham and that prayer means a lot to her. She IS a child of God in my opinion and a Mormon. If the Jews of the First Church could be Jews AND Christian --- why not others? Why not me? Something else. I think it much more condusive to influence and change if we discuss our differences as brethren -- family members rather than as enemies. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Street Preachers. :) Most of them make like this. I heard a cultish type make the claim many times. I also heard one of his followers claim someone was going to the Lake of Fire and he was going to be the one to push the other man into it. From the Catholic encyclopedia: Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; I've heard Baptists claim if you aren't Baptist, you aren't saved. I've heard Baptists say if you aren't one certain kind of Baptist, you aren't saved. Those 7th Day Baptists aren't saved...they aren't even Baptists! I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. Does Dave think he's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it come from? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think he was a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave about Mormonism? Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may have said about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Why not ask Dave himself? I say this because hundreds of times I'm toldthe Jews this or the Jews that...the Jews say this, think that, do thiswhen it isn't even TRUE! Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 13.10 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) We are not talking fellowship, we are talking NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE LDS CHURCH That is Pretty EXCLUSIVE Groups that claim to be O.T.C. (ONE TRUE CHURCH) JW's Mormons Roman Catholic (Refernces on request) Kay contends: Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Please provide One Quote from a sect or Church Authority claiming to be the O.T.C. Baptist? Methodist? Prebyterian? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- 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. -- 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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:30:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cool story, John. Bill Isn't this the really cool thing about that story: the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not end.'" Man, I like that and only because of my association with TT do I understand this in ways that I did not, even back then. Back then, it was simply a word from the Lord, a confirmation. friend and brother JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:19:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So then what is your purpose in looking "to" the heart? How is looking to the heart accomplished? The scripture does not say you can look to the heart as long as you judge not. It says men look on the outward God looks on the heart. What do you think of Paul Hill? A terrible terrible thing he did. On par with Paul's opppsition to the early church. If I spoke of looking to the heart of Paul Hill -- that would be an obvious process. I know full well that heart examination is subjective. That's why, at the end of the day, my opinion about one's heart only serves the relationship (at best) and has nothing to do with determined destiny God alone is equipped to do that. You write something about me and my "god" and what am I constrained to do? Move on without denying your brotherhood -- as hard as that is for one of my temperment. John John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 6:13:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why would you want to be accepted as a Mormon? Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.11 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? The fat man is smilen once again? (that would be me)
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Benny HindEnd...too funny. I don't think the Jews of the first church called themselves Christians. I believe they called themselves...Derechimfollowers of the way. Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 13.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:13:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK OKWhat do you think?If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd Baptist don't accept me as a Baptist without a rite of membership. They don't accept you, either. But you, I and the Baptist are all Christians. Why isn't that so. I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. I accept Dave as a Christian based upon that agreement -- I also accept Presbyterians, Oneness Holiness types, disciples or followers of Benny HindEnd, RCC members (members - not the RCC) and the eviil Messianics (don't panic K-S-J I just like saying "evl") and I know so little about their faith ... but I certianly know enouugh to conclude without reservation that the Messianic Triad and I are very much brethren. Why not Handsome Hanson? Look, my mother-in-law is a Mormon. She went back to Colorado last year, Xmas time, and attended one of those 20,000 member Pentecostal churches in Colorado Springs. She attended a hugh Christian celebration -- a presentation of the trial, death and resurrection of my Christ. At the end, she prayed with others THE prayer. She will never convert to denominationalism, remaining a Mormon during her life time. She loves Bill Graham and that prayer means a lot to her. She IS a child of God in my opinion and a Mormon. If the Jews of the First Church could be Jews AND Christian --- why not others? Why not me? Something else. I think it much more condusive to influence and change if we discuss our differences as brethren -- family members rather than as enemies. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. JD A matter of grave concern for the discerning. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 10:43:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) AND, as Pentecostal so often do, we will be raised to fight another day. You do know I am kidding? Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Yes, I know. As am Iwe would not eat Pentecostals for snacksUNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! Sorry, but Pentecostals just aren't koshernot for food consumption anyhow! Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 14.07To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/11/2005 10:43:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :)AND, as Pentecostal so often do, we will be raised to fight another day. You do know I am kidding? Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kay wrote: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) I hope you did not perceive me to be calling Messianics dangerous. My position is that the Messianic movement is of God, but there are some within it that are dangerous. There are many more dangerous individuals within Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. 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] Mormon Related #2
No, David, I didn't. You do realize, though, that Messi's are the only real Christians, right???!! :) K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 14.19 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay wrote: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) I hope you did not perceive me to be calling Messianics dangerous. My position is that the Messianic movement is of God, but there are some within it that are dangerous. There are many more dangerous individuals within Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. 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. -- 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] Mormon Related #2
My mistake Jeff. I did not realize that you were a slow learner. Sorry. Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. -- 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] What is a Christian?
DavidM, From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I consider them Christians because they embrace the Biblical testimony that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man may come to the Father but by him. Which Jesus? The eternal word that became flesh through a miraculous birth, or the offspring of a former-man-who-became-a-god (from Kolob) and one of his many spirit wives, who entered a body physically concieved between this kolobian god and the human Mary, which offspring is the brother of Lucifer? I don't think they can both be the Jesus that saves. David Miller? Sure, I know David Miller. He is bald, short, fat, lives in a condo in Indianapolis, drives an old Studebaker, smokes, drinks, does a little weed when he can, gambles, and has 3 girlfriends. Tell him 'hi' for me. See? I know David Miller! Yes, I am sure it's the same David Miller that is on TT. Never mind what you think David Miller himself has told you, because I know him. Where did I find out all this stuff? A trusted source told me, and where David's description of himself differs from what my trusted source said, I have to go with the trusted source. Yes, my David Miller is the same David Miller that is on TT. And, now for the good part. David Miller posted on TT that he has a free gift for all of us who know him. We just have to accept it. So, I am going to Indianapolis today to accept mine. What? Your going to go to Hollywood, Florida to accept yours? Good luck! My trusted source said he lives in Indianapolis, so that is where I have placed my faith. I guess I wll get mine, because I know the REAL David Miller, and you will be left out! This does not mean that I consider them to be born again or that they will inherit eternal life. Their religion is an apostate religion of men, just as many other sects in Christianity are. Joseph Smith was a false prophet, even though he too was a Christian. Joseph Smith is burning in the flames of hell as we speak, even though he was a Christian. Being a Christian does not save you. Believing in Jesus Christ is what saves you. Perry, do you consider Roman Catholics to be Christians? I believe that despite the teachings of the RCC, there are those who find Christ, and put their faith in Him for their salvation. But, I think many of the RCC may be lost. Actually, I feel a similar way about LDS. I believe there are those who find the true Christ, and put there faith in Him for their salvation. Of course, they give up all of the pagan beliefs and practices when this happens. The RCC and the LDS are really in two separate camps. I believe the RCC is basically a Christian church into which a great deal of error has been allowed to creep. Is that error enough to separate them from God? I dunno. But I believe they have the right Jesus and the right God. But, I consider the LDS a pagan cult with a different jesus and god than those I know from the Bible. BTW, they are great people, and very sincere. Their dedication is to be admired...but not that to which they are dedicated. 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] Creationism
Bill Taylor wrote: In a free moment down the road will you speak a few words to the recent discovery in, I believe it was, Montana, where a T-Rex was found and discovered to have been preserved with blood still in its composition? Are you familiar with this? The limited information I have received on the subject leads me to a conclusion that this particular dinosaur is not nearly as old as evolutions want us to believe overall. I am somewhat familiar with this, but I'm not sure how effective it will be for establishing a young age to the bones. The evolutionist takes the position that certain molecules of the bone, even proteins, can be preserved for a very long time! Do you know a way to disprove this assertion? What strikes me as especially strange is that fossil sites often have a large number of marine shells in the sediment. I went to one fossil dig which was discovered in a shell pit. We were digging within marine shells. The evolutionists say that these terrestrial animals fell into the river and their bones congregated in the bend of the river, but there was no soil, no leaves, no twigs, nothing that would indicate that this was a river bed. The bones were all jumbled and even had scratches on them. Clearly, this was a catastrophic event. When I pointed all this out to my professor as we were digging, he just shrugged his shoulders and returned to digging. The Bible speaks of a global flood that destroyed these animals, but I still get people telling me that there is no evidence of a global flood. They ignore the fossils and vast sedimentary rocks found all over the earth. The evolutionary mindset blinds them to obvious facts which would support the Biblical account. 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.
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: Ted Kennedy - when will he learn?]
Subject: Ted Kennedy - when will he learn? <>Last week... making a fool of himself yet again Ted Kennedy said: <> A "torture" known as "waterboarding" (where theenemy combatant'snose is dunked under water in a scare tatic to simulate drowning) is being practiced by the US military and is deplorable and despicable and must be stopped! Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
RE: [TruthTalk] What is a Christian?
Very good points, Perry. I agree. Izzy I believe that despite the teachings of the RCC, there are those who find Christ, and put their faith in Him for their salvation. But, I think many of the RCC may be lost. Actually, I feel a similar way about LDS. I believe there are those who find the true Christ, and put there faith in Him for their salvation. Of course, they give up all of the pagan beliefs and practices when this happens. The RCC and the LDS are really in two separate camps. I believe the RCC is basically a Christian church into which a great deal of error has been allowed to creep. Is that error enough to separate them from God? I dunno. But I believe they have the right Jesus and the right God. But, I consider the LDS a pagan cult with a different jesus and god than those I know from the Bible. BTW, they are great people, and very sincere. Their dedication is to be admired...but not that to which they are dedicated. Perry
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
David Miller wrote: I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. Peace be with you. David Miller. === I am planning on starting one as soon as I can find time. Keep those love offerings pouring in. We need a building fund ( and a yacht). Terry
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: NewsMax.com Inside Cover Story]
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/11/104058.shtml NewsMax.com Inside Cover Story.url Description: Binary data
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:12 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 David Miller wrote: I am not aware of any pure Christian sect.Peace be with you.David Miller. === I am planning on starting one as soon as I can find time. Keep those love offerings pouring in. We need a building fund ( and a yacht). Terry FYI, Terry, Im it. J Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more]
LOL! Our condolences, Terry. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:23 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more] Subject: I just don't look good naked any more Turn up your volumeno picture here; only the one in your mind!!
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Please DaveH Hear my plea, I desparately need a definition of Mormonism How else can we compare definitions? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -- 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] What denoms claim the ONE TRUE CHURCH?
I still have not heard any quotes from any Authority in some of the sects that claim to be the O.T.C. It has been asserted that ALL groups claim to be the O.T.C. Not so, I do not think there are any Can ANYONE show where the groups below have ever said they are O.T.C.? Baptists? PresbyterianS? Methodists? How about a good Spurgeon Quote? John Knox? John Wesley? D.L. Moody? Should be a piece of cake since we have such a tremendous amount of materials from some of these folks! On the other hand, O.T.C. Quotes from the following org's are plenteous Please NO quoutes from Roman Catholic (the Mother of all O.T.C) JW's Mormons, just a RC spinoff --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- 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] On Echad
The Oneness of YHVHvs. Plurality One of the greatest arguments against the concept of the deity of Messiahis that YHVHis an absolute ONE. With this concept, there is no room for the Ruach haKodesh[1]or Messiah[2]as being YHVH as well. The Antimissionarymovement uses this argument to ward against the validity of Christianityand the Brit Hadasha[3]. In this instance, the tactics and arguments used by Antimissionariesand those who do not believe in the deity of Messiahare the same. However, the Anti-deity people do not seem to realize their points discredit the very foundation of their faith. Defining Echad As Plurality Devarim[4] 6:4, the watchword of the faith, tells us YHVH, Eloheinu[5][our Elohim[6]], YHVH is one. The Hebrew word used for one is echad. People love to quote teachers who tell us echad means a unity. However, it does not always mean a unity; nor, it does not always mean a singularity either. We must carefully address the context of the passage or sentence in order to determine if echad is declaring a unity or a singularity. In Bereshit[7] 1:5, 2:24, and 11:6provides three examples where echad is a unity, as opposed to a singularity. For instance, in Bereshit 1:5, one morning and one evening constitutes one day. In Bereshit 2:24, a woman and one man create one flesh; meanwhile in Bereshit 11:6, the whole of humanity is considered one people. As shown, in all three examples given, the idea of completion or the coming-together can be easily seen. Elohimcalled the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was eveningand was morning, one [echad] day. (Bereshit 1:5) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cling to his wife; and they shall become one [echad] flesh. (Bereshit 2:24) In Malakhi 2:13-16, we see a wretched priesthood who is grievously sinning. The people were not learning the ways of YHVH from the very ones who were to be examples. The phrase she is thy companion used in verse 14 in the KJV really should be translated she is thy joining, indicating that the covenant of marriage does indeed make a man and a woman echad. Refer also to Ephesians 5:28-29 33,1 Corinthians 12:12-14,1 Corinthians 6:15-17, and2 Corinthians 3:17. Further in the Ephesians text, Shaulof Tarsus compares the joining of a man and his wife and the love and fear expected in that relationship with the Messiah and the Ekklesia(Ephesians 5:30-33). See also Yochanan 10:22-33, 17:20-23, And YHVHsaid, See, the people are (singular) one [echad], and their tongue is one to all of them. And this is what they are beginning to do, and now nothing will be impossible for them all which they purpose to do. (Bereshit 11:6) The concept of more than one being defined as one is a readily accepted principle. In the United States of America, people were once taught the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the phrase one nation, under God, indivisible This concept is not too hard to grasp. To continue with this thought, Shemot[8] 26:1-1-6gives us an overview of the building of the Mishkan[9]. The inner or lower section is constructed of 10 linen curtains. The curtains are held together with 50 gold clasps. Once together, the 10 curtains are called echad Mishkan. (Shemot 13:13) The outer or upper section (Shemot 26:7-13) is called the tent. It is constructed out of 11 curtains of goat hair. These are held together by 50 bronze clasps and, as a unit, they are also called echad tent.[10] Additionally, the two large curtains together are called echad Mishkan. (Shemot 36:14-8) In the Greek Brit Hadasha, we have a Hebraic perspective one. In Revelation 21:9-11, the Bride is introduced to Yochanan the Prophet, but in verse, the prophet is shown a city coming down out of Heaven. However, in many Scriptures, the Bride of Messiah is the community of believers (Revelation 19:7-8, 18:23). Therefore, the Bride, New Yerushalayim, and the Believers are echad. Defining Echad As Singular Meanwhile, Bereshit 2:21and 4:19 are but two of many examples that demonstrate the concept of echadbeing a singularity. However, in most instances, echad is used when a single unit from multiple choices is delineated. For example, one ribis taken from a choice of 22 to 26 ribs, or one wifeof several: And YHVHElohimcaused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; and He took one [echad] from his ribsand closed up the flesh under the place. (Bereshit 2:21) And Lemekh[11]took to himself two wives: the name of the first [echad] was Adah, and the name of the other, was Tzilah[12]. (Bereshit 4:19) Undefined Echadim[13] In the case of Devarim 6:4and Bereshit 3:22, the meaning of the Hebrew word echadis unknown since the context does not give us the privilege of knowing the absolute definition of the word. Hear, O Yisrael[14]! YHVHEloheinu, YHVH is one [echad]! (Devarim 6:4) And YHVHElohimsaid, See, the man has become as one
[TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]John wrote:You apparently teach that Christ wasat one time not the Son. DM: It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc. jt: Correction David. This is what I believe at this point but it did not come via the above three souls. It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I seea "Son" in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always future tense. DM: The word "son," especially as used in the phrase, "Son of Man," is a term that applies to him when he became human flesh. Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the son, he seemed to prefer "son of Man" to "son of God." John wrote:If He existed apart from sonship, thisbegetting you speak of, is, in effect,a rite of adoption. It is only a role the2nd Whatever in the Godhead playsto effect the salvation of us all. Hewas not but now is the son.That is the very essense of adoption.You cannot call it such for "biblicalreasons" but that is the effect of yourteaching. Not an entirely unwarrantedconclusion -- just something I stronglydisagree with. jt: Jesus Christ is not adopted. He is the ONLY begotten Son and He was begotten through the Eternal Spirit. DM: The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's womb. Luke 1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some reason you seem to overlook this miracle Luke 1:35(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Why would the holy thing born of Mary be called the son of God? Because the Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and created that which was of God within her womb. This was not some adoption! This was a miracle of the Logos becoming flesh, the miracle of God begetting the son of Man. God had now begotten a son among men, something never before done, and it opened the doors of adoption whereby we all can be adopted into his family. David Miller wrote:All of us were adopted because we were bornchildren of Satan, but he was born a child of Godfrom the beginning. Therefore we call him the onlybegotten son of God. John wrote:Gosh, David, which is it? "begotten son" means"virgin born" or is He the child of God (that wouldmake Him "son") from " the beginning?" DM: I was talking about the beginning of his existence in flesh and blood. This was the start of a new relationship, not just of the Logos to the father above as a son, but also a new relationship of God to man, God relating to man through the flesh. From the very first moment he partook of flesh and blood, he was son of God as well as son of man. John wrote:More than simply being confusing, jt: It's not confusing to me John, in fact it makes all the sense in the world. Reading eternal sons into the text where there is none is what causes confusion. John: the above seemsto equate "begetting" with the English definition of thatword "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth ."rather than the definition of monogeno (only begotten)which has to do with uniqueness (Kittle, nt/Gengrich).Christ was the only unique son of God. The definition of "monogenes" has a long history of debate that goes back to the early church fathers. Some of the debate hinges on whether the second half of the word originates from "ginomai" (to become) which would lend itself toward the translation "only existing," or "gennao" (to beget) which would lend itself toward "only begotten." Kittle tends to take an extreme position on defining this word that is propelled by the theological viewpoint of eternal sonship. Not all theologians fully accept this definition. While there is no dispute regarding the concept of uniqueness being communicated, there is some debate over what kind of uniqueness is being communicated. The dictionary of New Testament words by Zodhiates acknowledges the viewpoint that I tend to adopt. Perhaps his wording will better communicate to you the perspective that I tend to accept, which relates his uniqueness to the incarnation, to his being begotten not just of the flesh, but of God. No other man is like Jesus in this way. Jesus is unique. Zodhiates says, "... it is the word "logos" (3056), Word, which designates His personage within the Godhead. Christ's Sonship expresses an economical relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5). Thus the appellation refers
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hello, Judy. Please understand that there is no past, present, or future tense in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can infer past or present or future by perfect and imperfect tenses, but prophesy...? It breaks a lot of the grammar rules. It can be fun as long as you don't get dogmatic about it. Only Begotten" means "unique." -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 18.25To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me jt: Correction David. This is what I believe at this point but it did not come via the above three souls. It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I seea "Son" in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always future tense. jt:...He is the ONLY begotten Son
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
John wrote: You apparently teach that Christ was at one time not the Son. DM: It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc. Judy Taylor wrote: Correction David. This is what I believe at this point but it did not come via the above three souls. It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I see a Son in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always future tense. Thanks for the correction. So you had this understanding before you read Finis Dake and shared his notes with us? I guess upon further reflection, I should point out that it is not that Christ was once never the son, because there was no Christ or Messiah before he was born of the woman. More properly, it might be said that there was a time when the Logos was not the Son of David, was not the Son of Man, was not the Son of God, was not the Christ, was not Messiah, was not Yeshua, was not Jesus, and was not Emmanuel, etc. He became all these things through the miracle of the incarnation. Is that how you see it Judy? 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.
[TruthTalk] ACLU Website edits out religion from the first amendment
Notice how the ACLU edits out freedom of religion when talking about freedom of speech on their website. They make the point that it probably is no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned, but they seem oblivious to the fact that freedom of religion comes first in the actual amendment itself. - This is from the American Civil Liberties Union's Web page on free speech (ellipsis in original): It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society. Link: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm - 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] Mormon Related #2
Terry, I'll give ya that one, but remember paybacks are coming! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 14:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 My mistake Jeff. I did not realize that you were a slow learner. Sorry. Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. -- 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. -- 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] Mormon Related #2
Thank you for the temporary mercy. :-) Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, I'll give ya that one, but remember paybacks are coming! Jeff My mistake Jeff. I did not realize that you were a slow learner. Sorry. Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Slade Henson wrote: Only Begotten" means "unique." -- slade I evidently need a little help here Slade. Does the word "Begotten" have no relation to the word "Begat"? Do both not relate to child birth? I understand that "only" means "unique". Does this mean something other than the only son God ever had by a woman? Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Yes, basically it has nothing to do with it. "Begot" is a terrible translation. Two different languages --slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 18.29To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to MeSlade Henson wrote: Only Begotten" means "unique." -- sladeI evidently need a little help here Slade. Does the word "Begotten" have no relation to the word "Begat"? Do both not relate to child birth? I understand that "only" means "unique". Does this mean something other than the only son God ever had by a woman?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 7:47:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think when Parry used the term "Smithism," he was referring to the doctrines of Joseph Smith, not John Smithson. :-) Yes -- you are correct, Sir !! I have taken care of that..my mistake. I tend to get a little gun shy and start ducking before I need to. Perry and I did a side bar sort of thing, initiated by Perry. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Ah but Kay my wifes sister in law answered my question about the 144,000. When I asked her if she was one of the 144,000 she replied No and then I asked her why she bothered then. Thats when she called me Satan! The beauty of it all is that she has never spoken to me since! But I still talk to my brother in law! In fact we get along great! Jeff - Original Message - From: Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:00 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ 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 -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 8:28:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. Do we all know why this "Christian definition" thingy is so difficult, so individualized? Because there is no biblical definition ! That being so, why are we not allowed to give definition as we see fit ? Some on the far right (nothing wrong with that, of course) speak as if there is some divine definition we MUST agree upon. Also, and this may come as a shock, but simply because the Bishop of California feels comfortable with Brother Hanson, does not mean that Brother Hanson is saved. Ditto for my acceptance of Billy T, Izzy, JudyT and on and on. I assume we are on the right track, that the heart is good. I can make that assumption because, in a soteriological sense, it doesn't mean squat (my opinion -- as correct as it may be, I might add). JD (Just Divine)
Re: [TruthTalk] Many gods?
In a message dated 1/11/2005 8:41:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: I Cor 8:4-7 -- we were talking about "many gods" -- remember? I thought this passage kindof supported DH when he spoke of those who believe in other gods. The first church had it believers as well. But 1 Cor. 8 makes it clear that those who perceived that there were other gods were in error. 1 Corinthians 8:4-7 (4) ... there is none other God but one. (5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge... Peace be with you. David Miller. My point, David, is that what is made clear in I Cor 8 is that some within the church DO NOT AGREE and continue to believe in many gods but serve only one, of course. That was my point. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Remember to point out the mud slides in California the other day next time David! Thats no bend in the river either! Good point. Jeff - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 15:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism Bill Taylor wrote: In a free moment down the road will you speak a few words to the recent discovery in, I believe it was, Montana, where a T-Rex was found and discovered to have been preserved with blood still in its composition? Are you familiar with this? The limited information I have received on the subject leads me to a conclusion that this particular dinosaur is not nearly as old as evolutions want us to believe overall. I am somewhat familiar with this, but I'm not sure how effective it will be for establishing a young age to the bones. The evolutionist takes the position that certain molecules of the bone, even proteins, can be preserved for a very long time! Do you know a way to disprove this assertion? What strikes me as especially strange is that fossil sites often have a large number of marine shells in the sediment. I went to one fossil dig which was discovered in a shell pit. We were digging within marine shells. The evolutionists say that these terrestrial animals fell into the river and their bones congregated in the bend of the river, but there was no soil, no leaves, no twigs, nothing that would indicate that this was a river bed. The bones were all jumbled and even had scratches on them. Clearly, this was a catastrophic event. When I pointed all this out to my professor as we were digging, he just shrugged his shoulders and returned to digging. The Bible speaks of a global flood that destroyed these animals, but I still get people telling me that there is no evidence of a global flood. They ignore the fossils and vast sedimentary rocks found all over the earth. The evolutionary mindset blinds them to obvious facts which would support the Biblical account. 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. -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/11/2005 9:04:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Amen, sister Kay. More than that, IMO, is the belief that salvation is not a group thing at all. The group (church) exists for other reasons, important reasons -- but salvation is not one of them. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/11/2005 4:55:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please yourself John. Excuse me ?? !! I am afraid to ask what this means... but I feel another grin comin on !! JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:55:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Unscriptural John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? I stand alone on this "fallen nature thing, " I know. The write - wongers (nothing wrong with being a write winger -- and no, I did not misspell. A right winger who joins a list such as this truly is, becomes a write winger --- thank you very much) start bouncing and my friends, out of respect no doubt, become painfully silent ( know exactly what that means !! you can't fool little old Johnny) Oh, by the way, A left winger who joins a list such as this truly is becomes a TEACHER. he ha. But I digress. Judy -- there is no fallen nature. God just isn't done with us yet. Adam and his Seventh Rib are completed by the same Christ you and I are. It has ALWAYS been that way, since before the foundations of the world. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? Judy The soul that sinneth, it shall die -- is not a true statement for those who are in Christ. We will be saved -- signed sealed and delivered per Roimans 8. Get used to it, Judy. You ARE going to heaven. So am I. I just hope we don't live on the same block, ya know what I am saying ??
