Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
Show me whyI should ignore 1 Thes 5 Heb 4:12"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I am not suggest that. A dichotomy is by definition a separation. I'm saying you can not do this without killing the person. We are integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies and trichotomies of your framework is Classical Gr. philosophypenetrating and imprisoning your thoughts. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. But you are suggesting that we are a dichotomy The verses I posted are clear William said But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. 1 thes 5 tells us we are body soul spirit some suggest soul and spirit are the same. I simply posted Heb 4:12 to show that since soul spirit can be separated they are not one the same. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I suggest you do the same thing I suggested to Perry. I'llconsider your thoughts from my end. Will you considermine from yours? Oh, and I'm not suggesting that spirit and soul are the same thing. Maybe take a deep breath and reread what I did say [:( Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. Well what do you do with this verse then? 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. Soul spirit can not be the same thing since they can be separated: Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Body spirit soul: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Zech 12:1 formeth the spirit of man within him.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wm. Taylor wrote: I was rebuked a while back because I was "dichotomizing" the idea of personhood, when I should have been "trichotomizing" like the Bible does. Well, actually I was doing neither; rather I was arguing toward the idea of integration and away from all forms of spirit/body dualisms, as if we can so dissect a person as to separate the spirit from the body, and the body from the spirit. And so thequestion I would like to addressis about personal continuity, personal ontology, dualism, etc.There is no end to thorny problems we can get into when discussing this. And so I won'tsay a lot about it.But to me,it seemswe need to be very careful about reifying the words that we use from our tradition, making them so concrete in our thinkingthat we impose back on Scripture meaning that simply doesn't exist;for instance, when we read "soul,"what are we to make of this language?Is "soul" a third part of a tripartite structure, spirit-body-soul,called a human being? I think not. I regard the Scriptural use of the word "soul" heuristically, as simply a way of saying,me being me in the presence of God, without implying that there is a thing inside of me called the soul, which if I could do enough surgery inside myself and dissect myself and identify all my parts, I might actually be able to discover that soul part of me. I'm perfectly happy to use"soul" as a word -- don't get me wrong. But let's use it like the Bible does. It's a way of describing personhood in the presence of God. But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. We are spirit and body integrated in such a way that to speak of one to the exclusion of the other, is to dehumanize and depersonalize, and to dichotomizewho we are as living persons. Soul speaks to the whole of me, spirit and body, integrated before our Lord. Let's get to the crux of the issue: if we insist on making "soul" an actual substantive thing, as some of you are insisting, then it seems to me we need to go looking for the rest of Jesus. He's hanging there on a tree, you see, nails through his body, looks to heaven and says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Well, what happened to his soul? Where did it go? Did he forget who he was, a human being?Come on people [:)Jesus was a living soul, an integrated whole, a complete person. The body part dies on the cross. That leaves a disembodied spirit, which he commits to his Father --No soul searching. No parts missing! Bill Taylor==Makes sense to me Bill. Maybe we could use the word "Soul" in place of person?Terry Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spamDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
You can't separate, without killing the "PERSON"? God does it all the time! Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit The separating of the soul spirit from the flesh is a life giving operation: Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I am not suggest that. A dichotomy is by definition a separation. I'm saying you can not do this without killing the person. We are integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies and trichotomies of your framework is Classical Gr. philosophypenetrating and imprisoning your thoughts. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. But you are suggesting that we are a dichotomy The verses I posted are clear William said But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. 1 thes 5 tells us we are body soul spirit some suggest soul and spirit are the same. I simply posted Heb 4:12 to show that since soul spirit can be separated they are not one the same. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I suggest you do the same thing I suggested to Perry. I'llconsider your thoughts from my end. Will you considermine from yours? Oh, and I'm not suggesting that spirit and soul are the same thing. Maybe take a deep breath and reread what I did say [:( Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. Well what do you do with this verse then? 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. Soul spirit can not be the same thing since they can be separated: Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Body spirit soul: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Zech 12:1 formeth the spirit of man within him.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wm. Taylor wrote: I was rebuked a while back because I was "dichotomizing" the idea of personhood, when I should have been "trichotomizing" like the Bible does. Well, actually I was doing neither; rather I was arguing toward the idea of integration and away from all forms of spirit/body dualisms, as if we can so dissect a person as to separate the spirit from the body, and the body from the spirit. And so thequestion I would like to addressis about personal continuity, personal ontology, dualism, etc.There is no end to thorny problems we can get into when discussing this. And so I won'tsay a lot about it.But to me,it seemswe need to be very careful about reifying the words that we use from our tradition, making them so concrete in our thinkingthat we impose back on Scripture meaning that simply doesn't exist;for instance, when we read "soul,"what are we to make of this language?Is "soul" a third part of a tripartite structure, spirit-body-soul,called a human being? I think not. I regard the Scriptural use of the word "soul" heuristically, as simply a way of saying,me being me in the presence of God, without implying that there is a thing inside of me called the soul, which if I could do enough surgery inside myself and dissect myself and identify all my parts, I might actually be able to discover that soul part of me. I'm perfectly happy to use"soul" as a word -- don't get me wrong. But let's use it like the Bible does. It's a way of describing personhood in the presence of God. But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. We are spirit and body integrated in such a way that to speak of one to the exclusion of the other, is to dehumanize and depersonalize, and to dichotomizewho we are as living persons. Soul speaks to the whole of me, spirit and body, integrated before our Lord. Let's get to the crux of the issue: if we insist on making "soul" an actual substantive thing, as some of you are insisting, then it seems to me we need to go looking for the rest of Jesus. He's hanging there on a tree, you see, nails through his body, looks to heaven and says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Well, what happened to his soul? Where did it go? Did he forget who he was, a human
Re: Fw: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
I already asked this question of William. Maybe you can get an answer.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I'm perfectly happy to use "soul" as a word -- don't get me wrong. But let's use it like the Bible does. It's a way of describing personhood in the presence of God. But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. We are spirit and body integrated in such a way that to speak of one to the exclusion of the other, is to dehumanize and depersonalize, and to dichotomize who we areas living persons. Soul speaks to the whole of me, spirit and body,integrated before our Lord.jt:If what you say is so then how is the Word of God able to divide betweensoul and spirit? If they can be divided then they are not the samething;and it's obvious that neither of them is the body."for the word of God is quick, and powerful, and shaper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of SOUL and SPIRITand of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12)judytGod allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study--"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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
[TruthTalk] Re:Is there a TRANSLATOR in the house??
Perhaps David Miller would serve to aid us peons to apprehend the meaning of professor Taylor's important but somewhat obtuse message. Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 13, 2004 21:02 Subject: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. I was rebuked a while back because I was "dichotomizing" the idea of personhood, when I should have been "trichotomizing" like the Bible does. Well, actually I was doing neither; rather I was arguing toward the idea of integration and away from all forms of spirit/body dualisms, as if we can so dissect a person as to separate the spirit from the body, and the body from the spirit. And so thequestion I would like to addressis about personal continuity, personal ontology, dualism, etc.There is no end to thorny problems we can get into when discussing this. And so I won'tsay a lot about it.But to me,it seemswe need to be very careful about reifying the words that we use from our tradition, making them so concrete in our thinkingthat we impose back on Scripture meaning that simply doesn't exist;for instance, when we read "soul,"what are we to make of this language?Is "soul" a third part of a tripartite structure, spirit-body-soul,called a human being? I think not. I regard the Scriptural use of the word "soul" heuristically, as simply a way of saying,me being me in the presence of God, without implying that there is a thing inside of me called the soul, which if I could do enough surgery inside myself and dissect myself and identify all my parts, I might actually be able to discover that soul part of me. I'm perfectly happy to use"soul" as a word -- don't get me wrong. But let's use it like the Bible does. It's a way of describing personhood in the presence of God. But as to whether we are trichotomous beings, with spirit, body, and soul, I would have to disagree. We are spirit and body integrated in such a way that to speak of one to the exclusion of the other, is to dehumanize and depersonalize, and to dichotomizewho we are as living persons. Soul speaks to the whole of me, spirit and body, integrated before our Lord. Let's get to the crux of the issue: if we insist on making "soul" an actual substantive thing, as some of you are insisting, then it seems to me we need to go looking for the rest of Jesus. He's hanging there on a tree, you see, nails through his body, looks to heaven and says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Well, what happened to his soul? Where did it go? Did he forget who he was, a human being?Come on people [:)Jesus was a living soul, an integrated whole, a complete person. The body part dies on the cross. That leaves a disembodied spirit, which he commits to his Father --No soul searching. No parts missing! Bill Taylor
Re: [TruthTalk] communion
It'd taste better! Lance - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 13, 2004 21:02 Subject: [TruthTalk] communion This will seem like a stupid question to some. It seems like a stupid question to me. I feel stupid for asking it, but I must have an answer. This is not a joke. I am serious as a heart attack. Here is the question. Would there be anything wrong , when celebrating communion, with substituting a jelly doughnut for the unleavened bread? If the answer is yes, please advise why you say so. Thank you. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Stupid (Spirit-Filled) Christians
Many believe it's not "nice" (read Christian} to employ such terminology. However don't most of us in those brief nanoseconds of frustration at not having our meaning apprehended think (not saying out loud or, in print) to ourselves "how can he/she/they be so (blank)?Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 13, 2004 23:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. Bill, Apparently,your point is that 'many..Spirit-filled Christians' are stupid, butthe smartChristiansare enraptured with 'personal knowledge and the tacit dimension'..Thanks--this helpsto better understandthe conversation/s you're having here. G ~ P 235 On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:14:24 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, so I'll go in two directions. Firstly, let me say, and I'm sure you will agree, that Jesus has and continues to influence people who do not believe he is Messiah. Nevertheless there's no getting away from him. He is Lord! Secondly, let me also say that many of our so-called "Christian" ideas of protocol in ethics, divine attributes, justice, andlogic,are nothing more than Aristotle baptizedand christianized by Thomas Aquinas. It's not just the RCC who endorses Aquinas. Heinfluenced the Reformed church in a major way after Calvin passed on. Have you ever heard of Reformed Scholastics? That was nothingless than a all out effort on the part of Beza,et al, to synthesize and systematize Calvin under the rubric of Aquinas. All of that to say that many unsuspecting, Spirit-filled Christians have been duped into accepting or rejecting "Christian" ideas,for no other reason than thatthey do not realize they are asking their questions from an Aristotelian framework and not a purely "biblical" one. Did I get to your question? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. no doubt about (e.g.)Plato's continuing influence on culture/s,Bill; much different, however, then that of the HS, whoseinfluence isperhaps *unknown* by comparison--or shall we say*unexperienced*? any Idea/s why?:) On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:40:40 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi G, Actually, if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi (dash! a Roman Catholic Jew!), and read all philosophy through his insights on personal knowledge and the tacit dimension. I do not prefer Plato or Aristotle, both wrote from aBC Greek context. I am just saying it is absolutelythe epitome of arrogance and hubris to discount these guysand think you can live in this world absent their input. Only Jesus Christ stands in human history as being more influential to human thought than Plato. Don't be so proud as to think Plato or Aristotle do notsneak their way into your way of thinking about Christ. That's all I'm saying. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. ok;but if not Aristotle's,what are the philosophical premises of your theology? Do you prefer Plato? G ~ P 235 On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 06:26:39 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oops, I just sent an archived post. Sorry, you can disregard it. - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:01 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. But this is Aristotle! G ~ P 235 G ~ P 235
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]writes:Leviticus 17:11,14 states for the lifeof the flesh is in the blood”Since the life of man is in his bloodand man must die because of sin, OK so far. it can be stated that there is death in the blood. I can't stretch my legs enough to jump to that conclusion. ... Adam’s flesh, which is not inherently sinful (All scripture citations below are from RSV) Rom 7:24-25 ... Who will deliver me from this body of death? ... withmy flesh I serve the law of sin. Ro 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in myflesh. Ga 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and thedesires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed toeach other Ga 5:24 ... the flesh with its passions and desires. Eph 2:3 ... the passions of our flesh 2Pe 2:18 ... licentious passions of the flesh 1Jo 2:16 ... the lust of the flesh ... is not of the Father but is of theworld. Mt 26:41 .. the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Mr 14:38 ... the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Notice in Eph 2:15 that Jesus created in Himself one new man inplace of two. I bellieve that "the two" is a reference to His Godlynature and Adam's sinful nature, which, according to Eph 2:15, were both"in himself." Eph 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments andordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of thetwo jt: I'm not really sure what you are trying to say by taking all of these scriptures out of their context Vincent. Flesh can mean the physical body or it can mean ourAdamic sin nature so you will need to be more specific. I do know that your conclusion is incorrect because Eph 2:15 expands on what Paul refers to in vs.11 which is the Jews and the Greeks. Our flesh body in and of itself can do nothing; it's a lump of clay/dust untilmotivated by some kind of consciousness. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study by
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]writes: jt: I want to know if Vincent is aware that there are two kinds of flesh;so it is not the physical body only even though it is the same Greek word for both and the same # in Strongs Concordance. vince: Are we not discussing the physical body, the one which Jesus gotfrom Mary?When you said the flesh is inherently without sin, to which (notice the nifty grammar!) flesh are you referring? The scriptures which I cited earlier make it clear, imho, that there is a sinful nature inherited from Adam and Eve residing in our mortal flesh. Are you disagreeing with that? jt: Only in the incarnation becausethe Lord Jesus Christ had a body "prepared" for Him in the womb of Mary and he was "holy" which is to say sinless from the start. We are not because we have an inheritance in the first Adam. Sin is a spiritual problem; our mortal flesh (body) can show the evidenceand ravages of sin but an inanimate body is basically not the problem. If it were then the mock crucifixions and flagellations some get involved in would do some good but they don't (see Col 2:23). In Col 3:2 when Paul says "ye are dead" he is obviously not speaking about the physical body.. and what does he mean in vs.5 when he says "mortify your members?" vs.8 Put off the old man with his deeds... vs.12 Put on (as the elect of God), holy and beloved... Jesus was born holy and beloved, we have to put off some stuff and then put on somethings... judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
[TruthTalk] communion
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] This will seem like a stupid question to some. It seems like a stupid question to me. I feel stupid for asking it, but I must have an answer. This is not a joke. I am serious as a heart attack. Here is the question. Would there be anything wrong , when celebrating communion, with substituting a jelly doughnut for the unleavened bread? If the answer is yes, please advise why you say so. Thank you. Terry jt: Communion for us is a covenant meal of which not many in our generation are aware so it becomes dead form or ritual. Most churches I've been in use leavened bread and their explanation is because they are celebrating the resurrection. I don't believe their reasoning is valid. Jesus said to do it in remembrance of Him and He is our covenant with the Father. I don't see how a jelly doughnut could be an accurate representation because Jesus body which was broken for us was without (sin) leaven. judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] tough being a Christian
It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians. There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this, obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one person says,"Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what the rules say. Be led by the Spirit". They even have verses to substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit leading in the right direction. The next person says "Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take liberties with what Christ commanded is sin". They also have verses. A third group says,"Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine." To which the fourth group responds, "grape juice is the only way to go. One sip of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon." No one considers all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who is too ignorant to see how correct we are. If God has a really great sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how easily we fail at an easy command like "Love one another." The enemy is defeating us folks. There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. Terry HE must increase. we MUST decrease.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Incarnation
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:31:38 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: Sin is a spiritual problem; our mortal flesh (body) can show the evidence and ravages of sin but an inanimate body is basically not the problem. vince: Yes, sin is a spiritual problem. We can be tempted to sin by the devil, by the world, or by our own sin nature. The sin nature resides in our fallen, mortal flesh. The bible tells us that Jesus suffered all of the temptations that we do, therefore we can conclude that he was tempted by the devil, the world, and the fallen nature residing in His mortal, human flesh. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy: Sin is a spiritual problem; our mortal flesh (body) can show theevidence and ravages of sin but an inanimate body is basically not the problem. vince: Yes, sin is a spiritual problem. We can be tempted to sin by thedevil, by the world, or by our own sin nature. The sin nature resides inour fallen, mortal flesh. The bible tells us that Jesus suffered all ofthe temptations that we do, therefore we can conclude that he was temptedby the devil, the world, and the fallen nature residing in His mortal,human flesh. judy: Adam and Eve were tempted by the lust of the eye; the lust of the flesh; and the boastful pride of life also - does this mean that they had a fallen nature residing in theirhuman flesh also? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote:Leviticus 17:11,14 states for the life of the flesh is in the blood" Since the life of man is in his blood and man must die because of sin, it can be stated that there is death in the blood. I'm not sure about your logical process here that arrives at this conclusion, but I do, nevertheless, agree with your conclusion. jt: I didn't use a logical process to come to this conclusion David. It is written in God's Word. The blood may have genetic abnormalities and also experience sickness and disease, and ultimately die. Therefore, there exists in the blood both life and death. Literally, the Scriptures say that the "soul" is in the blood, which is the word translated life. I think this points to the soul existing and interfacing with the flesh through the blood rather than the neural tissue of the brain. jt: Well this is progress... I wrote:The very fact that sin affected the blood of man(his life) necessitated the virgin birth of Christif He was to be a son of Adam and yet a sinless man. This is where I disagree with you. You argue from the premise that Christ cannot have had any experience with weakness within him, and in tautological fashion you reason back to the conclusion which you already hold to be true. jt: Not true, I would not have arguedfrom any such premise because it is written "For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God" (2 Cor 13:4). I wrote:For this reason, Christ could partake of Adam's flesh, which is not inherently sinful, but He could not partakeof Adam's blood, which was completely sinful. Suddenly you leap to the concept of "completely sinful blood." I have no idea what you mean by that. How can blood possibly be sinful? Behavior comes from our brain not our blood. Sin pertains to behavior. jt: Now you've gone back to the 'brain' You just said above that the life of the soul is in the blood and I thought we were really making progress here. It's the "soul" that sinneth who shall die, not the brain. Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing, and even what you eat does not determine your moral state before God. Jesus could have had a genetic blood disorder like Thallesemia or even some form of Leukemia and still have been holy before God. jt: No he couldn't have. Even lambs, bulls, and goats, had to be spotless and without blemish. A leavened or blemished sacrifice would not have been acceptable before a Holy God. Blood does not determine one's holiness and to suggest such means that I would have a scientific way to determine the moral state of a person. All I would have to do is a blood test! How convenient. :-) jt: How did we get here? God is the one who set the standard, not me. I wrote:Because he had not one drop of Adam's bloodin His veins, He did not share Adam's sin. And if he did not share Adam's sin, then he was not our brother and was not related to us and could not redeem us from our sin. jt: He is our brother when we are born of the Spirit and become part of the New Creation in Him; this is when he becomes the friend who sticks closer than a brother. I wrote:It is a medical fact that from the time of conceptionto the time of birth not one single drop of blood everpasses from the mother to the child or from child tomother. This is blatantly FALSE. I do not have time right at this moment to look up some references for you, but as I have mentioned to you in the past, the red blood cells of the unborn are nucleated, unlike the mother's, and therefore easily identified in the mother's bloodstream. It is possible to determine the sex and the genetic condition of the unborn by taking a sample of the mother's blood. While there exists a barrier between the blood of the mother and the child, it is notcomplete. Some blood passes both ways, from the mother to the child, and from the child to the mother. jt: It must be a new 'scientific fact' then because I have four children and I had Rh- blood, they could not tell the sex of the child or it's blood type then and they told me it was during the birth process that blood from the child came through the plancenta and sensitized me. Were they telling me stories? Judy wrote:From: Dr. Liley, the "Father of Fetology [quote]Dr. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusionin the womb, said that seven days after fertilization:". . . the young individual, in command of his environmentand destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in thespongy lining and with a display of physiological power,suppresses his mother's menstrual period. This is hishome for the next 270 days and to make it habitable,the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsuleof fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed,the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by whichfoetus and mother, although immunological foreignerswho could not exchange skin grafts NOR safely receiveblood from each other,
[TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians. There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this, obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one person says,"Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what the rules say. Be led by the Spirit".They even have verses to substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit leading in the right direction.The next person says "Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take liberties with what Christ commanded is sin". They also have verses. A third group says,"Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine." To which the fourth group responds, "grape juice is the only way to go. One sip of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon." jt: This is the very reason why we should know ourselves what the scriptures teach; each of us must follow their own conscience and be judged before the judgment seat of Christ for what we as individuals have done in the flesh. The Nicene Fathers and other traditionalists have already gone to their reward. No one considers all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who is too ignorant to see how correct we are. jt: Arn't we supposed to be walking in truth? What if Lance thinks something stupid and insignificant and God views it differently? Does it matter how we walk and/or how we talk? If God has a really great sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how easily we fail at an easy command like "Love one another."The enemy is defeating us folks. jt: He's been defeating the professing Church for most of the past 2000+ years. Look at how many different doctrines are out there and we are now hearing that doctrine is not important. Just love everyone (I'm not referring to you here Terry) There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. jt: Dave Hansen has a different agenda and is servinganother Jesus. We may not look exactly like our Lord and Savior yet and a lot of evangelicaldoctrine teaches thatwe don't need to be conformed to His image. What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. jt: I think it is important enough to talk about but I doubt we will reach a consensus until we decide to fellowship around God's Word andlay our pre-conceived notions, the Nicene Fathers and all that aside andcome humblyasking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word to us. DaveH and Blaine are not seekinganswers because they believe they have them already in Mormonism.
[TruthTalk] Re:Tough
Well said a triple amen to Terry!! Lance - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2004 10:04 Subject: [TruthTalk] tough being a Christian It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians. There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this, obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one person says,"Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what the rules say. Be led by the Spirit".They even have verses to substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit leading in the right direction. The next person says "Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take liberties with what Christ commanded is sin". They also have verses.A third group says,"Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine." To which the fourth group responds, "grape juice is the only way to go. One sip of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon."No one considers all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who is too ignorant to see how correct we are. If God has a really great sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how easily we fail at an easy command like "Love one another."The enemy is defeating us folks. There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us.What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please.TerryHE must increase. we MUST decrease.
[TruthTalk] ancient Hebrew seafarers
Here's an indication, not necessarily proof, that some Israelites made it to Australia. vincent j. fulton http://www.awarenessquest.com/research.htm * A large ironstone slab is in Rex Gilroys museum at Tamworth NSW. It was ploughed up by a Rockhampton area farmer some years ago. It bears a Phoenician inscription that reads: Ships sail from this land under the protection of Yahweh to Dan. *** Other miners claim to have found ancient open cut copper mines in the Kimberley coastal area, where fragments of Palestinian other pottery have been unearthed. -- 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: Yo, Perry -- Re: [TruthTalk] Uh, DRUM ROLL please ...
Chris, Thanks for taking the time to write out that history in the long version. I have read bits and pieces of it, but have not seen the whole of it. Well done. Perry From: Chris Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Yo, Perry -- Re: [TruthTalk] Uh, DRUM ROLL please ... Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:43:07 -0600 \o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings Perry et al in the Matchless Name of YahShua !! It's a l-o-o-o-o-o-n-g story Perry ... SHORT VERSION: The reason the BoM sounds like KJV is because BoM is primarily a novel from a minister who was trying to make a buck by writing his novel to sound like the most popular book of the day -- The KJV! Smith ripped the minister off (he was dead by that time anyway circa 1816). LONG VERSION: I know that ancient Israelites came to America. I have a great deal of information about this. I learned this from studying history and the Bible. There have been millions of others just like myself. One other who learned this was the Rev. Ethan Smith, a minister from the 1700s to the 1800s. He was a very respected man who loved the LORD and the Word of God. He wrote a great deal about the subject of ancient Israelites in America but did not publish it for a long time because he was afraid it would damage the great credibility and respect he had with people. (Even today, a lot of people get upset about this truthful teaching.) The Rev. Ethan Smith talked about his beliefs with a close friend who expressed great interest in them. Therefore he shared his extensive research and writings with this man. This man was the Rev. Solomon Spalding. Solomon Spalding underwent great changes after the French revolution of the early 1790s that began the 'Age of Enlightenment' or the 'Age of Reason'. In 1795 he married a woman who was very worldly and very much interested in the things of this world. Spalding began to seek riches on earth rather than riches in heaven. He came to believe that the Bible was just a book by men that had a lot of good ideas, but that was used by men to control others. Spalding started a lot of business ventures, each of which failed. He also wrote novels trying to come up with a best seller to get rich with, but nothing ever came of them in his lifetime that ended with an early death in 1816. One of the manuscripts Spalding wrote was called 'Manuscript Found or The Lost Tribes'. It told the story of an ancient manuscript that was dug up that told the story of ancient Israelites who came to America and came to be known as Indians. He wrote it in a Biblical style using Biblical writings that he thought were good things all throughout his novel. He did this because he thought the Bible had been a successful book and he thought he could capitalize on that success by copying it. Spalding took the factual research of his old friend from many years earlier, Rev. Ethan Smith, and made up a fictional story using that research to try and make some money. Spalding gave names to characters such as Lehi, Nephi and Moroni. The elderly Rev. Ethan Smith finally published his factual works in 1823 and 1825 in the first and second editions of his writings called 'Views of the Hebrews'. The Rev. Ethan Smith was pastor of the Congregationalist church in the Vermont town where Joseph Smith grew up. Oliver Cowdery's stepmother was also a member of Rev. Ethan Smith's church. The idea that Indians could be ancient Israelites was actually a fairly common topic of discussion in the 1810s and 1820s from Vermont downward into western New York, and western Pennsylvania and its border with eastern Ohio. All of these areas encompassed the areas traveled by Joseph Smith's family and later by Joseph Smith himself. Articles were published on the subject in local publications. The local Palmyra newspaper, to which the Joseph Smith family subscribed, also published articles on the topic of the Hebrew origin of the Indians, and employed many of the same arguments to support the idea as those found in almost hand-book form in the Rev. Ethan Smith's work. The headquarters of Joseph Smith's church was in Ohio for a time in the early 1830s. Orson Hyde spoke in the Conneaut, Ohio schoolhouse in 1832 about the message from the Book of Mormon. An old friend of the late Solomon Spalding, the Honorable Nehmiah King left the meeting proclaiming that Hyde had just preached from the writings of Solomon Spalding. King had been Justice of the Peace when Spalding lived in Conneaut in the early 1810s. The man who followed King as Justice of the Peace, Aaron Wright, was another old friend of Solomon Spalding from that time. He gave the same testimony as King. A group of Conneaut, Ohio townspeople gathered to investigate this possibility. They consisted of judges, lawyers, a doctor, legislator, a successful businessman and a prominent farmer. They went chapter by chapter through the Book of Mormon, compared it with
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
I did my homework Davidm: Is this what you are talking about? Surprise Professor Soothill said: "What is really extraordinary and was a great surprise to me is that there is a lot of free-floating foetal DNA in pregnant women's blood. "Probably the cells in the placenta break and release the genetic material into the women's blood. "This means by taking a simple blood sample from a pregnant women you can access to the unborn baby's DNA." Professor Soothill said the test had great potential. "The implications are that we might be able to use this for other forms of early testing in pregnancy." Another article said that there was such a little that they couldn't do anything with it until they learned to use formaldehyde to preserve what they found. How does thisprove thatinteraction between maternal and foetal blood is normal or that it happened during the incarnation?
[TruthTalk] Re:Why valuable?
All of the issues being raised re: the Incarnation are addressed in some detail including Scripture Tradition (including Bill's beloved Athanasius up to the present day. Like cooking you could decide to prepare everything without ever referring to any recipes at all or,you could avail yourself of what others had made available before you. Sometimes what has gone before is better than we can figure out on our own. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2004 13:21 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:THE INCARNATION; VALUABLE RESOURCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the site for Perichoresis (one in Mississippi, one in Australia). This"conversation" is at the very center (pun intended) of what they're about. You may or, may not agree but, you won't have to re-invent the wheel.I've heard ALLtheir lectures and, I've read all the literature. I've hosted 5 years of conferences with the folks from Mississippi (C. Baxter Kruger friends) Though I don't worship at the "Krugerian" altar, I'd highly recommend checking this out. RSVP if you do. Thanks, Lance jt: I went to the website Lance and found myself back among people quoting Professor Torrance so I may as well stay here and deal with Bill and Davidm. Tell me why you believe thisresource to be so valuable? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] The Incarnation
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:26:57 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: judy: Adam and Eve were tempted by the lust of the eye; the lust of the flesh; and the boastful pride of life also - does this mean that they had a fallen nature residing in their human flesh also? vince: They did after they sinned. -- 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 Incarnation
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:22:32 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: No he couldn't have. Even lambs, bulls, and goats, had to be spotless and without blemish. A leavened or blemished sacrifice would not have been acceptable before a Holy God. I was under the impression that sin is a blemish. Which scripture tells us that a sinful nature is a blemish? vincent j. fulton -- 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 Incarnation
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:22:32 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: Leviticus 17:11,14 states for the life of the flesh is in the blood Since the life of man is in his blood and man must die because of sin, it can be stated that there is death in the blood. I'm not sure about your logical process here that arrives at this conclusion, but I do, nevertheless, agree with your conclusion. jt: I didn't use a logical process to come to this conclusion David. It is written in God's Word. Is it written in God's word that there is death in the blood? If not, then it must be a logical conclusion which you have drawn. If it is in scripture, I'd be interested in knowing chapter and verse. vincent j. fulton -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt: No he couldn't have. Even lambs, bulls, and goats, had to be spotless and without blemish. A leavened or blemished sacrifice would not have been acceptable before a Holy God. I was under the impression that sin is a blemish. Which scripture tells us that a sinful nature is a blemish? jt: So far as the 'sacrifices' were concerned they couldn't have any physical blemish they had to be perfect. An animal does not have a sinful nature they are born with instinct. However the creation fell along with Adam and any kind of physical or emotional blemish is the result of the curse because of sin, either our sin or that of the fathers. Today the church does not want to believe this but the Jews knew it. This is why the disciples asked Jesus about the man born blind - whose sin was responsible? (John 9:1,2). It was a valid question but the focus Jesus wanted right then was not on pointing the finger it was on working the works of God while it was day judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The Incarnation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: Leviticus 17:11,14 states for the life of the flesh is in the blood Since the life of man is in his blood and man must die because of sin, it can be stated that there is death in the blood. I'm not sure about your logical process here that arrives at this conclusion, but I do, nevertheless, agree with your conclusion. jt: I didn't use a logical process to come to this conclusion David. It is written in God's Word. vincent: Is it written in God's word that there is death in the blood? If not, then it must be a logical conclusion which you have drawn. If it is in scripture, I'd be interested in knowing chapter and verse. jt: Maybe not in those exact words but if one is born with generational curses hanging all over them then death is certainly in the blood whether it shows up in youth, middle, or old age, it's there. The scripture would be Deuteronomy 28:59 then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses and of long continuance... judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- 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.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Re:Why valuable?
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of the issues being raised re: the Incarnation are addressed in some detail including Scripture Tradition (including Bill's beloved Athanasius up to the present day. Like cooking you could decide to prepare everything without ever referring to any recipes at all or, you could avail yourself of what others had made available before you. Sometimes what has gone before is better than we can figure out on our own. Lance jt: I don't know about all that Lance; what if the product or end result of their recipes stink? Athanasius for instance was Bishop of Alexandria and was made a Dr. of the RCC. Now that's some fine recommendation. Look at the awful darkness inhabiting that structure. I'm better of reading the Bible, at least I know I can find light there. But thanks for the suggestion. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2004 13:21 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:THE INCARNATION; VALUABLE RESOURCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the site for Perichoresis (one in Mississippi, one in Australia). This"conversation" is at the very center (pun intended) of what they're about. You may or, may not agree but, you won't have to re-invent the wheel.I've heard ALLtheir lectures and, I've read all the literature. I've hosted 5 years of conferences with the folks from Mississippi (C. Baxter Kruger friends) Though I don't worship at the "Krugerian" altar, I'd highly recommend checking this out. RSVP if you do. Thanks, Lance jt: I went to the website Lance and found myself back among people quoting Professor Torrance so I may as well stay here and deal with Bill and Davidm. Tell me why you believe thisresource to be so valuable? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
[TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me.
"But the wisdom that comes from God is first of all pure, then peaceful, gentle, and easy to please. This wisdom is always ready to help those who are troubled and to do good for others. It is always fair and honest. People who work for peace in a peaceful way plant a good crop of right-living. Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you. You want things, but you do not have them. So you are ready to kill and are jealous of other people, but you still cannot get what you want. So you argue and fight. You do not get what you want, because you do not ask God. Or when you ask, you do not receive because the reason you ask is wrong. You want things so you can use them for your own pleasures." -- James 3.17-4.3 A man criticizes another for being five foot tall andtwo-hundred seventypounds, as if he can take credit himself for his own 5'- 10" and 180. A man criticizes another for his dark skin and curly hair, as if he himself can take credit for being blond haired and fair complected. A man criticizes another for his high intelligence, as if he himself can take credit for his own. Come on, people, get over it.We cannot take credit for being 5 - 10, for our great metabolism, our blond hair andblue eyes,or beingreally bright. We didn't get a say in those matters -- that's the way God made us! When we criticize in stuff like that, we show our own pride and prejudice. When we criticize inthings like that, who is it that we fight? Lighten up! How can we expect others to get this stuff if we do not demonstrate it ourselves? When I suggest that a lack of education has led to no end of misunderstanding, I am notpuffing myself up. Why? because you do not have to be ignorant. Let the ones with knowledge teach the ones without. Don't take offense at that. Participate. Appreciate. Become a one with knowledge. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. Bill, Apparently,your point is that 'many..Spirit-filled Christians' are stupid, butthe smartChristiansare enraptured with 'personal knowledge and the tacit dimension'..Thanks--this helpsto better understandthe conversation/s you're having here. G ~ P 235 Now, now, G. That's taking some liberty. Bill On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:14:24 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, so I'll go in two directions. Firstly, let me say, and I'm sure you will agree, that Jesus has and continues to influence people who do not believe he is Messiah. Nevertheless there's no getting away from him. He is Lord! Secondly, let me also say that many of our so-called "Christian" ideas of protocol in ethics, divine attributes, justice, andlogic,are nothing more than Aristotle baptizedand christianized by Thomas Aquinas. It's not just the RCC who endorses Aquinas. Heinfluenced the Reformed church in a major way after Calvin passed on. Have you ever heard of Reformed Scholastics? That was nothingless than a all out effort on the part of Beza,et al, to synthesize and systematize Calvin under the rubric of Aquinas. All of that to say that many unsuspecting, Spirit-filled Christians have been duped into accepting or rejecting "Christian" ideas,for no other reason than thatthey do not realize they are asking their questions from an Aristotelian framework and not a purely "biblical" one. Did I get to your question? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. no doubt about (e.g.)Plato's continuing influence on culture/s,Bill; much different, however, then that of the HS, whoseinfluence isperhaps *unknown* by comparison--or shall we say*unexperienced*? any Idea/s why?:) On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:40:40 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi G, Actually, if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi (dash! a Roman Catholic Jew!), and read all philosophy through his insights on personal knowledge and the tacit dimension. I do not prefer Plato or Aristotle, both wrote from aBC Greek context. I am just saying it is absolutelythe epitome of arrogance and hubris to discount these guysand think you can live in this world absent their input. Only Jesus Christ stands in human history as being more influential to human thought than Plato. Don't be so proud as to think Plato or Aristotle do notsneak their way into your way of thinking about Christ.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian
Judy Taylor wrote: There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. jt: Dave Hansen has a different agenda and is servinganother Jesus. We may not look exactly like our Lord and Savior yet and a lot of evangelicaldoctrine teaches thatwe don't need to be conformed to His image. DAVEH: If you don't want to conform to our Lord's image...well, I am very surprised, Judy. I'm probably as far from it as anybody, but at least that's my goal. Do not other Christians have a desire to be Christlike? If not, then what do Christians think Mt 5:48 is all about..? What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. jt: I think it is important enough to talk about but I doubt we will reach a consensus until we decide to fellowship around God's Word andlay our pre-conceived notions, the Nicene Fathers and all that aside andcome humblyasking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word to us. DaveH and Blaine are not seekinganswers because they believe they have them already in Mormonism. DAVEH: I'm not sure I'm welcome in this conversation...but gollylook at it from our (LDS) perspective. If the answers you have lead to the bickering typically/commonly/frequently found in TT, why would anybody expect Mormons to adopt a theology which is diametrically opposed to theirs which to us fosters a oneness of fellowship and doctrine. From my experience, even those who have chosen divergent paths that are rooted in the BoM tend to get along with us as cousins would compared to the brother/sister relationship of our immediate LDS family. I've never argue doctrines with those non-LDS Mormon folks, and have always had a pleasant time chatting with them. If I ask a question, they answer and vice versa. Though we may (may I add, respectfully) disagree on each other's perspective, we don't get our noses bent out of joint when discussing our differences. But I've got to say, I sure don't see that fellowship in TT. I can understand why some may not want to fellowship Mormon rogues like myself. But I sure don't understand why fellowship amongst comrades of Jesus is so awkward here, to be polite about it. Can doctrinal theology be at the root of this contention? Or.is it social theology that divides? Or.are some Christians not as Christian as they presume? I hope you don't take any of that as harsh criticism. I'm merely thinking out loud of possible reasons to explain in my mind what I see with my eyes. In short..you are right, Judy. What I hear/see in TT does not compel me to want to change from what I have. In fact, when some tell me they want to wave my underwear in public, I want to run the other direction. But something else in me wants to find out why those underwear wavers want to act that way, which is so contrary to what I perceive Jesus would do...which is why I've enjoyed some of my discussions with the street preachers. I just want to find out why that kind of thinking makes them tick. I suppose that also explains why I enjoy TT so much. Though it is so contradictory to the nature of the way I've been taught, I'm extremely curious as to why you folks seems so comfortable with the religion you practice that produces such interesting fruits I don't know if that makes sense to any of you. And, I hope I'm not offending anybody by sharing my thoughts. Delete it if you don't want me butting in..or.Ponder it as an outsider's observation. -- ~~~ 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] Please hear me out before ousting me.
Wm. Taylor wrote: "But the wisdom that comes from God is first of all pure, then peaceful, gentle, and easy to please. This wisdom is always ready to help those who are troubled and to do good for others. It is always fair and honest. People who work for peace in a peaceful way plant a good crop of right-living. Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you. You want things, but you do not have them. So you are ready to kill and are jealous of other people, but you still cannot get what you want. So you argue and fight. You do not get what you want, because you do not ask God. Or when you ask, you do not receive because the reason you ask is wrong. You want things so you can use them for your own pleasures." -- James 3.17-4.3 A man criticizes another for being five foot tall andtwo-hundred seventypounds, as if he can take credit himself for his own 5'- 10" and 180. A man criticizes another for his dark skin and curly hair, as if he himself can take credit for being blond haired and fair complected. A man criticizes another for his high intelligence, as if he himself can take credit for his own. Come on, people, get over it.We cannot take credit for being 5 - 10, for our great metabolism, our blond hair andblue eyes,or beingreally bright. We didn't get a say in those matters -- that's the way God made us! When we criticize in stuff like that, we show our own pride and prejudice. When we criticize inthings like that, who is it that we fight? Lighten up! How can we expect others to get this stuff if we do not demonstrate it ourselves? When I suggest that a lack of education has led to no end of misunderstanding, I am notpuffing myself up. Why? because you do not have to be ignorant. Let the ones with knowledge teach the ones without. Don't take offense at that. Participate. Appreciate. Become a one with knowledge. Bill Taylor Bill, you make some good pointsWe have no control over our genetic makeup, and should not criticize or be criticized for the way the Lord has chosen to make us. You are correct to point at this as both pride and prejudice. I understand that fully. Just before that though, you quoted verses speaking of the wisdom that comes from God, then if I am not mistaken, you equated that somehow with education. If I might point at my own experience with education, particularly secular history and sociology, purity would be a rare and accidental thing to come across while studying these subects. Waddaya think? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] tough being a Christian
No suggestion from me. You have said it quite well.
Sadly, I think you're even right {:)
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:04
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] tough being a
Christian
It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a
Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians.
There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this,
obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the
truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the
truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one
time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own
accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to
substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one
person says,"Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do
not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what
the rules say. Be led by the Spirit".They even have verses to
substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit
leading in the right direction. The next person
says "Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The
unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take
liberties with what Christ commanded is sin". They also have
verses.A third group says,"Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do
not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine." To which
the fourth group responds, "grape juice is the only way to go. One sip
of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon."No one considers
all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but
everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would
cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's
ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who
is too ignorant to see how correct we are. If God has a really great
sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I
suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how
easily we fail at an easy command like "Love one another."The enemy is
defeating us folks. There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be
like us. I don't even want to be like us.What can we do about
it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions
please.TerryHE must increase. we MUST
decrease.
[TruthTalk] Big Oops!
Fellow TTers, Sometimes I need a filter installed between my brain and mouth. If I've offended you with my intensity, please forgive me. I am sometimes so on task that I forget the important stuff and forgo the niceties. I will try to make this a rarity. Thanks, Bill Taylor
Re: [TruthTalk] The Incarnation
Judy: Adam and Eve were tempted by the lust of the eye; the lust of the flesh; and the boastful pride of life also - does this mean that they had a fallen nature residing in theirhuman flesh also? Great question, Judy. The answer is No. Yet that does not address our post-fall condition. Adam and Eve did not need a Savior before they fell; they needed one after falling. In order to get to the problem and save the fallen Adam and Eve, the Savior had to defeat the problem from the side of fallen humanity. This is what the early fathers were getting at when saying things like, The unassumed is unsaved, and If the whole Adam fell then the whole Adam had to be taken up to be saved. I know the early fathers do not impress you or convince you, but this teaching was everywhere in the early church, yet there was not a single council which addressed it as heresy. To the contrary Athanasius defended orthodoxy from the side of this aspect of Christ's human nature. Where was the outrage? Was there no one in orthodoxy to take him on? Apollonarius said Christ could not have a human mind because the mind was the root of evil. Athanasius said, You miss the point. That is why Christ had to have a human mind, so that he could defeat sin at its root. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:26 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The Incarnation From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy: Sin is a spiritual problem; our mortal flesh (body) can show theevidence and ravages of sin but an inanimate body is basically not the problem. vince: Yes, sin is a spiritual problem. We can be tempted to sin by thedevil, by the world, or by our own sin nature. The sin nature resides inour fallen, mortal flesh. The bible tells us that Jesus suffered all ofthe temptations that we do, therefore we can conclude that he was temptedby the devil, the world, and the fallen nature residing in His mortal,human flesh. judy: Adam and Eve were tempted by the lust of the eye; the lust of the flesh; and the boastful pride of life also - does this mean that they had a fallen nature residing in theirhuman flesh also? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Why valuable?
Yes, well said. Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:51 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Why valuable? All of the issues being raised re: the Incarnation are addressed in some detail including Scripture Tradition (including Bill's beloved Athanasius up to the present day. Like cooking you could decide to prepare everything without ever referring to any recipes at all or,you could avail yourself of what others had made available before you. Sometimes what has gone before is better than we can figure out on our own. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2004 13:21 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:THE INCARNATION; VALUABLE RESOURCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the site for Perichoresis (one in Mississippi, one in Australia). This"conversation" is at the very center (pun intended) of what they're about. You may or, may not agree but, you won't have to re-invent the wheel.I've heard ALLtheir lectures and, I've read all the literature. I've hosted 5 years of conferences with the folks from Mississippi (C. Baxter Kruger friends) Though I don't worship at the "Krugerian" altar, I'd highly recommend checking this out. RSVP if you do. Thanks, Lance jt: I went to the website Lance and found myself back among people quoting Professor Torrance so I may as well stay here and deal with Bill and Davidm. Tell me why you believe thisresource to be so valuable? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian
Dave H. Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of all of us for acting like we do. Truth is important, I agree. But truth to the exclusion of unity changes nature somehow. I am sorry. bill taylor - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian Judy Taylor wrote: There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. jt: Dave Hansen has a different agenda and is servinganother Jesus. We may not look exactly like our Lord and Savior yet and a lot of evangelicaldoctrine teaches thatwe don't need to be conformed to His image. DAVEH: If you don't want to conform to our Lord's image...well, I am very surprised, Judy. I'm probably as far from it as anybody, but at least that's my goal. Do not other Christians have a desire to be Christlike? If not, then what do Christians think Mt 5:48 is all about..? What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. jt: I think it is important enough to talk about but I doubt we will reach a consensus until we decide to fellowship around God's Word andlay our pre-conceived notions, the Nicene Fathers and all that aside andcome humblyasking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word to us. DaveH and Blaine are not seekinganswers because they believe they have them already in Mormonism.DAVEH: I'm not sure I'm welcome in this conversation...but gollylook at it from our (LDS) perspective. If the answers you have lead to the bickering typically/commonly/frequently found in TT, why would anybody expect Mormons to adopt a theology which is diametrically opposed to theirs which to us fosters a oneness of fellowship and doctrine. From my experience, even those who have chosen divergent paths that are rooted in the BoM tend to get along with us as cousins would compared to the brother/sister relationship of our immediate LDS family. I've never argue doctrines with those non-LDS Mormon folks, and have always had a pleasant time chatting with them. If I ask a question, they answer and vice versa. Though we may (may I add, respectfully) disagree on each other's perspective, we don't get our noses bent out of joint when discussing our differences. But I've got to say, I sure don't see that fellowship in TT. I can understand why some may not want to fellowship Mormon rogues like myself. But I sure don't understand why fellowship amongst comrades of Jesus is so awkward here, to be polite about it. Can doctrinal theology be at the root of this contention? Or.is it social theology that divides? Or.are some Christians not as Christian as they presume? I hope you don't take any of that as harsh criticism. I'm merely thinking out loud of possible reasons to explain in my mind what I see with my eyes. In short..you are right, Judy. What I hear/see in TT does not compel me to want to change from what I have. In fact, when some tell me they want to wave my underwear in public, I want to run the other direction. But something else in me wants to find out why those underwear wavers want to act that way, which is so contrary to what I perceive Jesus would do...which is why I've enjoyed some of my discussions with the street preachers. I just want to find out why that kind of thinking makes them tick. I suppose that also explains why I enjoy TT so much. Though it is so contradictory to the nature of the way I've been taught, I'm extremely curious as to why you folks seems so comfortable with the religion you practice that produces such interesting fruits I don't know if that makes sense to any of you. And, I hope I'm not offending anybody by sharing my thoughts. Delete it if you don't want me butting in..or.Ponder it as an outsider's observation. -- ~~~ 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] Please hear me out before ousting me.
Thank you, Terry, Sorry it's taking so long to get back to you. I'm still experiencing some 'net difficulties. I'm not trying to equate education with wisdom. I am saying that ignorance is not a virtue, just like knowledge does not make us more precious in the sight of our Lord. I am attempting to place knowledge in its appropriate place within the larger context of the wisdom that comes from God. I am saying that we should work in areas of weakness, and stay away from things we can not change, like height, skin color, and IQ. When we criticize those things that we can not change, aren't we really saying that God is to blame for making me this way, and if he had his act straight I would be different? I know that no one would say something so absurd, but what do our readers hear us saying? Aren't they precious too? Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. Wm. Taylor wrote: "But the wisdom that comes from God is first of all pure, then peaceful, gentle, and easy to please. This wisdom is always ready to help those who are troubled and to do good for others. It is always fair and honest. People who work for peace in a peaceful way plant a good crop of right-living. Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you. You want things, but you do not have them. So you are ready to kill and are jealous of other people, but you still cannot get what you want. So you argue and fight. You do not get what you want, because you do not ask God. Or when you ask, you do not receive because the reason you ask is wrong. You want things so you can use them for your own pleasures." -- James 3.17-4.3 A man criticizes another for being five foot tall andtwo-hundred seventypounds, as if he can take credit himself for his own 5'- 10" and 180. A man criticizes another for his dark skin and curly hair, as if he himself can take credit for being blond haired and fair complected. A man criticizes another for his high intelligence, as if he himself can take credit for his own. Come on, people, get over it.We cannot take credit for being 5 - 10, for our great metabolism, our blond hair andblue eyes,or beingreally bright. We didn't get a say in those matters -- that's the way God made us! When we criticize in stuff like that, we show our own pride and prejudice. When we criticize inthings like that, who is it that we fight? Lighten up! How can we expect others to get this stuff if we do not demonstrate it ourselves? When I suggest that a lack of education has led to no end of misunderstanding, I am notpuffing myself up. Why? because you do not have to be ignorant. Let the ones with knowledge teach the ones without. Don't take offense at that. Participate. Appreciate. Become a one with knowledge. Bill Taylor Bill, you make some good pointsWe have no control over our genetic makeup, and should not criticize or be criticized for the way the Lord has chosen to make us. You are correct to point at this as both pride and prejudice. I understand that fully.Just before that though, you quoted verses speaking of the wisdom that comes from God, then if I am not mistaken, you equated that somehow with education. If I might point at my own experience with education, particularly secular history and sociology, purity would be a rare and accidental thing to come across while studying these subects.Waddaya think?Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE
Kevin, you still don't seem to understand the difference between Scripture and the word of God. The word of God is eternal. Scripture is not. Scripture is the written word, but the word of God is the living word. There also is a difference between Scripture and the Bible. Both are the written word of God, but Scripture includes more than what is found in the Bible. Do you want to talk about this? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE Considering that the word of God is eternal they must have existed at all times. David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin wrote: So we can safely assume that they did not exist before Mount Sinai? I can only say that I am unaware of any Scriptures existing before that time. I am not one to make an assertion that Scripture did not exist before Sinai, but if you want to make some kind of argument that assumes they did not exist before Sinai, that would be fine with me. 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me.
Wm. Taylor wrote: Thank you, Terry, I'm not trying to equate education with wisdom. I am saying that ignorance is not a virtue, == Being ignorant in many areas, I can testify to the truth in your comment. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
Bill wrote: A dichotomy is by definition a separation. I'm saying you can not do this without killing the person. True enough, but you cannot separate the brain from a person without killing them either. That doesn't mean that the brain cannot be identified and talked about separate from the rest of the body and person. Bill wrote: We are integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies and trichotomies of your framework is Classical Gr. philosophy penetrating and imprisoning your thoughts. Yes, it is classical Greek, but I think it to be spot on. Don't you think Paul draws on this classical Greek thought in Romans 7 when he says, So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:25 KJV) For the record, I don't object to your sense of the word soul. The Scriptures often use it exactly as you talk about. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the soul is not something that could be identified and considered as something distinct. Several passages of Scripture seem to do just that (I think Kevin quoted several already). You may interpret them otherwise, but especially the Hebrews 4:12 passage deserves more than just a figure of speech acknowledgement. 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] tough being a Christian
Yes, Terry. This is the most important thing of all to talk about. I think perhaps we should stop all posting and talk only about THIS. :-) Despite all doctrines and concepts, it really all comes down to relationships and loving one another. Knowledge will be done away. That doesn't mean that we cannot study and gain understanding, but we have to put it in perspective. Maybe we should do a study on the book of Ecclesiastes. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] tough being a Christian It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians. There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this, obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one person says,Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what the rules say. Be led by the Spirit. They even have verses to substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit leading in the right direction. The next person says Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take liberties with what Christ commanded is sin. They also have verses. A third group says,Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine. To which the fourth group responds, grape juice is the only way to go. One sip of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon. No one considers all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who is too ignorant to see how correct we are. If God has a really great sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how easily we fail at an easy command like Love one another. The enemy is defeating us folks. There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. Terry HE must increase. we MUST decrease.
Re: Yo, Perry -- Re: [TruthTalk] Uh, DRUM ROLL please ...
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings Perry in the Matchless NameofYahShua!! - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" Sent: 03/14/2004 10:29 AM Subject: RE: Yo, Perry -- Re: [TruthTalk] Uh, DRUM ROLL please ... Chris, Thanks for taking the time to write out that history in the long version. You're welcome. I have read bits and pieces of it, but have not seen the whole of it. You might already have guessed this but there is actually much more to the story. It is fascinating to me. Well done. Perry Thank you, Perry. The credit must go to The Almighty Who has blessed me with this data. He has directed my paths. This information was not "dug up" but rather left laying about as I have travelled along in this walk. There was a James Adair who wrote extensively in 1775 about his fascination with the "Indians" of the southeast (especially the Cherokees) who exhibited much that he recognized as similar to Judaism. Just another nugget that I stumbled over ... I wasn't looking for it but there it was one day as I was reading. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, ChrisBarr a servant of YHVH From: "Chris Barr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Yo, Perry -- Re: [TruthTalk] Uh, DRUM ROLL please ... Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:43:07 -0600 \o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings Perry et al in the Matchless Name of YahShua !! It's a l-o-o-o-o-o-n-g story Perry ... SHORT VERSION: The reason the BoM sounds like KJV is because BoM is primarily a novel from a minister who was trying to make a buck by writing his novel to sound like the most popular book of the day -- The KJV! Smith ripped the minister off (he was dead by that time anyway circa 1816). LONG VERSION: I know that ancient Israelites came to America. I have a great deal of information about this. I learned this from studying history and the Bible. There have been millions of others just like myself. One other who learned this was the Rev. Ethan Smith, a minister from the 1700s to the 1800s. He was a very respected man who loved the LORD and the Word of God. He wrote a great deal about the subject of ancient Israelites in America but did not publish it for a long time because he was afraid it would damage the great credibility and respect he had with people. (Even today, a lot of people get upset about this truthful teaching.) The Rev. Ethan Smith talked about his beliefs with a close friend who expressed great interest in them. Therefore he shared his extensive research and writings with this man. This man was the Rev. Solomon Spalding. Solomon Spalding underwent great changes after the French revolution of the early 1790s that began the 'Age of Enlightenment' or the 'Age of Reason'. In 1795 he married a woman who was very worldly and very much interested in the things of this world. Spalding began to seek riches on earth rather than riches in heaven. He came to believe that the Bible was just a book by men that had a lot of good ideas, but that was used by men to control others. Spalding started a lot of business ventures, each of which failed. He also wrote novels trying to come up with a best seller to get rich with, but nothing ever came of them in his lifetime that ended with an early death in 1816. One of the manuscripts Spalding wrote was called 'Manuscript Found or The Lost Tribes'. It told the story of an ancient manuscript that was dug up that told the story of ancient Israelites who came to America and came to be known as Indians. He wrote it in a Biblical style using Biblical writings that he thought were good things all throughout his novel. He did this because he thought the Bible had been a successful book and he thought he could capitalize on that success by copying it. Spalding took the factual research of his old friend from many years earlier, Rev. Ethan Smith, and made up a fictional story using that research to try and make some money. Spalding gave names to characters such as Lehi, Nephi and Moroni. The elderly Rev. Ethan Smith finally published his factual works in 1823 and 1825 in the first and second editions of his writings called 'Views of the Hebrews'. The Rev. Ethan Smith was pastor of the Congregationalist church in the Vermont town where Joseph Smith grew up. Oliver Cowdery's stepmother was also a member of Rev. Ethan Smith's church. The idea that Indians could be ancient Israelites was actually a fairly common topic of discussion in the 1810s and 1820s from Vermont downward into western New York, and western Pennsylvania and its border with eastern Ohio. All of these areas encompassed the areas traveled by Joseph Smith's family and later by Joseph Smith himself. Articles were published on the subject in local publications. The local Palmyra newspaper, to which the Joseph Smith family subscribed,
RE: [TruthTalk] tough being a Christian
Yes you will have to drop your doctrine because you have every wind. No thanks count me out I shall take my stand on the word of God. "It is better to have divisions than an evil uniformity." Walter Cradock "It is an undoubted truth that every doctrine that comes from God, leads to God; and that which doth not tend to promote holiness is not of God." George Whitefield David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, Terry. This is the most important thing of all to talk about. I think perhaps we should stop all posting and talk only about THIS. :-) Despite all doctrines and concepts, it really all comes down to relationships and loving one another. Knowledge will be done away. That doesn't mean that we cannot study and gain understanding, but we have to put it in perspective. Maybe we should do a study on the book of Ecclesiastes. :-) Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:05 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] tough being a Christian It occurs to me that the only thing tougher than being a Christian, is being a Christian in one accord with other Christians. There is nothing we will not verbally scrap about. We do this, obviously, to uphold truth and denounce error. Judy has all the truth. Bill has all the error, or vice versa. Kevin proclaims the truth and Dave H respectfully disagrees. I had all the truth at one time, but so many people told me otherwise that I doubted my own accuracy. It all gets very confusing. If I ask if it is okay to substitute a doughnut for the unleavened bread while taking communion, one person says,"Of course it is, we have great freedom in Christ. You do not have to walk around with a clipboard under your arm, checking to see what the rules say. Be led by the Spirit".They even have verses to substantiate what they believe. If it seems okay, that is the Holy Spirit leading in the right direction. The next person says "Of course it's not okay. Leaven represents sin. The unleavened bread represents the sinless body of Christ. To take liberties with what Christ commanded is sin". They also have verses.A third group says,"Do whatever seems right with the bread, but do not serve grape juice. The Bible specifically says wine." To which the fourth group responds, "grape juice is the only way to go. One sip of wine could cause an alcoholic to fall off the wagon."No one considers all this to be nit picking. It has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with truth, so we defend these positions as though God would cease to be in charge if we faltered or compromised. Pride rears it's ugly head, and as Lance pointed out, we get angry at the stupid so and so who is too ignorant to see how correct we are. If God has a really great sense of humor, He may be laughing at how we mortals strain at a gnat, but I suspect that He is more likely looking at us with great sadness, seeing how easily we fail at an easy command like "Love one another."The enemy is defeating us folks. There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us.What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please.TerryHE must increase. we MUST decrease.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: My comments are in blue--scroll down - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition, and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin. (:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boys use to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. How many blacks are in the Mormon church and when were they allowed to be a part of the fellowship? Blaine: There is no way of knowing for sure how many Blacks are members of the LDS faith, since color is not listed on membership records. However, in Ghana, Africaalone, there were 17, 278 members as of the publication of the 2000 Deseret News Church Almanac, most of them Black. The same book lists 81, 962 members in West Africa, and another 50,780 members in South East Africa,with most African nations being represented.There are currently three temples in Africa, the latest one to be dedicated being in Accra, Ghana--this temple represents about 25 stakes, or about 150 wards, as well as about 200 smaller branches. Not all Baptist are as described above. Actully most are not.But if you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones. The Mormon church is the only religion in America that excluded blacks as a matter of denominational structure. The Baptist church in the North had black brethren at the same time the hypocrites in the South did not. Blaine:As a matter of unofficial church dogma--tradition--Blacks in the South were disallowed from attending White churches, schools, evenmost public places,e.g., restaurants and school buses. In the North, although Blacks were allowedfull membershipin Baptist and other Protestant denominations, the prevailing philosophy was to keep them separate--but equal. In other words,distance was placed between them and Whites in almost all instances. But blacks were excluded from the Mormon church (at least as leaders) as a matter of church dogma. John Blaine: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never did exclude Blacks from membership, just the priesthood. Other thanthis ban, Blacks were well treated as Church members. But what's the big deal? The Israelites--God's chosen people--banned all tribes from holding the priesthood except the tribe of Levi, and only those descended from Aaron himself could hold the highest office in that priesthood--that of High Priest.
[TruthTalk] Too much mail!
I have been gone for a week, and I now have almost 500 e-mails to read--and hopefully to answer!! Hope you don't get offended if you wrote me a message and I don't answer it for a while! (:)
[TruthTalk] Fw: A Scene in San Francisco
- Original Message - From: Kent Harker To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: A Scene in San Francisco A Scene in San Francisco"Next.""Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.""Names?""Tim and Jim Jones.""Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.""Yes, we're brothers.""Brothers? You can't get married.""Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?""Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!""Incest?" No, we are not gay.""Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?""For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.Besides, we don't have any other prospects.""But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who'vebeen denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, youcan get married to a woman.""Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as Ihave. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry awoman. I want to marry Jim.""And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against usjust because we are not gay?""All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next.""Hi. We are here to get married.""Names?""John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wantsto marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other.""But there are four of you!""That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert lovesJune and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that wecan express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.""But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.""So you're discriminating against bisexuals!""No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is thatit's just for couples.""Since when are you standing on tradition?""Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.""Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says theconstitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us amarriage license!""All right, all right. Next.""Hello, I'd like a marriage license.""In what names?""David Deets.""And the other man?""That's all. I want to marry myself.""Marry yourself? What do you mean?""Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want tomarry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.""That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul searching. Bill wrote: A dichotomy is by definition a separation. I'm saying you can not do this without killing the person. David M. wrote True enough, but you cannot separate the brain from a person without killing them either. That doesn't mean that the brain cannot be identified and talked about separate from the rest of the body and person. Oh David, I thing we are agreeing. When we speak of the mind we do not believe we have toseparate it from the body, nor from personhood, to know that we are speaking of something which with the rest of the person makes us complete. Do you agree. Bill wrote: We are integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies and trichotomies of your framework is Classical Gr. philosophy penetrating and imprisoning your thoughts. Yes, it is classical Greek, but I think it to be spot on. Don't you think Paul draws on this classical Greek thought in Romans 7 when he says, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:25 KJV). I think sin is always irrational. Sin seeks to divide and destroy. Paul,whetherhe is speaking for himself or for Israel (another conversation), is speaking to the dichotomous natureof iniquity; as well, he is speakingto the tension of living in the already of Christ's resurrection and the not yet of his return. This is not to sermonize, but I think Paul would not carry that sort of dualism into a mind-body discussion of the glorified Christ. What do you think? For the record, I don't object to your sense of the word "soul." The Scriptures often use it exactly as you talk about. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the soul is not something that could be identified and considered as something distinct. Several passages of Scripture seem to do just that (I think Kevin quoted several already). You may interpret them otherwise, but especially the Hebrews 4:12 passage deserves more than just a "figure of speech" acknowledgement. I will try to do that, but with these caveats. The Word of God in this passage is probably better understand as referring to Jesus Christ than it is to the Bible. The entire context of this passage is speaking about Jesus Christour Priest, who enters into the holy of holies, the resting place of God on our behalf: Hebrews 4.10 --For the One [Jesus Christ, emphasis mine] who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience [context not provided]. 12 For the Word of God [Jesus the Son of God, emphasis mine] is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight [Whose sight? the Word of God, Jesus the Son of God, emphasis by translators],but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him [emphasis by translators] with whom we have to do. 14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. David, I think the ability to divide spirit and soul, joints and marrow, to judgethe thought and intentions of our heart, is figurative in that it speaks to the ability Jesus the Son of God hasto truly commiserate with our plight. He can sympathize because he is entirely aware of our state. There is nothing about being human that he does not get. There is nothing in us that is hidden from his view. There is nothing about us that he cannot get in to and understand, because he has been like us, yet without sin. Let me digress a little bit here and say that I do not see this as something about which we should divide. When I posted in the first place, it was in response to having been rebuked and made to look ridiculous for even suggesting that perhaps Judy was falling into dualism, rather than taking a hebrew view of integration. I happen to think I've thought this through, but of what value is it to me if it causes others to stumble. I will let it go, before I will go so far as create undue confusion. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
So you are a deacendant of Aaron?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: My comments are in blue--scroll down - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition, and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin. (:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boys use to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. How many blacks are in the Mormon church and when were they allowed to be a part of the fellowship? Blaine: There is no way of knowing for sure how many Blacks are members of the LDS faith, since color is not listed on membership records. However, in Ghana, Africaalone, there were 17, 278 members as of the publication of the 2000 Deseret News Church Almanac, most of them Black. The same book lists 81, 962 members in West Africa, and another 50,780 members in South East Africa,with most African nations being represented.There are currently three temples in Africa, the latest one to be dedicated being in Accra, Ghana--this temple represents about 25 stakes, or about 150 wards, as well as about 200 smaller branches. Not all Baptist are as described above. Actully most are not.But if you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones. The Mormon church is the only religion in America that excluded blacks as a matter of denominational structure. The Baptist church in the North had black brethren at the same time the hypocrites in the South did not. Blaine:As a matter of unofficial church dogma--tradition--Blacks in the South were disallowed from attending White churches, schools, evenmost public places,e.g., restaurants and school buses. In the North, although Blacks were allowedfull membershipin Baptist and other Protestant denominations, the prevailing philosophy was to keep them separate--but equal. In other words,distance was placed between them and Whites in almost all instances. But blacks were excluded from the Mormon church (at least as leaders) as a matter of church dogma. John Blaine: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never did exclude Blacks from membership, just the priesthood. Other thanthis ban, Blacks were well treated as Church members. But what's the big deal? The Israelites--God's chosen people--banned all tribes from holding the priesthood except the tribe of Levi, and only those descended from Aaron himself could hold the highest office in that priesthood--that of High Priest. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
RE: [TruthTalk] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE
Scripture is the living word of God. Or is your scripture dead? WOW this one dates the scripture to even earlier than Rm9 where the SCRIPTURE SAID to Phario. What scripture was that? This one says the scripture FORESAW? And Preached the gospel to Abraham? Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Don't get mixed up on the scriptures. 2 Pt 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. There is only ONE thing God holds above His name. Do you know what that is?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, you still don't seem to understand the difference between "Scripture" and "the word of God." The word of God is eternal. Scripture is not. Scripture is the written word, but the word of God is the living word. There also is a difference between Scripture and the Bible. Both are the written word of God, but Scripture includes more than what is found in the Bible. Do you want to talk about this? Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 4:03 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] reliability of the HOLY BIBLE Considering that the word of God is eternal they must have existed at all times.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin wrote: So we can safely assume that they did not exist before Mount Sinai?I can only say that I am unaware of any Scriptures existing before thattime. I am not one to make an assertion that Scripture did not existbefore Sinai, but if you want to make some kind of argument that assumesthey did not exist before Sinai, that would be fine with me. 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.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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spamDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul searching.
I said Oh David, I thing we are
agreeing. When we speak of the mind we do not believe we have toseparate
it from the body, nor from personhood, to know that we are speaking of something
which with the rest of the person makes us complete. Do you
agree.
David, please excuse me. That didn't make a lick of sense. Let me
try again.
You speak of the "brain" and the rest of a "person." You say in
agreement with me that to separate the brain from the person is to kill the
person. Then you say, "That doesn't mean that the brain cannot
beidentified and talked about separate from the rest of the body
andperson." David, I agree with you, and I do not get the impression that
you are that far from agreeing with me. Allow me to include what I said to Judy
the night this all began:
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. 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. 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.
I think the key to what I am getting at is in this idea of "distinct but
interrelated." Brain fits under the idea of personhood. Persons have brains
which can be contemplated without doing damage to the greater idea of
personhood. On the other hand, mind and body are distinct but interrelated
aspects of personhood, neither of which can be understood in isolation from the
other. We cannot say how the mind causes the body to work; we can only say that
the mind causes the body to work. Yet if the body dies, the mindloses
control over the body. It may even cease to exist. Thus the two are distinct, in
that they function differently, yet they are interrelated in that they cease to
function properly in isolation, the one from the other. Spirit and body are
likewise distinct yet interrelated aspects of personhood.
Soul, it seems to me, speaks more to that overarching idea of personhood than
it does to an additional part of distinct-yet-interrelatedness.
I said that this topic can open itself up to all kinds of difficulties. I
would have been wiser to have kept this one to myself {:(
my booboo,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:36
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul
searching.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul
searching.
Bill wrote: A dichotomy is by
definition a separation. I'm saying you can not do this without
killing the person. David M. wrote True
enough, but you cannot separate the brain from a person without
killing them either. That doesn't mean that the brain cannot be
identified and talked about separate from the rest of the body and
person.
Oh David, I thing we are agreeing. When
we speak of the mind we do not believe we have toseparate it from the
body, nor from personhood, to know that we are speaking of something which
with the rest of the person makes us complete. Do you
agree.
Bill wrote: We are
integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies and trichotomies
of your framework is Classical Gr. philosophy penetrating and
imprisoning your thoughts. Yes, it is classical Greek, but I
think it to be spot on. Don't you think Paul draws on this
classical Greek thought in Romans 7 when he says,
"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the
flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:25 KJV).
I think sin is always irrational. Sin
seeks to divide and destroy. Paul,whetherhe is speaking for
himself or for Israel (another conversation), is speaking to the dichotomous
natureof iniquity; as well, he is speakingto the tension of living
in the already of Christ's resurrection and the not yet of his return. This is
not to sermonize, but I think Paul would not carry that sort of dualism into a
mind-body discussion of the glorified Christ. What do you
think?
For the record, I don't object to your sense of the
word "soul." The Scriptures often use it exactly as you talk
about. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the soul is not
something that could be identified and considered as something
distinct. Several passages of Scripture
Re: [TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian
Wm. Taylor wrote: Dave H. Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of all of us for acting like we do. DAVEH: You need not apologize, Bill. I feel a part of this so to speak dysfunctional family. Truth is important, I agree. But truth to the exclusion of unity changes nature somehow. DAVEH: I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, Bill. But as I see it..Truth may be limited if it is not unified. Most everybody here is going to think I'm arrogantly seeing the disarray of TT as a fortifying factor in my own perspective of what I think is truth. But as I've said before, I'm not in TT for truth. If I were, I'd have felt like I'd been pulled apart by vicious beasts many times over. Hmmnow that I think about it, I've felt that way more than a few times anyway! VBG If I had the power to influence TTers, it wouldn't be to have them all convert to Mormonism. (Such behavior would do more to destroy the my Church from inside, than any enemies could do from the outside, IMO.) Instead, I would much rather see Christians learn to treat others as I perceive Jesus would. The problem is that most TTers think they are servinganother Jesus than I do, so I don't hold much hope that a unity of the faith will soon be seen in TT, let alone a unity of fellowship. I am sorry. DAVEH: No need to apologize, Bill. I've not been offended, nor am I grousing. I'm just offering my observations and thoughts. I sincerely hope I have not offended any of my TT friends in doing so. bill taylor - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tough being a Christian Judy Taylor wrote: There is no reason why Dave Hansen should want to be like us. I don't even want to be like us. jt: Dave Hansen has a different agenda and is servinganother Jesus. We may not look exactly like our Lord and Savior yet and a lot of evangelicaldoctrine teaches thatwe don't need to be conformed to His image. DAVEH: If you don't want to conform to our Lord's image...well, I am very surprised, Judy. I'm probably as far from it as anybody, but at least that's my goal. Do not other Christians have a desire to be Christlike? If not, then what do Christians think Mt 5:48 is all about..? What can we do about it? Is this important enough to talk about? Suggestions please. jt: I think it is important enough to talk about but I doubt we will reach a consensus until we decide to fellowship around God's Word andlay our pre-conceived notions, the Nicene Fathers and all that aside andcome humblyasking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word to us. DaveH and Blaine are not seekinganswers because they believe they have them already in Mormonism. DAVEH: I'm not sure I'm welcome in this conversation...but gollylook at it from our (LDS) perspective. If the answers you have lead to the bickering typically/commonly/frequently found in TT, why would anybody expect Mormons to adopt a theology which is diametrically opposed to theirs which to us fosters a oneness of fellowship and doctrine. From my experience, even those who have chosen divergent paths that are rooted in the BoM tend to get along with us as cousins would compared to the brother/sister relationship of our immediate LDS family. I've never argue doctrines with those non-LDS Mormon folks, and have always had a pleasant time chatting with them. If I ask a question, they answer and vice versa. Though we may (may I add, respectfully) disagree on each other's perspective, we don't get our noses bent out of joint when discussing our differences. But I've got to say, I sure don't see that fellowship in TT. I can understand why some may not want to fellowship Mormon rogues like myself. But I sure don't understand why fellowship amongst comrades of Jesus is so awkward here, to be polite about it. Can doctrinal theology be at the root of this contention? Or.is it social theology that divides? Or.are some Christians not as Christian as they presume? I hope you don't take any of that as harsh criticism. I'm merely thinking out loud of possible reasons to explain in my mind what I see with my eyes. In short..you are right, Judy. What I hear/see in TT does not compel me to want to change from what I have. In fact, when some tell me they want to wave my underwear in public, I want to run the other direction. But something else in me wants to find out why those underwear wavers want to act that way, which is so contrary to what I perceive Jesus would do...which is why I've enjoyed some of my discussions with the street preachers. I just want to find out why that kind of thinking makes them tick. I suppose that also explains why I enjoy TT so much. Though it is so contradictory to the nature of the way I've been taught,
