Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Whether or not Southern Baptists are racists in general I have no idea. But, you know what they say aboutCults that live in glass houses. I do know that the LDS General Authorities have a history of racism There still is NO Black man in the LDS presidency or Apostles. 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people." IN 1981 the church had to FIX the "most correct book on earth" by changing white to pure. Else it would be Get Right - Get White! 2 Nephi 5:21 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 3 Nephi 2:15 "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." The SEER Profit Spencer Kimball said the Indians"are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" Refering toan Indian girl "several shades lighter than her parents..." "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3). APOSTATES "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young Journal of Discourse 5:332). ...Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control and not allow any body else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. ...he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God... (Brigham Young, Dec. 12, 1854, Journal of Discourses, 2:142-143) You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. ...How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. (Brigham Young, Oct. 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses, 7:290-291) Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Brigham Young, March 8, 1863, Journal of Discourses, 10:110) ...after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth... (John Taylor, Aug.28, 1881, Journal of Discourses, 22:304) SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of Heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
It is not a put down it is how I see your theology, in some ways, it is juvenille I have posted many things you simply ignore. Care for me to go through them and bring some of them back to the table? Right now you are on a LOST SHEEP binge As soon asI post a full answer you somehow will loose interest in the LOST SHEEP and move on to something else. What happened to the mss you were posting about before? No response from Blaine just drop the subject...Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Is this your best shot Kevin--a put down? If you can't handle the truth, at least be a gentleman and admit it. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? There you go a perfect picture of LDS Kindergarten TheologyBlaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the ! temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh." (Ether 3:16) Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATION thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away.DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Terry-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain Five email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.--"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!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Please Hear Me Out Before Ousting Me
We are talking past each other, Judy. I think I want to wait a while before going any farther with you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:55 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Please Hear Me Out Before Ousting Me From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, Judy, I am sorry you could not see you were sinking. I threw you a rope, hoping to pull you ashore. What did you do? You used it to hang yourself. The good news is, there is resurrection. I'm thankful for the opportunity you have given me to help you, though. Maybe others will not be so brazen to miss Augustine. jt: Do you mean "dismiss" Augustine? Is he smarter than the Holy Spirit? wt: P.S. I will reply to one of your comments and then let it go. Judy wrote In ChristJews have no advantagebecause all must come by faith and we (Gentiles) are adopted, being wild we are graftedinto the tree with Jesusthe root. How do you reconcile being adopted with this doctrine of "natural generation"? wt: I reply I don't remember calling it "natural generation." Are you putting words in my mouth again? jt: Actually I should be more accurate and say 1/2 natural generation by way of "the woman" Isn't this what you've been telling me? That Jesus was a halfway leavened passover sacrifice? wt:Jews and Gentiles alike are included in Abraham by way of their inclusion in Christ (and this goes back to the go'el discussion), becausehe is the true Jew, the only Jew. All others are counted in him, and it is not just Isaac's descendents who are included (i.e. the jews) but gentiles as well. jt: Let's not get carried away here Bill. Only the ones who come his way are included. The others will be left saying "Lord, Lord." wt: This inclusion is adoption. The adoption is in Christ to the Father. The Gospel makes us aware of our adoption, and faith is the means by which we participate in our adoption, and eternal life is the inheritance of our adoption, and onand on; but the adoption itself is in Christ.I think maybe part of the disconnect you are going through may have something to do with the way in which you are dichotomizing the idea of personhood. jt: Excuse me? Disconnect? Actually I am not dichotomizing - if you had been paying attention you would understand that I am trichotomizing, same as scripture. You have your Pelagius and Augustine. I have the holy writ. wt: It's not like spirit and body are segregated, the spirit being completely separate and set away from the body, and the body from the spirit. The human body is an integrated whole. There is spirit, yes; and there is body. The two make a whole -- it's kind of like there is mind and body, distinct but interrelated jt: Actually there is spirit - and there is soul - and there is body - we are born withall three and we need allthreeto be sanctified (sorry, you are one short).. wt:When Christ defeated the spiritual aspects of fallenness, he defeated the physical aspects, as well. He rose in the body, too, remember. Salvation saved the whole man and not just his spirit. The resurrection will include some sort of physicality -- restored, recreated, glorified, however one might sayit,but always physical, alwaysspiritual, always the whole man. jt:He triumphed and now it is our turn to triumph in Him because when he returns he expects us to be conformed to his image... So now it is our turn to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV DAVEH: Thanx Terry.Let me quote it... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Kevin Deegan wrote: And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATION DAVEH: I would have thought the Protestants would be happy to suggest the RCC or the Dark Ages represented a time of apostasy and falling away. Couldn't Protestants then claim the Reformation movement to be a part of the prophecy of a restitution of all things as spoken by the Bible? If the Protestants don't lay claim to such a restoration, then when do they think it will happen, Kevin? thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 then he came back with an answer that included /purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? DavidH, I do not object to your using one in purpose, I object to your reducing the relationship to one in pupose only. True, you do not say only, but you never have presented any other oneness of the relationship than one in purpose. However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than just one in purpose. One in purpose is a prerequisite for the Godhead. One in purpose is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if you do not beleive that they are only one in purpose, then tell us more about thier oneness. Perry If you want to convince us that is is not only purpose _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- 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] The Last Days
Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV DAVEH: Thanx Terry.Let me quote it... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, DAVEH: Then it would be reasonable to consider the apostasy could have begun 2 millennia ago? If so, then could that not be reflected in the persecution of the Primitive Saints and the rise of the RCC? Would it not also explain the Dark Ages? That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Do you understand what I'm saying, Terry? we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 /purpose /to define /oneness/, and then he came back with an answer that included /purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? DavidH, I do not object to your using "one in purpose", I object to your reducing the relationship to "one in pupose" only. True, you do not say "only", but you never have presented any other "oneness" of the relationship than "one in purpose" DAVEH: Perry, it is most frustrating for me to have to explain all the possibilities and details of my beliefs when I am not here for that reason. I'm trying to find out what YOU (and other Protestants) believe and why they believe it. Regarding the oneness referred to in Jn 17, I feel purpose does a good job of explaining it. I'm not suggesting it is the only way to define it, so I don't understand why you and DavidM are so intent on pinning that ONLY pin to my chest. I'm open to other definitions for oneness. If they fit the context of ch 17, that would be great. If it doesn't, then it would lead me to ask you other questions as to why you believe the way you do about it. I'm not trying to stab you in the back on this, Perry. I'm just curious as to why Protestants are tied so tightly to the T-Doctrine that infers a oneness that is (to your mind apparently) contrary to purpose. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the T-Doctrine and instead am encountering a great resistance to discuss it. At least that's the way I see it. . However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than just "one in purpose". "One in purpose" is a prerequisite for the Godhead. "One in purpose" is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if you do not beleive that they are "only one in purpose", then tell us more about thier "oneness". DAVEH: I just don't understand it, PerryWhy do you ignore my questions pertaining to what YOU believe? I'm not saying there aren't other possible definitions for oneness. I'm asking what they are. If you don't have anyway of defining oneness other than purpose, that's OKI just don't understand why you are critical of me for defining it that way. Please explain. Perry If you want to convince us that is is not only "purpose _ ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
[TruthTalk] twelve tribes
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:36:01 -0700 Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... he is the God of all Israel, not just the God of the Jews in Jerusalem. His new covenant had to be given to ALL of the House of Israel. Where do you get the idea that there were only Jews in the land of Israel? Before the tribes split into two kingdoms, the land which became the Kingdom of Judah already held Jews, Benjamites, and Levites, who were spread around throughout the other tribes. The righteous members of all tribes moved to the Kingdom of Judah after the tribes split into two kingdoms. (2Chron 11:13-16) Later, more people from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon moved to the Kingdom of Judah. (2Chron 15:9) In 2 Chron 23:2, we see a reference to the heads of Israel's families living in the Kingdom of Judah. It seems strange that Israel's families would have members living in Judah, if there were only Jews in Judah. In Luke 2:36, we see that the prophetess Anna traces her roots to the tribe of Asher. If Judah were occupied only by Jews during the time Jesus walked the land in His mortal body, how can it be that she considered herself of the tribe of Asher? In Acts 26:7, Paul speaks of the twelve tribes hoping and worshipping day and night. If ten tribes were lost, how is it he talks of twelve tribes instead of only two tribes? How would he know what those lost tribes were doing, if they were truly lost? In James 1:1, he addresses his letter to the twelve tribes in the dispersion. Did he intend that his letter would be sent to America to be read by the aborigines? If yes, did the aborigines read Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek? Obviously, the bible, of which there are many copies in many ancient manuscripts available to scholars for study and comparison, makes it clear that all of the twelve tribes were represented in Judah and the diaspora around the Mediterranean, Europe, etc. The only contradiction comes for Joe's magic gold plates, which interestingly enough are unavailable for scholars to study. Are you familiar with the tv program Reading Rainbow, produced by the program's host, Levar Burton? They feature children's books to encourage kids to read. The titles of the books are meant to attract kids' attention, and, for no particular reason, that's what I think of when I see the words Joe's magic gold plates. I guess empty, childish minds are attracted to the magic and the mystery. On the other hand, mature minds see that it's not real. -- 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] The Trinity
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. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL 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 with the answers in their relation to the Bible. At first, Perry objected to my use of /purpose /to define /oneness/, and then he came back with an answer that included /purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? DavidH, I do not object to your using one in purpose, I object to your reducing the relationship to one in pupose only. True, you do not say only, but you never have presented any other oneness of the relationship than one in purpose DAVEH: Perry, it is most frustrating for me to have to explain all the possibilities and details of my beliefs when I am not here for that reason. I'm trying to find out what YOU (and other Protestants) believe and why they believe it. Regarding the oneness referred to in Jn 17, I feel purpose does a good job of explaining it. I'm not suggesting it is the only way to define it, so I don't understand why you and DavidM are so intent on pinning that ONLY pin to my chest. I'm open to other definitions for oneness. If they fit the context of ch 17, that would be great. If it doesn't, then it would lead me to ask you other questions as to why you believe the way you do about it. I'm not trying to stab you in the back on this, Perry. I'm just curious as to why Protestants are tied so tightly to the T-Doctrine that infers a /oneness /that is (to your mind apparently) contrary to /purpose/. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the T-Doctrine and instead am encountering a great resistance to discuss it. At least that's the way I see it. . However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than just one in purpose. One in purpose is a prerequisite for the Godhead. One in purpose is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if you do not beleive that they are only one in purpose, then tell us more about thier oneness. DAVEH: I just don't understand it, PerryWhy do you ignore my questions pertaining to what YOU believe? I'm not saying there aren't other possible definitions for oneness. I'm asking what they are. If you don't have anyway of defining /oneness /other than purpose, that's OKI just don't understand why you are critical of me for defining it that way. Please explain. Perry If you want to convince us that is is not only purpose _ ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ -- 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] The Last Days
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? -- 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] The Passion of the Christ
Dave wrote: = Could men have also perverted the scriptures? If God allowed it, they could. Did He allow it? No one is qualified to say. DAVEH: Seems to me that the Bible itself foretells that likelihood. In several places, specific warnings are given to those who would add, subtract or pervert specific parts of the Bible. If God were to prevent it from happening, those warnings would have little importance. Read Rev 22:18-19 and ask yourself if it sounds like the Lord meant to protect the Bible from people he is warning in those verses. Good point! All that you or I can do is make assumptions. If we assume that some portion of God's Holy word is incorrect, then we must pick and choose what we want to believe. DAVEH: So what's new? Isn't that what most Christians do anyway? That would explain the diversity of doctrines and beliefs. IOW, don't Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant pick and choose the doctrines they believe and observe? Seems like we've seen some of that right here on TT, have we not? II do not know about most , but some do. That does not make it acceptable As I see it, assuming the Bible is absolutely inerrant may cause one to rationalize (some TTers have used the term harmonize) and possibly blindly accept something that may be misleading. Isn't that what some may do IF they accept the headings as being inerrant? I wish Dean were still with usI wonder if he considers the headings to be inerrant? He seemed to be so strong willed, I would not be surprised if he did. Try to forget the headings Dave. They are not scripture, not given by God. I believe that to be an unacceptable course for myself, because I do not have the wisdom to do that. I doubt that anyone does. In my opinion, the safe way is to believe the whole Word is true, and to live by it. God looks at the heart. If you live for Him with all your heart, He will not send you to an eternity in Hell because you did your best to follow Him, using the information you had available. We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I don't think that you believe in a literal Hell, DAVEH: That is incorrect, Terry. I do believe in a literal hell. I just don't believe the description of the lake of fire and brimstone believed by many Christians is a literal description of hell, but rather symbolic of the effect hell will have on those who experience it. Do you have some valid reason for seeing this as symbolic, or is that simply what you want to believe? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, DAVEH: Then it would be reasonable to consider the apostasy could have begun 2 millennia ago? If so, then could that not be reflected in the persecution of the Primitive Saints and the rise of the RCC? Would it not also explain the Dark Ages? That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Do you understand what I'm saying, Terry? we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry I thought that I explained this before, but here it is again in case you forgot. I am not a protestant. I am not protesting anything and am not part of a protestant organization. I do not have a denomination or recognize any spiritual authority over me except my high priest, Jesus, the Christ. My only guide is the Holy Bible and we come together as a church in one anothers homes. You have confused me with an institutional Christian. Though I regard some of them highly, I am not one of them. I do not know when the apostasy began. I do not know any reformers. I don't even know what a tangential path looks like or where it leads. I am fairly ignorant of these things you find important. I am not even certain what it is you offered to explain. Do you not believe that we are in the last days? Have you looked at Paul's comments to Timothy in 2nd. Tim.3:1-5? Have you seen these things come about in your life time? I have. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
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 in. Excuse me, excuse me, coming through. The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too 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 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 then he came back with an answer that included /purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? DavidH, I do not object to your using "one in purpose", I object to your reducing the relationship to "one in pupose" only. True, you do not say "only", but you never have presented any other "oneness" of the relationship than "one in purpose". However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than just "one in purpose". "One in purpose" is a prerequisite for the Godhead. "One in purpose" is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if you do not beleive that they are "only one in purpose", then tell us more about thier "oneness". Perry If you want to convince us that is is not only "purpose _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- "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] The Last Days
Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. [2 Thes 2:3] _ Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as $29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ -- 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] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
True Christianity wasNEVER lost Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. EPH 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. God's word was NEVER lost You may have lost it or may never have found it. God's word is ETERNAL ALIVE 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. But then again you do not trust His wordDave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATIONDAVEH: I would have thought the Protestants would be happy to suggest the RCC or the Dark Ages represented a time of apostasy and falling away. Couldn't Protestants then claim the Reformation movement to be a part of the prophecy of a restitution of all things as spoken by the Bible? If the Protestants don't lay claim to such a restoration, then when do they think it will happen, Kevin? thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away.DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Terry-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 such discussions arise because we insist on speaking in non-biblical terms. "Trinity" is our word. "Godhead" is the biblical word. With "Godhead" there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to the first century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in Old Testament scripture, God Almighty and the Spirit of God are everywhere but the Jews only thought in terms of oneness. There were no "dualist" nor "trinitarians" in the Pentecost crowd the day of the first Christian sermon. A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without "official" explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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] 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 such discussions arise because we insist on speaking in non-biblical terms. Trinity is our word. Godhead is the biblical word. With Godhead there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to the first century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in Old Testament scripture, God Almighty and the Spirit of God are everywhere but the Jews only thought in terms of oneness. There were no dualist nor trinitarians in the Pentecost crowd the day of the first Christian sermon. A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without official explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target. John Smithson _ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage 4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ -- 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] 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 seems to me, that 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." Now that the context is established, I would like to ask you if you are even remotely as concerned when you hear the word "person" as you are when you here the word Trinity. I suppose I've seen biblicists use this word "person" dozens of times since coming to this site. People talk about the "person of Christ" all the time. Yet the word itself is not a biblical word. There was no Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent for this word in first century Judea. The idea simply did not exist. So, where did it come from? It came out of the same conversations about the Godhead and the Incarnation as did the word Trinity. The early church was confronted with questions that the New Testament churches had not yet encountered. As the Jews became less and less involved with Christianity, and as Christianity moved farther and farther away from Jerusalem, the more the Hebrew ideas of oneness gave way to pagan ideas. Hence the early Church was confronted with the question, how do we answer polytheistic assumptions about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without losing the beauty, the harmony, the integrity, the fellowship, and love that the Scriptures reveal about the Godhead? That is, How do we uphold the one - ness of God, without diminishing the threeness of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship? The answer was found in the development of a word which captured the uniqueness of the participants, while maintaining the essential attribute of relationality. That word is "persona" in the Latin church and "hypostasis" in the Greek speaking church. "Person" means, "a being in relation to another."I cannot be a "person" without being in relationship to others. To fail to be in relationship is to stop being a person. This same thing is what the early church realized about God. He could not rightly be called one God apart from the relationship of the persons of the Godhead. The oneness could onlybe grasped in the threeness of the persons. Out of that realization, and the battles fought to preserve it, came the doctrinal language of Trinity. It seemsto me, if you are going to quibble over the word Trinity, because it is not 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 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity 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 such discussions arise because we insist on speaking in non-biblical terms. "Trinity" is our word. "Godhead" is the biblical word. With "Godhead" there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to the first century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in Old Testament scripture, God Almighty and the Spirit of God are everywhere but the Jews only thought in terms of oneness. There were no "dualist" nor "trinitarians" in the Pentecost crowd the day of the first Christian sermon. A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without "official" explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target. John Smithson
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 through. The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too convoluted. Bill Taylor === Thank you Bill! That makes sense. Probably the best I have ever heard it explained. I learned something today. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The 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 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" discussions arise not because of the threeness idea of the Trinity but because of the oneness idea we have about "God." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too convoluted. Bill Taylor === Thank you Bill! That makes sense. Probably the best I have ever heard it explained.I learned something today.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry == Sorry Perry, as a rule, I am in your corner, but that's too much of a stretch for me. 'course, I'm not real big on taking a piece of scripture and saying,That is not really what it means. If it says falling away, I buy that as is, Just as I think that when the Bible says Fear God, it really means Fear God, though many say it just means He is awesome. That does not mean that I do not expect the rapture at some point after the falling away. 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.
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 official explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target. I say I can't let this go without weighing in. Please bear with me. This quote conjures pictures in my head of a couple bored tea-drinkers trying to think of something to do with the rest of their day. Well, said one of them, why don't we conjecture something about God. The other one says, Yes, let's do, and why don't we make it about something which has never been talked about. And since they were bored and ornery, they spent not only the rest of the day, but the rest of their lives building on this imaginary doctrine, the fallout being that we here in the 21st century can't figure out how to get away from their conjectures and back to something more biblical to say about the God of the Bible. Well, that is just ridiculous. [:-) The Trinity/person language of the 3rd century developed out of real-time struggles to preserve biblical truths about God and the Incarnation. It's not like Arius, the heretic who started the controversy, did not believe the Bible was the word of God. He was a very devout man. He believed the things he said about Jesus Christ, and he thought they were biblical. The problem was, he thought the Bible taught there was a time when the Son was not. Well now, if that were true, what would it do to the Hebrew idea of one - ness? What would the unity of God become if the Son and Holy Spirit just happened to disappear? Unity demands a coming together, a subject-object relationship. A single mark on a piece of paper is not unity. It is nothing more than a singularity. The Hebrew God cannot be who he is, if two of the three participants are not involved and not eternal. All he is then is just an idea, a mark on a piece of paper. The early fathers knew that something must be done to preserve this Hebrew/biblical one - ness reality of God. The question was, how was the church going to convince a man who believed the Bible that he was wrong about what the Bible taught? How were they going to convince his followers that he was wrong. The church did the only thing it could do; it developed ways of clarifying and defending and talking about biblical truths about the Godhead and the incarnate Son. Hence we have the doctrines of the Trinity and personhood. 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 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 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 such discussions arise because we insist on speaking in non-biblical terms. Trinity is our word. Godhead is the biblical word. With Godhead there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to the first century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in Old Testament scripture, God Almighty and the Spirit of God are everywhere but the Jews only thought in terms of oneness. There were no dualist nor trinitarians in the Pentecost crowd the day of the first Christian sermon. A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without official explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target. John Smithson _ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - 4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ -- 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
[TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
True Terry, But it does get frustrating - at times it feels like wading through molasses, just going round and round and never getting any place. Maybe you need to share about your wife again - that was really encouraging :) judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Like I said before, there is a time for everything. This was a time for rebuke, yet Jesus was very kind and patient with the woman at the well and the other woman brought to Him to test HIm. Both adultresses, both guilty, but He did not jump on them or put on a holier than thou face.There is no argument that the Mormons are lost sinners, but I expect sinners to act like sinners, and Kevin seems to expect them to act like saints. You can scream at them all the verses you can think of, but if the Holy Spirit isn't leading the way, you are making enemies instead of converts. That is fitting for someone full of subtilty and mischief, but these guys are not full of mischief. Someone has filled them with bull, and they went for it. It is very tempting to sell them a bridge I own over San Francisco bay. Just kidding, I think we would all do better to pray for them. That's just my opinion.Terry Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy
[TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Hi Terry, I think working out our own salvation takes a lifetime and learning how to love is probably the most difficult because of the generational stuff we all have to learn to overcome and none of us escape that. It's more difficult using this means of communication because at times things we say can appear abrupt in print whennot meant that way. I know I would never intentionally verbally stone anyone but yesterday an old friend who I know loves me deep down became offended and verbally pelted me over that movie which is becoming more and morelike an icon in some people's lives. I don't think your plain spokenness is a hindrance at all. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a you and Kevin thing Judy. The Lord knows that I am no diplomat. I have been guilty of coming down a little hard on those aggrevatin' people who can't see how right I am and how wrong they are. We all do it to some extent. I think that probably Kevin is still learning and still growing ( If he is not there is something wrong) and I think he will learn to be more like Jesus and less like a pharisee as he matures spiritually. What excuse you and I can offer I do not know. I am seventy years old and have been a Christian for twenty-three years now. I should have arrived! All I can offer as an excuse is that the Lord made me plain spoken. If I think I see something wrong, I say so. I do not apologize for that. I just apologize for not doing it in a less offensive manner. You should have heard me when I first started my walk. I made Kevin look like a pussy cat.Stay tuned. One of these days I will be perfect. Hopefully, He will return soon. I am tired of waiting. In the meantime I am looking for a better way than verbal stoning. Been there, done that. Not good.Terry Judy Taylor wrote: Is that what you would call what goes on here Terry? I know Kevin's style (and mine at times) is kind of cut and dried but I have come to appreciate the time he puts into doing his homework and his zeal for God's Word. =
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Terry, Thios is not one of my do-or-die beleifs, and it certainly will determine no one's salvation either way, but does seem to fit well with the end times and the rapture. This translation of apostasia in this verse in no way indicates that there won't be many who fall away from the faith in the end times; there may well be, it is just that there is evidence that in this verse, that is not what is being discussed. If you feel like following up, here is an excellent treatise on the subject. http://www.upway.com/watchmenwatching/apostasy.html Basically, the word apostasia can be translated rebellion, apostasy, falling away, or departure. The author of the above treatise gives the evidence for departing, as in being raptured, being the proper translation. One of my favorite references gives and interesting explanation of the meaning: In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasia does not refer to genuine Christians who depart from the faith, but mere professors who, without devine grace, succumb to the Satanic deception of the Antichrist. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, by Spiro Zodhiates, Th.D.) However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:26:10 -0600 Charles Perry Locke wrote: Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry == Sorry Perry, as a rule, I am in your corner, but that's too much of a stretch for me. 'course, I'm not real big on taking a piece of scripture and saying,That is not really what it means. If it says falling away, I buy that as is, Just as I think that when the Bible says Fear God, it really means Fear God, though many say it just means He is awesome. That does not mean that I do not expect the rapture at some point after the falling away. 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. _ Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx -- 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] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
When Jesus comes back in the future Act 3:20-21 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATIONDAVEH: I would have thought the Protestants would be happy to suggest the RCC or the Dark Ages represented a time of apostasy and falling away. Couldn't Protestants then claim the Reformation movement to be a part of the prophecy of a restitution of all things as spoken by the Bible? If the Protestants don't lay claim to such a restoration, then when do they think it will happen, Kevin? thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away.DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Terry-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
The headings chapter verses are not in the mss. They are not part of the text and not part of Gods word You embarass yourself by claiming you thought the headings were scripture. that is just foolishness on your part. Perhaps you greatly desire to see something, anything, that will align with your preconcieved notions about errors in the Bible. Do you also think the form number on the bottom of your mortgage is part of the "CONTRACT" LOLDave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy Taylor wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Kevin Deegan wrote: No dave you are an unbeliever in God's word You are not of God. You will not enter in because of UNBELIEF. DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. jt: Headers, chapter and verse divisions and all that are not and never were sacred text Daveh, so what's the problem?DAVEH: The problem is some people may think it is part of the inerrant text. I did. I wonder if many of the KJVOnly folks do too? And, from what DavidM said..There are some 1611 King James folks who think that is inerrant. I think Kevin is in this camp. ...Perhaps Kevin believes such as well. I'd sure appreciate Kevin commenting on this. Which way do you believe, Kevin..Do you believe the headings are inerrant??? Daveh: I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. jt: Possibly because you eat up every word in the BofMDAVEH: I'm not sure why you would say that, Judy. Do you recall me quoting any BoM words here? (I have.but only to specifically respond to questions regarding what the BoM says about a specific topic.) and are totally uncritical of anything in it or anything having to do with the person of Joseph SmithDAVEH: While you may have your suspicions, you really do not know whether I am uncritical or not of JS. For you to make that unsubstantiated claim does not make logical sense. Though I am not here to defend or promote JS, it would not be prudent of me to criticize anything I might think about him to in this Forum. What I may do or not do outside of this Forum is something you simply are not privy to, Judy. AndJust because other TTers want to criticize JS or anybody else is not reason for me to jump onto their bandwagon even IF I were to have critical thoughts to offer. who is very controversial and who never went to a sinner's cross for you.DAVEH: What's that all about??? I've never considered JS a substitute for Jesus and his sacrifice of grace. This comment simply puzzles me, Judy. Daveh: If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? jt: The Bible isn't a kindergarten book Daveh and it's a closed book to some and open to others according to their heart attitude toward the author.DAVEH: As I see it, you've got the two perspective switched around, Judy. IMHO, it is those who think the Bible is inerrant and the heavens are sealed from further revelatory Scripture that have closed their ears to the Word of God. When ppl with no heart for truth begin trying to subject God's Word to their carnal reasoning, then God Himselfsends STRONG DELUSIONthat they might believe the lie.DAVEH: Care to explain that for those of us with a kindergarten mentality, Judy? Are you suggesting God is deluding me into believing a lie? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 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 through. The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too convoluted. Bill Taylor === Thank you Bill! That makes sense. Probably the best I have ever heard it explained.I learned something today.Terry Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
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 is translated in English translations as "body." The good thing about this word, that is missed in the English, is that it speaks of the wholeness of what it means to be a human being. It includes psyche, personality, temperament, character, and emotions, and intellect,among other things. The problem with it, and the one which led the early church away from using it in its language about God, is that soma, while inclusive of these other things, also carries with it the idea of physicality. The Church new that it could not be true to Scripture in its God language if it used this word to talk about the participants in the eternal relationship of the One God. It is helpful to us to know this about the word soma, nevertheless, because it is quite appropriate to speak of humans as "bodies," just as the Apostles did, without diminishing from the idea of personhood. Bill Taylor - 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 you are quoting, I would like to include the whole sentence here: I say, "The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Now that the context is established, I would like to ask you if you are even remotely as concerned when you hear the word "person" as you are when you here the word Trinity. I suppose I've seen biblicists use this word "person" dozens of times since coming to this site. People talk about the "person of Christ" all the time. Yet the word itself is not a biblical word. There was no Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent for this word in first century Judea. The idea simply did not exist. So, where did it come from? It came out of the same conversations about the Godhead and the Incarnation as did the word Trinity. The early church was confronted with questions that the New Testament churches had not yet encountered. As the Jews became less and less involved with Christianity, and as Christianity moved farther and farther away from Jerusalem, the more the Hebrew ideas of oneness gave way to pagan ideas. Hence the early Church was confronted with the question, how do we answer polytheistic assumptions about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without losing the beauty, the harmony, the integrity, the fellowship, and love that the Scriptures reveal about the Godhead? That is, How do we uphold the one - ness of God, without diminishing the threeness of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship? The answer was found in the development of a word which captured the uniqueness of the participants, while maintaining the essential attribute of relationality. That word is "persona" in the Latin church and "hypostasis" in the Greek speaking church. "Person" means, "a being in relation to another."I cannot be a "person" without being in relationship to others. To fail to be in relationship is to stop being a person. This same thing is what the early church realized about God. He could not rightly be called one God apart from the relationship of the persons of the Godhead. The oneness could onlybe grasped in the threeness of the persons. Out of that realization, and the battles fought to preserve it, came the doctrinal language of Trinity. It seemsto me, if you are going to quibble over the word Trinity, because it is not 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 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity 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 such discussions arise because we insist on speaking in non-biblical terms. "Trinity" is our word. "Godhead" is the biblical word. With "Godhead" there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to the first century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in Old Testament scripture, God
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
ECHAD is the word for "Compound United oneness" instead of the word yachid, "the only one," "alone." ECHADis used instead of yachid in places such as Genesis 2:24 where a man woman become ECHAD flesh, or ECHAD cluster of grapes ECHADis used in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 through. The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too convoluted. Bill Taylor === Thank you Bill! That makes sense. Probably the best I have ever heard it explained.I learned something today.Terry Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
DAVEH: Sinners.yes. Lost?.Can one be lost if he endures to the end? YESDave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy Like I said before, there is a time for everything. This was a time for rebuke, yet Jesus was very kind and patient with the woman at the well and the other woman brought to Him to test HIm. Both adultresses, both guilty, but He did not jump on them or put on a holier than thou face.There is no argument that the Mormons are lost sinners,DAVEH: Sinners.yes. Lost?.Can one be lost if he endures to the end? but I expect sinners to act like sinners, and Kevin seems to expect them to act like saints. You can scream at them all the verses you can think of, but if the Holy Spirit isn't leading the way, you are making enemies instead of converts.DAVEH: Have you considered the HS may not find what you are offering the direction the HS wants to lead. That is fitting for someone full of subtilty and mischief, but these guys are not full of mischief. Someone has filled them with bull, and they went for it. It is very tempting to sell them a bridge I own over San Francisco bay. Just kidding, I think we would all do better to pray for them.DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your prayerful concerns Terry. That's just my opinion.Terry-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 only one," "alone." ECHADis used instead of yachid in places such as Genesis 2:24 where a man woman become ECHAD flesh, or ECHAD cluster of grapes ECHADis used in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 through. The problems, it seems to me, that 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." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes invia the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" ina Hebrew mind isrelational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity.The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from theSon and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship tothe Father, and on and on. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first.Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. Hope that wasn't too convoluted. Bill Taylor === Thank you Bill! That makes sense. Probably the best I have ever heard it explained.I learned something today.Terry Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
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 the sinful use of unbiblical wording. Trinity is a good word, I suppose --- but it is not biblical. Person, as you so aptly pointed out, is likewise. I am big in the belief that the best biblical definition is found in biblical wording. "Let the Bible define the Bible." That is one of my rules of biblical study. In this discussion, I believe the notion that we can understand the Godhead when its nature is not revealed to us goes beyond any claim of "knowing." The word "trinity" gives the impression that there is some kind of definition for the word when, in fact, biblical wording confuses all definitions that I have seen over the years. Look to Isa 9 when Christ in prophecy is called the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and the Comforter. In I Cor. 3:17, Paul tells us that Jesus (by inference) is the Holy Spirit. Matthew's record of the Commission uses the wording "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." So there you have it. Isa. pictures (without knowing it) the "trinity" in one dare I say person. Paul confuses one with the other. And Matthew presents each separately (if, in deed, Matthew authored this passage). The problem with "person" (and I have used this many more times than once) gives us the impression that know what God looks like. We are persons. He is a person. They (all three) are persons --- and walla -- he is male with arms, legs, hindquarters. The manifestation becomes the reality and the observation by John that "no man hath seen God at any time" gets lost in the shuffle. In His grace John David Smithson (JD in another and most regretable life)
RE: [TruthTalk] Astronomers pinpoint time and date of crucifixion
Judy wrote: More experts with a different date and time. How is it so simple? Corresponding dates of the past with our present calendar is not always so simple. However, determining that the moon was full when Jesus was crucified is VERY simple. You don't seem to understand that the Gregorian calendar was not put into use until 1582. At the time of Christ, there was no Gregorian calendar like we use today. There were people who visually looked for the new moon to determine when the month would start. This day would be a rest from worldly business, a day wherein trumpets were blown and sacrifices were offered (see Num. 10:10, 28:11, Amos 8:5). Therefore, using the Jewish calendar, the first day of the month was always a new moon and the middle of the month was the full moon. It really is that simple. The problem is that you do not believe me, so study some history about calendars like Blaine has and you too will understand. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Terry, Thios is not one of my do-or-die beleifs, and it certainly will determine no one's salvation either way, but does seem to fit well with the end times and the rapture. This translation of apostasia in this verse in no way indicates that there won't be many who fall away from the faith in the end times; there may well be, it is just that there is evidence that in this verse, that is not what is being discussed. If you feel like following up, here is an excellent treatise on the subject. http://www.upway.com/watchmenwatching/apostasy.html Basically, the word apostasia can be translated rebellion, apostasy, falling away, or departure. The author of the above treatise gives the evidence for departing, as in being raptured, being the proper translation. One of my favorite references gives and interesting explanation of the meaning: In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasia does not refer to genuine Christians who depart from the faith, but mere professors who, without devine grace, succumb to the Satanic deception of the Antichrist. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, by Spiro Zodhiates, Th.D.) However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. Perry === Thanks Perry. I'll check it out when I get a chance. Right now I am tired, and my brain has stopped functioning. 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Wow, Lance. That was real interesting. I just received a book in the mail by Torrance called the Mediation of Christ. I cant wait to read more. It appears that Torrance took a TRULY holistic approach toward understanding, which is a challenge to me because I have been trained to be reductionistic. I think he is going to help bring me to some new levels of understanding that have always been out there on the horizon for me, but somewhat distant and not focused. Thanks for sharing. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone The deepest questions are those which penetrate to our ultimate assumptions or beliefs and which exercise a regulative control over our knowledge in any sphere. These are questions as to the framework of thought with which we operate and, from which we put our questions. They are questions as to the hidden preconceptions of which we may not be properly aware. We all operate with regulative beliefs of this kind which are tacit and informal. They are not normally noticed and they operate axiomatically in our interpretive framework. Their power over us is in proportion to the fact that they are tacit and they are axiomatically held. BUT WHENEVER A CRISIS ARRIVES, whenever deep conflicts in opposing frameworks of thought arise, then our unconscious assumptions, our latent beliefs, are suddenly thrust to the surface and we are forced to think them out. UNLESS WE BELIEVE WE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND and it's only if we believe that we will understand. There is no understanding without the commitment of the mind to objective reality and to its natural or intrinsic intelligibility. (TFTorrance) Indeed, what nature did Christ assume at His Incarnation? Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE
There exists more than 24,000 partial complete manuscript (mss) copies of the bible.They are available for inspection.The existing quotes (of portions of the New Testament) of the Bible number over 86,000These are found in letters and documents of the "church fathers" including several thousand lectionaries (CHURCH SERVICE BOOKS CONTAINING PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE)Without the manuscripts all but about 11 verses could be assembled from just the quotations. All 86,000 of these mss and many Lectionaries are available for inspection and cross checking the VALIDITY of the new testament we hold in our hands. Where can we scrutinize the sources for the BoM?Unlike the HOLY BIBLE, the sources for the BoM have been taken back to the Hole they were found in.I heard there is a handwritten copy of the original BoM, but alas it is hidden in the Church Vault in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Unavailable for any scholarly inspection. Why does the church not bring out for inspection photocopies of the important historical documents it holds? Luckily there is one LDS original available!The original source documents are available for the Book of Abraham.Now we can finally test the validity of the BoM and it's translation.Under examination we find the the one and only LDS original source document for a std work, is in actuality an egyptian funeral text!Can you provide for inspection, even ONE fragment of a sentence from any portion of the B O M?Can you provide ANY material written in REFORMED EGYPTIAN, for inspection? If you can provide one I will eat a beach ball!In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. They were dated to before Christ and 1000 years earlier than any existing copies. LDS were excited till they found out that the copies of Isaiah 150BC were exactly word for word, as the copy I hold in my hand in 2004ADPortions of Isaiah in the BoM do not even agree with different dated editions of the BoM!The Dead Sea Scrolls testify against the portions of Isaiah in the BoM.Over 25, Biblical sites have been discovered over the yearsCan you list even ONE Book O Mormon site?Can you even locate the Continent it occured on?LDS, care to really take a look at what books have been cooked? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
"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, Son, Holy Ghost) cast into a singular image (image of God) IN man.1 Thes 5:23 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 of our Lord Jesus Christ. Man is made up of Spirit, Soul, Body 3 IN oneThus the TRI UNITY of God, His image in us is expressed through this formula. (Body Soul Spirit) The SHEMA that every jewish boy learns part of which is Duet 6:4 and the ONEness of God. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" This is literally Jehovah our Elohim is ONE Jehovah or"Shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad" The Hebrew word translated "God" is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times the word "God" is used in the Old Testament. Not only is word for God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God as "Us": Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- (Genesis 3:22) "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:7) Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)In Isaiah 6:8 God says I send, go for us. I and us, God is indisvisible he is one. 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 compound UNITY. The word is used for one nation of 12 tribes, mariage two become one flesh god took one (Echad) rib and the two become one (echad) flesh gen 2:24; Numbers 13:23 one(echad) cluster of grapes God could have used yachid the hebrew word for Absolute one or "the only one," "alone." Genesis 22:2 "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son" Jesus said "I and my Father are ONE" (John 10:25) ECHAD is used in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Some call it TRI - UNITYTRINITY is a contraction of TRIuNITY Hope this helps you understand the TRI UNITY of God. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Sinners.yes. Lost?.Can one be lost if he endures to the end? YES DAVEH: Now let me ask you, Terry.Do you believe one can be saved if he does not endure to the end? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] The Trinity
Good enough, John. Now that I know where you are, welcome again. I hope to have many fruitful discussions with you. How about some of you others. What about HenryBlackaby's famousTruth-is-a-Person dictum. I've seen it used here on TT(although not with reference toBlackaby). And don't misunderstand, 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 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 the sinful use of unbiblical wording. Trinity is a good word, I suppose --- but it is not biblical. Person, as you so aptly pointed out, is likewise. I am big in the belief that the best biblical definition is found in biblical wording. "Let the Bible define the Bible." That is one of my rules of biblical study. In this discussion, I believe the notion that we can understand the Godhead when its nature is not revealed to us goes beyond any claim of "knowing." The word "trinity" gives the impression that there is some kind of definition for the word when, in fact, biblical wording confuses all definitions that I have seen over the years. Look to Isa 9 when Christ in prophecy is called the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and the Comforter. In I Cor. 3:17, Paul tells us that Jesus (by inference) is the Holy Spirit. Matthew's record of the Commission uses the wording "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." So there you have it. Isa. pictures (without knowing it) the "trinity" in one dare I say person. Paul confuses one with the other. And Matthew presents each separately (if, in deed, Matthew authored this passage). The problem with "person" (and I have used this many more times than once) gives us the impression that know what God looks like. We are persons. He is a person. They (all three) are persons --- and walla -- he is male with arms, legs, hindquarters. The manifestation becomes the reality and the observation by John that "no man hath seen God at any time" gets lost in the shuffle. In His grace John David Smithson (JD in another and most regretable life)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Kevin Deegan wrote: The headings chapter verses are not in the mss. They are not part of the text and not part of Gods word You embarass yourself by claiming you thought the headings were scripture. DAVEH: Forgive me for being naive, Kevin. As you are well aware, I'm not high on the TT IQ quotient protocol here. that is just foolishness on your part. Perhaps you greatly desire to see something, anything, that will align with your preconcieved notions about errors in the Bible. DAVEH: I hear seemingly contradictory statements and try to harmonize (as some TTers have used before) what I've heard to make sense. Do you also think the form number on the bottom of your mortgage is part of the "CONTRACT" DAVEH: Silly me.somehow I thought when one signed one of those documents with all kinds of itty bitty disclaimers and numbers, including page numbersit means that each of those points is important to the integrity of the entire document. What gave me that idea I suppose, is that one has to initial each and every page that contains one of those numbers. IF you are correct---that those page numbers aren't important to the integrity of the legal document---then I have learned something about law. IF you are wrong---that those page numbers aren't important to the integrity of the legal document---then I have learned something about you, Kevin. LOL Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jt: Headers, chapter and verse divisions and all that are not and never were sacred text Daveh, so what's the problem? DAVEH: The problem is some people may think it is part of the inerrant text. I did. I wonder if many of the KJVOnly folks do too? And, from what DavidM said.. There are some 1611 King James folks who think that is inerrant. I think Kevin is in this camp. ...Perhaps Kevin believes such as well. I'd sure appreciate Kevin commenting on this. Which way do you believe, Kevin..Do you believe the headings are inerrant??? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Bill wrote: Hey David Miller, Did you get the book? Have you read it yet? You sure are quiet. I still haven't caught up reading all the posts on TruthTalk. I have a two day conference I'm doing in Jacksonville for Gene Edwards and company on March 19th and 20th, so I will probably be quiet at least until after that weekend. Yes, I received the book, The Mediation of Christ, but I have not read it yet. One of your posts to Judy will take me an hour to absorb and comprehend. I sure hope you don't expect instant responses. :-) Real good stuff. Please keep it coming, but don't expect too much of a response from me until I have had time to fully comprehend what you are saying. I hope you are patient and stick with us awhile because I do eventually want to pick your brain. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote:..the rapture.. is thisbiblical wording now; what verse? G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Kevin Deegan wrote: When Jesus comes back in the future Act 3:20-21 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. DAVEH: I've understood this to be that Jesus won't return (for the second time) prior that restitution. IOW, the restitution must come first. Do you agree? And, may I assume (it seems such from your above comment) you do not believe the restitution has yet taken place? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATION DAVEH: I would have thought the Protestants would be happy to suggest the RCC or the Dark Ages represented a time of apostasy and falling away. Couldn't Protestants then claim the Reformation movement to be a part of the prophecy of a restitution of all things as spoken by the Bible? If the Protestants don't lay claim to such a restoration, then when do they think it will happen, Kevin? thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Wonderful, David, I can hardly wait. It's good to hear from you, and hope you enjoy the book, Oh, and thanks for responding to Lance Muir. I don't know if he's still on, but if he is, I'm sure he will be glad that someone got it! Thanks again, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ Bill wrote: Hey David Miller, Did you get the book? Have you read it yet? You sure are quiet. I still haven't caught up reading all the posts on TruthTalk. I have a two day conference I'm doing in Jacksonville for Gene Edwards and company on March 19th and 20th, so I will probably be quiet at least until after that weekend. Yes, I received the book, The Mediation of Christ, but I have not read it yet. One of your posts to Judy will take me an hour to absorb and comprehend. I sure hope you don't expect instant responses. :-) Real good stuff. Please keep it coming, but don't expect too much of a response from me until I have had time to fully comprehend what you are saying. I hope you are patient and stick with us awhile because I do eventually want to pick your brain. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
DaveH wrote: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Many Protestants did take this perspective. In fact, we have discussed before how the Stone-Campbell movement was a restoration movement of the 19th century that Joseph Smith borrowed from, even taking the same name as them for his church, the church of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Kevin Deegan wrote: True Christianity wasNEVER lost Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; DAVEH: IMHO..that rock was revelation, Kevin. So, to me it makes sense that after a general apostasy (falling away), it would be a restitution of all things via revelation to the Lord's servants, the prophets. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. EPH 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. God's word was NEVER lost DAVEH: I don't think we were referring to God's word being lost, but rather to people being lostsearching to and fro for the truth. As Isaiah recorded in 29:13. Wherefore the Lord said, For as much as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men. Rather than hear the real message of the Lord's word, they become lost due to the dogma and traditions (such as the T-Doctrine belief in a literal lake of fire and brimstone) derived by men centuries ago. At least that's how I see it. To suggest that God's word was never lost, I think that might be short sighted thinking. Seems to me there are a lot of gaps in or knowledge of what happened in Biblical times, and what God may have revealed. Is that not why there are so many theological questions and controversies over doctrines? Furthermore, there are books written (viz, THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE) regarding material that has since been discovered. You may have lost it or may never have found it. God's word is ETERNAL ALIVE 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. But then again you do not trust His word DAVEH: I think I trust it far more than I trust those who purport the Bible is all God has revealed, Kevin. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: And Mormons are proof of that falling away! There was NO TOTAL APOSTACY that needed a RESTORATION DAVEH: I would have thought the Protestants would be happy to suggest the RCC or the Dark Ages represented a time of apostasy and falling away. Couldn't Protestants then claim the Reformation movement to be a part of the prophecy of a restitution of all things as spoken by the Bible? If the Protestants don't lay claim to such a restoration, then when do they think it will happen, Kevin? thru a a money digging OCCULTIST, who could not stay away from other mens wives. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry I thought that I explained this before, but here it is again in case you forgot. I am not a protestant. DAVEH: I think you mentioned that before, Terry. My primary interest is in finding out Protestant theology. Though you may not consider yourself to be Protestant, I suspect much of what you believe is biased by the work of the Reformers. If not, you may always point out how your believe differs from Protestant dogma.that would be helpful to me too. I am not protesting anything and am not part of a protestant organization. I do not have a denomination or recognize any spiritual authority over me except my high priest, Jesus, the Christ. My only guide is the Holy Bible and we come together as a church in one anothers homes. You have confused me with an institutional Christian. Though I regard some of them highly, I am not one of them. DAVEH: Do you recognize/accept the Trinity Doctrine? I do not know when the apostasy began. I do not know any reformers. I don't even know what a tangential path looks like or where it leads. I am fairly ignorant of these things you find important. I am not even certain what it is you offered to explain. Do you not believe that we are in the last days? DAVEH: Yes I do. But as you mentioned previously, you believe the last days started 2 millennia ago.. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. So, my point was that the falling away could have taken place shortly after Jesus' death and still be considered in the last days as opposed to thinking the falling away has not yet happened. Have you looked at Paul's comments to Timothy in 2nd. Tim.3:1-5? Have you seen these things come about in your life time? I have. DAVEH: ButI assume you do not think the falling away (apostasy) has exclusively happened in these latter-days? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
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 to speak it in a way
that is both historically and biblically accurate, while meaningful and
true.
You have much to say, Bill Taylor. I prefer to narrow the discussion to a single point. Allow me that discretion here, now. If you imply that the principle I presented somehow degrades an opposing view ("trash" is the word -- a bit harsh for my intentions), I do not agree. My statement: "I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we give the enemy another target.," is a rule of biblical interpretation I follow. I see God's revelation in the biblical message and nowhere else. I believe that He said what He said with perfect intention and purpose. In the above, you speak of the challenge of worded conclusions that are both historically and biblically accurate. I believe to be biblically accurate is to be historically true.
Therefore, I am personally free to exegete my way to biblical conclusions and assume that all other consideration will fall in line. I am educated by the Word; I am entertained by history.
Grace
John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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 to avoid answering my specific question, Perry. I'm not asking you to travel the T-Doctrine road again as much as asking you why you criticize me for using purpose to I define it. To me, purpose seems like a pretty good way of expressing oneness. If you and/or others want to be critical of my usage in that way.That's OKI'd just like you to please explain why, and how you would instead think it should be defined. Lacking that, it would see you are being evasive in your above response. DAVEH: I just don't understand it, PerryWhy do you ignore my questions pertaining to what YOU believe? I'm not saying there aren't other possible definitions for oneness. I'm asking what they are. If you don't have anyway of defining /oneness /other than purpose, that's OKI just don't understand why you are critical of me for defining it that way. Please explain. Perry If you want to convince us that is is not only "purpose _ ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? DAVEH: I'm not trying to shoot arrows into you or Protestants in general, Vince. I'm trying to find out what they believe and why they believe such. To me, the apostasy and subsequent restoration is a given from my LDS bias. It seems so obvious (again.from my LDS perspective) that the gospel went through dark ages just as the world did in other aspects. It just surprises me the Reformers did not jump onto that bandwagon (apostasy as evidenced by RCC theology) while claiming to be the Biblical answer (in the effect of a restoration of what the RCC folks lost). Now again, Vincethis is my LDS biased thinking. I'm curious to know if any Protestants have given any thought to this. And if not, why not? To me it seems relatively a logical path to take. Are there any Biblical reasons why the Reformers did not consider traveling that route? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Not in the Bible, but an english word commonly used to refer to the catching up or snatching away of the church as described in 1 Thes 4:17 (but, you knew that already). Like trinity, or the antichrist (when used as an epithet for 'the beast of Revelation). English words that catch the idea of the text, but do not appear in that text. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:42:14 -0700 On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote: ..the rapture.. is this biblical wording now; what verse? G ~ P 235 _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- 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] The Trinity
Well stated, John. Thank you. When I said trash, I
was thinking in terms of discarding, to throw away, to stop using. I agree, I
should have selected my words more carefully here.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 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 to
speak it in a way that is both historically and biblically accurate,
while meaningful and true. You have much to say,
Bill Taylor. I prefer to narrow the discussion to a single point.
Allow me that discretion here, now. If you imply that the
principle I presented somehow degrades an opposing view ("trash" is the
word -- a bit harsh for my intentions), I do not agree. My
statement: "I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully
revealed, we give the enemy another target.," is a rule of biblical
interpretation I follow. I see God's revelation in the biblical
message and nowhere else. I believe that He said what He said with
perfect intention and purpose. In the above, you speak of the challenge
of worded conclusions that are both historically and biblically accurate.
I believe to be biblically accurate is to be historically true.
Therefore, I am personally free to exegete my way to biblical
conclusions and assume that all other consideration will fall in line. I
am educated by the Word; I am entertained by history.
Grace John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DavidM, Actually, we know the order is true despite what falling away may mean, right? Paul is laying out the order. The falling away happens, then the man of sin is revealed, then the Lord comes. Now, if one takes falling away to mean a falling away of the faithful from the faith, then the time of the resurrection is unspecified in this verse. But, I was writing in the context of the falling away meaning the resurrection itself (see the reference I gave in a previous post). In this context, it would indicate that the resurrection would happen, then the man of sin would be revealed, then the Lord would come. The next question is, do you believe the man of sin is the beast spoken of in Revelation, and if so, when is he revealed? If he is revealed at the start of the 7 year tribulation, then this would point to a pre-tribulational resurrection. But, maybe he is not revealed AS the man of sin until 3.5 years into the tribulation...then a mid-tribulational resurrection would be in view. But, I suspect you do not consider the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 to be the resurrection. Am I right? Again, this is not an issue I hang my salvation on. I am actually pan-trib...however it pans out! I would like to hear (read) your post-tribulational resurrection beliefs if and when you have time. BTW, I am currently reading a book called When will Jesus Come, by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:58:35 -0500 Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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. _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- 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] The Last Days
If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. Luther thought the church had gone astray, and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), but not JS. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:26:31 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? DAVEH: I'm not trying to shoot arrows into you or Protestants in general, Vince. I'm trying to find out what they believe and why they believe such. To me, the apostasy and subsequent restoration is a given from my LDS bias. It seems so obvious (again.from my LDS perspective) that the gospel went through /dark ages/ just as the world did in other aspects. It just surprises me the Reformers did not jump onto that bandwagon (apostasy as evidenced by RCC theology) while claiming to be the Biblical answer (in the effect of a restoration of what the RCC folks lost). Now again, Vincethis is my LDS biased thinking. I'm curious to know if any Protestants have given any thought to this. And if not, why not? To me it seems relatively a logical path to take. Are there any Biblical reasons why the Reformers did not consider traveling that route? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. _ Create a Job Alert on MSN Careers and enter for a chance to win $1000! http://msn.careerbuilder.com/promo/kaday.htm?siteid=CBMSN_1Ksc_extcmp=JS_JASweep_MSNHotm2 -- 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] The Last Days
David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Many Protestants did take this perspective. In fact, we have discussed before how the Stone-Campbell movement was a restoration movement of the 19th century that Joseph Smith borrowed from, DAVEH: Yes, thank youI had forgotten that you had previously mentioned such. I was thinking a little earlier than that thoughback at the time of Luther, Wesley, et al. Was SC the first to adopt that thinking, or was it commonly perceived prior to them? How about now.are there Biblical reasons why Protestants don't think along such lines? even taking the same name as them for his church, "the church of Christ." Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
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. Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. (Genesis 1:26) Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever-- (Genesis 3:22) DAVEH: Question: Who was God speaking to when he spoke these words, Kevin? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE
Kevin Deegan wrote: There exists more than 24,000 partial complete manuscript (mss) copies of the bible. They are available for inspection. The existing quotes (of portions of the New Testament) of the Bible number over 86,000 These are found in letters and documents of the "church fathers" including several thousand lectionaries (CHURCH SERVICE BOOKS CONTAINING PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE) Without the manuscripts all but about 11 verses could be assembled from just the quotations. All 86,000 of these mss and many Lectionaries are available for inspection and cross checking the VALIDITY of the new testament we hold in our hands. Where can we scrutinize the sources for the BoM? DAVEH: Why do you care, Kevin? Have you not already determined it is false? Is there anybody else in TT who thinks it is true other than a few LDS TTers? I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I have not been pushing the BofM on anybody here. Nor do you have any interest in considering if it is true. So I don't feel compelled to defend it to your satisfaction---what would be the point! What I do find curious though is why you feel the Bible is inerrant, when you apparently aren't even sure who penned parts of it. Who do you think wrote Hebrews, Kevin? DavidM thought you might possibly think Paul did so, but I would like to hear your thoughts about what you believe regarding the author of Hebrews.??? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
