The economic Trinity? Are they accountants izVICAR Lances article is by: "Giles is
vicar of St. Michael's Church "Paul D. Molnar, professorof systematic theology, St. John's University SAINT John, SAINT MICHAEL? More POPES Protestants and Potentates!"[W]e hold upon this
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:Shortcut to: http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/Note:
To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or
receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security
settings to
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: Does not the Bible suggest what God looks like
when we are told Jesus is in his express image? (He 1:3) It seems
logical to me that the Son would look similar to his Father.
For eons without end (for eternity past) Jesus did look like he
Father.
JN 1
DAVEH: Hi John...This is a thread I'd like to pursue, but am
rather short on time right now. I'm leaving for a couple weeks, so it
may be a month or two before I can get back to it. Do you want to hold
onto your thoughts that long? If so.remind me as we approach
summer. Thanx in
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy
wrote:Why would you think Bill's belief more
importantthan that of Perry, Terry, Vincent, Kevin, Laura,and the
others? The teacher is Jesus and he canspeak through all or any part of
the body he wants to; it'sup to us to discern what is of him and
Are you impying Father Superior has a tinge of Lucerferic Doctrine?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote:Why would you think Bill's belief more importantthan that of Perry, Terry, Vincent, Kevin, Laura,and the others? The teacher is Jesus and he
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy wrote:Why would you think Bill's belief more
important than that of Perry, Terry, Vincent, Kevin, Laura, and the others?
The teacher is Jesus and he can speak through all or any part of the body; it's
up to us to
discern what is of him through the
\o/ !HALALUYah!
\o/
Greetings DAVEH et al in the Matchless NameofYahShua!!
You read ALL the TT
mail?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
There is a LDS group
out of western Missouri that is pretty much in agreement with all that I believe
from Scriptures except they add the BoM ... BUT they say JS
I asked him to share his testimony.
I am still waiting.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote: Doesn't the Bible say express image of his PERSON? John Smithson wrote: II Cor 2:10 -- there you go.I think he meant Heb. 1:3.Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of
to tee you all off :)
Thanks again, though, you truly are an inspiration
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
David Miller wrote:
I think if you guys would
tool; fig. in the NT of Christ in relation to God exact representation, precise reproduction, impress (HE 1.3).
If you transliterate this word it is character.
Hope this was helpful.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5
I can hold my own.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:21
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Are you fluent in greek?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/11/2004 11:29:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Thanx for the offer, John. At this point in time, I don't think I am comfortable with understanding grace as you apparently must
Why not? The scriptures and biblical references to grace verses law
In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:40:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Church of Christ ... just like JS when he started.
Hey -- so you're a fellow Stonie?
Awesome.
John
In a message dated 3/12/2004 5:18:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, well, that should be about
enough to tee you all off :)
My blood is boiling even as you speak. Its great. Bring it on.
(just kidding)
John
Wm. Taylor wrote:
Well actually, DaveH., David Miller did not invite me in. I blundered into
this on my own accord. But thanks David for all the encouraging words (and
what's the deal, DaveH., I thought we were buds?) The problem with these
discussions is, if you're going to do them justice,
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]I think if you
guys would ask Bill to share more about what he is talking about he would.
He just doesn't want to be attacked. Maybe if we were humble like students
and treated him like a teacher, we might learn some things. Otherwise, I
fear we will be
Judy wrote:
Why would you think Bill's belief more important
than that of Perry, Terry, Vincent, Kevin, Laura,
and the others? The teacher is Jesus and he can
speak through all or any part of the body; it's
up to us to discern what is of him through the
anointing that dwells within
Forgive me Reverand FatherforI have erred
O how I long to be considered worthy again.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judy wrote: Why would you think Bill's belief more important than that of Perry, Terry, Vincent, Kevin, Laura, and the others? The teacher is Jesus and he can speak through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated
3/10/2004 5:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
DAVEH: I hope you
don't mind my intrusion, John. First.welcome to TT and this
thread. it is great to speak with you
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Wm. Taylor wrote:
-
Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
I'm probably going to make you
In a message dated 3/10/2004 10:26:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
then we become one with them as we become one with their purpose.
Actually, I we believe we become "one with them" because of shared existence -- God becomes a part of us through indwelling and, hence, we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated
3/10/2004 10:26:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
then we become one
with them as we become one with their purpose.
Actually, I we believe we become "one with them" because of shared
existence -- God
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated
3/10/2004 10:26:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes: then we become one with them as we become one with their purpose.
John: Actually, I we believe we become
"one with them" because of
shared existence -- God becomes a part of
In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:36:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..From this, cannot one conclude that those filled with the Holy Spirit of God are OF GOD, and capable of seeing God? Do you disagree, John?
Hello DAVEL : I am not sure why this is important to you.
In a message dated 3/11/2004 6:57:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you saying that 'we become a part of God' as in God is the
ocean and we are one drop
judyt: there is absolutely nothing new age about me, including my clothing. In my post I referred to Spirit
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Are you saying that 'we become a
part of God' as in God is the ocean and we are one drop John:judyt: there is absolutely nothing new age
about me, including my
clothing. In my post I
referred to Spirit indwelling. That is how it
happens,
OH NO
Here comes the godHOOD angle !Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/10/2004 10:26:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
then we become one with them as we become one with their purpose. Actually, I we believe we become "one with them"
Hey DaveH, question. Why do LDS always do this?
Instead of stating what you believe, that this may be associated with becoming a god.
LDS seem to always ask a question (without revealing the destination doctrine) to get further commitment or better yet a agreement on some point. Sort of like
It's easier to ask a question to get the other guy to make a
statement. Once he's made a statement, he can be made to feel as if he
needs to defend it as is against all attacks. In other words, it's easier
to make the other guy take a chance and stick his neck out, then attack
him. After he
It is also a way to lead people into your way of thinking without revealing or disclosing your beliefs until they are relocated to the new position. It seems a little sneaky.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's easier to ask a question to get the other guy to make astatement. Once he's made a statement,
In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:58:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you saying that 'we become a part of God' as in God is the
ocean and we are one drop
We have received the same glory that was given to Christ for
Doesn't the Bible say express image of his PERSON?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:58:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that 'we become a part of God' as in God is the ocean and we are one
In a message dated 3/11/2004 4:57:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doesn't the Bible say express image of his PERSON?
II Cor 2:10 -- there you go.
John
resentation, precise
reproduction, impress (HE 1.3).
If you transliterate this word it is
character.
Hope this was helpful.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:56
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
h 11, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Doesn't the Bible say express image of his PERSON?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:58:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that 'we b
Kevin wrote:
Doesn't the Bible say express image of his PERSON?
John Smithson wrote:
II Cor 2:10 -- there you go.
I think he meant Heb. 1:3.
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
by himself
DAVEH: Note to all who posted regarding this matter...I will
respond to all three in this post to avoid over posting today. (I
think I exceeded my 8 post limit in the past few days!)
Kevin Deegan wrote:
It is also a way to lead people into your way of thinking
without revealing or
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/
Greetings DAVEH et al in the Matchless NameofYahShua!!
- Original Message -
From: Dave
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03/11/2004 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Sort of like leading down the primrose path step by
step.
DAVEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated
3/11/2004 12:36:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..From this,
cannot one conclude that those filled with the Holy Spirit of God are OF
GOD, and capable of seeing God? Do you disagree, John?
In a message dated 3/11/2004 6:42:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Smithson wrote:
II Cor 2:10 -- there you go.
I think he meant Heb. 1:3.
Actually I meant II Cor. 2:10 -- KJV translates "persons" when all other translations use something else - "presence" for the
In a message dated 3/11/2004 9:17:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: OK then.apparently you do believe he can be seen. That is basically what I've said I believe.
of course.
By the way, I am not a Protestant.
DAVEH: Do you subscribe to any denomination, sect
David Miller wrote:
I think if you guys would ask Bill to share more about what he is
talking about he would. He just doesn't want to be attacked.
DAVEH: HmmAnd you sleep well at night knowing you invited
him into this cauldron!?!?!?!?!;-)
Peace be with you.
David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By
the way, I am not a Protestant.
DAVEH: Do you subscribe to any denomination, sect or have any specific
theological bias?
Why not ask me if I breathe?
DAVEH: I don't have an interest in that. :-P
I am not a
Protestant. I see no value in
Chris Barr wrote:
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/
Greetings DAVEH et al in the Matchless NameofYahShua!!
-
Original Message -
From:
Dave
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
03/11/2004 9:38 PM
Subject:
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
DAVEH: I hope you don't mind my intrusion, John. First.welcome to
TT and this thread.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with "person" (and I have used this many more times than
once) gives us the impression that know what God looks like.
DAVEH: Does not the Bible suggest what
John wrote:The
problem with "person" (and I have used this many more times than once)
gives us the impression
that know what God looks like.
DAVEH: Does not the Bible suggest what God looks like when we
are told Jesus is in his express image? (He 1:3) It seems
logical to
me that the Son
Welcome to TT John Smithson, you write in part:
"I am educated by the Word; I am entertained by
history."
Truly wisdom from above,
judyt
God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people
study
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated
3/9/2004 5:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Wm. Taylor wrote:
, I don't have a problem with it
myself, but I'm not all pruned up about this
it-has-to-come-from-the-bible stuff. What about you who are? Is that a
true and accurate statement concerning Jesus Christ?
Bill Taylor
He wascommunicating to the other members of the Godhead
TheTRI - part being created man in His image, as a TRI part being (1)Body, (2)soul (3)spirit
1Thes 5 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming
DAVEH: Does not the Bible suggest what God looks like when we are told Jesus is in his express image? (He 1:3) It seems logical to me that the Son would look similar to his Father.
For eons without end (for eternity past) Jesus did look like he Father.
JN 1 IIn the beginning was the Word, and
. I am educated by the Word; I am
entertained by history.
Grace
John Smithson
===
What a great line Is that original? Can I steal it?
Terry
In a message dated 3/10/2004 4:18:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Welcome to TT John Smithson, you write in part:
"I am educated by the Word; I am entertained by history."
Truly wisdom from above,
judyt
Hi judyt: i am thinking we agree. Right?
God bless and I am
In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: I hope you don't mind my intrusion, John. First.welcome to TT and this thread. it is great to speak with you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with "person" (and I have used this many
The word used here for one is ECHAD, Hebrew/Chaldee Lexicon To
The Old
Testament, (echad) means, "to unite, to join together, to be in
unity."
in other words "Compound United oneness"
echad is a uniplural adjective describing several items in one
unit or
group or
Does that mean you would have been in the Coliseum
cheering as Christians were being fed to the Lions? That is history. Is that the
kind of entertainment you are looking for?
. I am educated by
the Word; I am entertained by history. Grace
John Smithson
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/
Greetings in the Matchless NameofYahShua!!
If we were to "level the playing field" and agree to discuss
this subject sola Scriptura (from Scripture only), using only
Scriptural words, this discussion would be much easier. Is that such an
unreasonable request to
In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:26:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What a great line Is that original? Can I steal it?
Terry
Yes but can have it --- send the anticipated revenues to my worship therapist - I am musically challenged. It is so bad that on one occasion,
In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:45:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does that mean you would have been in the Coliseum cheering as Christians were being fed to the Lions? That is history. Is that the kind of entertainment you are looking for?
If I left the list without
- Original Message -
From: Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
John, you say A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is
that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without
- Original Message -
From: Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
John,
By the way, the closest equivalent that koine Greek
has to the idea of person, as I've laid it out below, is the word soma.
This word
- Original Message -
From: Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
I'm probably going to make you all cringe a little
bit here, and some of you more than a little. By the way, I hope you don't mind
if I butt
- Original Message -
From: Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Greetings John, welcome to the conversation. I am
glad you are interested and want to participate.
For the sake of context, since it is I whom
Wm. Taylor wrote:
-
Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
I'm probably going to make you all
cringe a little bit here, and some of you more than
DaveH wrote:
Here's the deal, DavidM.The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of
God. I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not
found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible. At
first, Perry objected to my use of /purpose /to define /oneness/, and
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH wrote:
Here's the deal, DavidM.The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of
God. I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not
found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible. At
first, Perry objected to my use of
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:26:07 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH wrote:
Here's the deal, DavidM.The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of
God. I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not
found consistency
convoluted.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
DaveH wrote: Here's the deal,
DavidM.The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness o
In a message dated 3/9/2004 1:55:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we get in to in these "Trinity" discussions arise not because of the threeness idea of the Trinity but because of the oneness idea we have about "God."
Another new guy on the list. Hi.
I am thinking that
John, welcome to TT, and thanks for your thoughtful input.
Perry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:14:57 EST
In a message dated 3/9/2004 1:55:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED
t in the Bible, you should be compelled
to quibble as wellevery time you hear someoneuse the word person.
Are you willing to go that far?
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 4:14
PM
Subjec
Wm. Taylor wrote:
I'm probably going to make you all
cringe a little bit here, and some of you more than a little. By the
way, I hope you don't mind if I butt in. Excuse me, excuse me, coming
through.
The problems, it seems to me, that
we get in to in these "Trinity"
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank
you!
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:10
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Wm. Taylor wrote:
I'm probably going to make you all
it in a way
that is both historically and biblically accurate, while meaningful and
true.
Thanks,
Bill Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:14:57 EST
In a message dated 3/9/2004 1:55:49 PM
Some call it TRI - UNITY
Trinity is a contraction of triUnity"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!
- Original Message -
From: Terry Clifton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Greetings John, welcome to the conversation. I am
glad you are interested and want to participate.
For the sake of context, since it is I whom you
are quoting, I would like to include the whole sentence here: I say, "The
problems, it
on
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
Wm. Taylor wrote:
I'm probably going to make you all cringe a little bit here, and some of you more than a little. By the way, I hope you don't mind if I butt in. Excuse me, excuse me, coming t
Thanks, Kevin.
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:41
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
ECHAD is the word for "Compound United oneness" instead of the word
yachid, "the on
In a message dated 3/9/2004 4:05:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you willing to go that far?
Absolutely. Understand that I (we?) are not talking about the sinful use of unbiblical wording. Trinity is a good word, I suppose --- but it is not biblical. Person, as you so
"And God said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness . . ."So according to LDS theology God should have made man after the gods
images.Instead Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him"A plural image (OUR image - TRINITARIAN Formula; Father,
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:18
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
In a
message dated 3/9/2004 4:05:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you willing to go that far?Absolutely.
Understand that I (we?) are not talking about
In a message dated 3/9/2004 5:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The answer now, it seems to me, is not to trash the language -- as if that
will make the controversy go away -- but to learn how to speak it in a way
that is both historically and biblically accurate, while
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH,
I have been down the "T-Doctrine" road with you before, so no need to
repeat what I (as well as many others) have already stated. If you
haven't gotten it in four years, it isn't likely to come to you today.
DAVEH: I can only assume you are trying
: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:12
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
In a
message dated 3/9/2004 5:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The answer now, it seems to me, is not to trash the language --
as if that will make the controversy go away -- but to learn how
Kevin Deegan wrote:
And God said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness . . .
So according to LDS theology God should have made man after the gods
images.
DAVEH: All Gods at that point of time were in the same (deified) image,
as there were not yet any false gods created by men.
David Miller wrote:
DaveH wrote:
With one purpose, they (including the HS) form the
Godhead..which purpose is encompassed in the
plan of salvation. At least that's how I see it,
DavidM.
The problem with simplifying the discussion to saying that they were one
Kevin Deegan wrote:
VINCE The problem in Mormonism is that you open up again
the Roman and Greek idea of there being many gods, which I believe
would be contrary to Scripture and the cherished teaching of Scripture
that there is only one God.
DAVEH: I don't see it that way at
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: And then he specifically adds Jesus Christ to
his comment as a separate entity. Why would he do that if he weren't
pointing out their differences despite their singleness of purpose?
The scripture says ONE God in the chapter a number of times I
must have
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:21:51 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VINCE The problem in Mormonism is that you open up again the Roman and
Greek idea of there being many gods, which I believe would be contrary to
Scripture and the cherished teaching of Scripture that there is only one
SorryI just cut pasted it as is.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:21:51 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes:VINCE The problem in Mormonism is that you open up again the Roman andGreek idea of there being many gods, which I believe would be contrary toScripture and the
Ok.:)
vjf
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:21:47 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry I just cut pasted it as is.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:21:51 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan
writes:
VINCE The problem in Mormonism is that you open up again the Roman and
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy Taylor
wrote:I believe we've discussed this word in the past. It is used of Moses
when he stood before Pharoah in place of God and it means judge/magistrate. Same
in Ps 82:6. However when satan tells Eve that if they eat from the forbidden
tree they will
Judy Taylor wrote:
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy Taylor wrote:
I believe we've discussed this word in the past. It is used of Moses when
he stood before Pharoah in place of God and it means judge/magistrate. Same
in Ps 82:6. However when satan tells Eve
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy Taylor wrote:
Ibelieve we've discussed this word in the past. It is used of Moses when
he stood before Pharoah in place of God and it means judge/magistrate. Same in
Ps 82:6. However when satan tells Eve that if they eat from the forbidden tree
they will be
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:39:30 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: If that is so, then why did Jesus use PS 82:6 in his defense when
the Jews confronted him in Jn 10:33
vince: I'm not sure. Perhaps someday God will open my mind to that. I do
know one thing: I will not open myself to the
DAVEH I know that doesn't make sense from your perspective, but so far it seemsincluded in the definition for being a God is..1) Knowing good from evil.2) Being sinless.
You blew then, you can never be a god,see Number 2[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:39:30 -0800 Dave <[EMAIL
Joseph F. Smith, "Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors" (Gospel Doctrine, p.70).
Holy Bible says God is a SPIRITJN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.A spirit
VINCE The problem in Mormonism is that you open up again the Roman and Greek idea of there being many gods, which I believe would be contrary to Scripture and the cherished teaching of Scripture that there is only one God.
DAVEH: I don't see it that way at allPaul pretty well explained it
DaveH wrote:
With one purpose, they (including the HS) form the
Godhead..which purpose is encompassed in the
plan of salvation. At least that's how I see it,
DavidM.
The problem with simplifying the discussion to saying that they were one
in purpose only is that it does not explain
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
