[TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin?
[TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] His own testimonial as relayed through several of his close friends. His own words in his book entitled Meaning. The very fact that he walked away from a very proud heritage both in Judaism and later in the arena of Science to become a participating member of a Christian Church. Is that enough? I dare say I hope it is, because that is as much or more than many of us (read Christians) can offer. jt: There are churches and there are churches. Are you saying that being amember of a Christian Church makes one a Christian or that all church members are Christians Bill? Did this fellow publicly repent, renounce religion, and forsake all to follow Christ? Judyt From: Kevin Deegan What evidence exists that Polanyi was a Christian?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Could you explain what you mean by Gospel here?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin?Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." jt: And I asked if Jesus looked for the Father in all the wrong places not to twist anything you had said but because Jesus is the example left us to follow. I would think that if this is normal Christianity for us that we would see it in him and in his disciples. Who is doing the twisting here? You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." jt: This is interesting because we very recently were discussing how his flesh was sinful - soare you saying that He was God encased in sin? You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." jt: I was not intimating that you are pantheistic Bill. When I hear astatement such as"Jesus is Lord" over everything, itis meaningless to me if there is not a subjecting ofthought, renewing of the mind and obediencein everyday life.I know Corrie Ten Boom used to say "Jesus is Victor" and "there is no darkness so deep that He is not deeper still". She said this from her own life experience in a German prison camp, soyes he is in the fire with his people butworldly philosophies??? You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. jt: What is one doing then when they spend hours and hours listening to him and trying to "interpret" or figure out what he was saying? He is now dead so what does it matter what he said - whereas Jesus is alive and we have yet to plumb the depths of His Word. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. jt: I'm not shunning Polanyi Bill (now who is putting words in someone's mouth); I'm just more interested in God's Word than I am in his words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. jt: Jesus didn't spinphilosophy - He spoke the Word of God - the same Word that was given to Moses and spoken by the prophets from Genesis to Revelation. Trying to mix it with worldly reasoning is like trying to mix oil and water. It won't workwill leave ppl "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of Truth" Thomas Aquinas tried it when he attempted to blend scripture with the teachings of Aristotle. It didn't work then and doesn't work now. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' jt: This is not a take on Confucius, it is the "royal law of Love". Confucianism is part of the broad
Re: [TruthTalk] a well conditioned mind
Again a NO answer, just more verbage from one who has no ears to hear. Blaine you have got to be the KING of ASSERTIONS. The question is WHY ARE MY STATEMENTS TOTURED? WHY IS THE BIBLE WRONG ABOUT LOST SHEEP? 3 Nephi was written in 1829. How does it prove anything? Show proof why this is not ANACHRONISTIC! No gentile heard his voice? Then you provide an example of a Gentile woman, who did. These are the mental gymnastics one must perform to believe this rot. Notice Blaine I said your reasoning requires MENTAL GYMNASTICS, I did not leave it at that I provide an example. Therefore it is not just a baseless assertion as you always do. In order to believe LDS doctrine one must have a well "conditioned" mind in order to perform the mental gynastics required.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin--sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voicethat I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Imagine that, not even looking for God at all, in the wrong places he met Jesus In an Acid Trip?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I don't know about Van Halen, but my friend was tripping on acid, yes. When he saw the blond haired big man coming toward him he fell to his knees and started begging the Lord's forgiveness. Everyone around him was standing, so he stayed on his knees and crawled through the crowd, hiding from the big man. When he got to the exit he stood up and headedfor the parking lot, not looking back. As far as I know, he has never looked back. He is very active now in Campus Crusade for Christ in Colorado Springs, CO,ministering to teenagers. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird For some it is the Grateful Dead, for others it was Van Halen! Were these guys doing acid?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to
Re: [TruthTalk] PaLoney Philosophical Tongues
Is this some form of ON - Line Tongues?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:24:04 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I came to..understanding by a revelation concerning 1 Cor. 2:6-7...[in which] there is much overlap.. with what you shared about Polanyi. The terms “ explicit knowledge ” and “tacit knowledge” will certainly help me explain this better. are tellin' you're a student of the Ap. Paulanye? -there, DavidM,i threw in a little bit of Shakespeare for you, too, which always helps to clarify the revelatory nature of Apostolic phiosophy--eh?? :) l, G ~P 235Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Sounds like this guy was scared into some kind of belief by the bonde apparition. I hope for his sake that he has come to a valid faith because I've always heard that anyone who was scared in could also be scared out. We know Jesus being Semitic would not have been blonde contrary to the image on Lifestyle TV promoting the BofM and the LDS Jesus. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish" From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine that, not even looking for God at all, in the wrong places he met Jesus In an Acid Trip?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I don't know about Van Halen, but my friend was tripping on acid, yes. When he saw the blond haired big man coming toward him he fell to his knees and started begging the Lord's forgiveness. Everyone around him was standing, so he stayed on his knees and crawled through the crowd, hiding from the big man. When he got to the exit he stood up and headedfor the parking lot, not looking back. As far as I know, he has never looked back. He is very active now in Campus Crusade for Christ in Colorado Springs, CO,ministering to teenagers. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird For some it is the Grateful Dead, for others it was Van Halen! Were these guys doing acid?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the
[TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Do you mean me Kevin? I believe God chooses to save ppl by the foolishness of preaching and that what is preached is important. Sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come should be explained along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and how his blood cleanses our conscience from dead works so that we may serve the living God. I was raised in a denomination with a social gospel which was death to me. I was taught to see Jesus as a historical figure (like the Nicene fathers) - It was by the grace and mercy of God along withsome faithful believers that I finally learned the truth. My extended family are still in the mire so I don't take for granted that church attendance automatically means believer and the saying "all truth is God's truth" isfallacious. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish" From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you explain what you mean by Gospel here?From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus./May I join you
Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 24, 2004 08:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Judy, Kevin, and anyone else you may be awake at this hour: There is much to which I could respond. This post raises a couple of important distinction type questions. Some of Judy's earlier posts raise questions, and Kevin has left a couple on the table. I think, rather than addressing them, any of them, I am going to forego any more discussion at this time. Right now it is all too clear to me where the problems lie. It is probably not good that I be so confident: perhaps part of the problem ismy own. I should take some time to reflect upon that possibility. It may do others well to do some soul searching also. I think, however, that this conclusion is accurate and apt: we are talking past each other; we're not hearing each other's voices; in other words, we are not communicating. And so, as for me, I will withdraw for a while and reevaluate my potential contribution to this forum. May God richly bless you all, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:37 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Do you mean me Kevin? I believe God chooses to save ppl by the foolishness of preaching and that what is preached is important. Sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come should be explained along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and how his blood cleanses our conscience from dead works so that we may serve the living God. I was raised in a denomination with a social gospel which was death to me. I was taught to see Jesus as a historical figure (like the Nicene fathers) - It was by the grace and mercy of God along withsome faithful believers that I finally learned the truth. My extended family are still in the mire so I don't take for granted that church attendance automatically means believer and the saying "all truth is God's truth" isfallacious. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish" From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you explain what you mean by Gospel here?From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Bill, Im sorry to hear that you are withdrawingjust when you had drawn me back into TT. I withdrew a few months ago for the same reasontired of putting up with people who are more interested in being Contentious than kindly exploring issues of Truth in the community of Christ. I hope youll stay. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Judy, Kevin, and anyone else you may be awake at this hour: There is much to which I could respond. This post raises a couple of important distinction type questions. Some of Judy's earlier posts raise questions, and Kevin has left a couple on the table. I think, rather than addressing them, any of them, I am going to forego any more discussion at this time. Right now it is all too clear to me where the problems lie. It is probably not good that I be so confident: perhaps part of the problem ismy own. I should take some time to reflect upon that possibility. It may do others well to do some soul searching also. I think, however, that this conclusion is accurate and apt: we are talking past each other; we're not hearing each other's voices; in other words, we are not communicating. And so, as for me, I will withdraw for a while and reevaluate my potential contribution to this forum. May God richly bless you all, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:37 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Do you mean me Kevin? I believe God chooses to save ppl by the foolishness of preaching and that what is preached is important. Sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come should be explained along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and how his blood cleanses our conscience from dead works so that we may serve the living God. I was raised in a denomination with a social gospel which was death to me. I was taught to see Jesus as a historical figure (like the Nicene fathers) - It was by the grace and mercy of God along withsome faithful believers that I finally learned the truth. My extended family are still in the mire so I don't take for granted that church attendance automatically means believer and the saying all truth is God's truth isfallacious. judyt Man in his pomp is like the beasts that perish From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you explain what you mean by Gospel here? From: Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John thy word IS Truth) rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone. Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
No, sorry that I was not clear.I was asking Bill. Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean me Kevin? I believe God chooses to save ppl by the foolishness of preaching and that what is preached is important. Sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come should be explained along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and how his blood cleanses our conscience from dead works so that we may serve the living God. I was raised in a denomination with a social gospel which was death to me. I was taught to see Jesus as a historical figure (like the Nicene fathers) - It was by the grace and mercy of God along withsome faithful believers that I finally learned the truth. My extended family are still in the mire so I don't take for granted that church attendance automatically means believer and the saying "all truth is God's truth" isfallacious. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish" From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you explain what you mean by Gospel here?From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Don't hold your breath, waiting.Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine,Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts.PerryFrom: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets.http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice-that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time._Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialuppgmarket=en-usST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
RE: [TruthTalk] an open forum for discussing Truth
Bill Taylor wrote: Hey David Miller, Is it still alright to discuss science and philosophy on your forum? Yes, Bill, it is still alright to discuss science and philosophy. We are a diverse group of people here. Some are scientists and some are philosophers, but some think science and philosophy are paths that lead away from Christ. It really is interesting how one interprets the concept that Jesus Christ is Truth. To some of us, we understand this to mean that all disciplines of study ultimately are studies of Christ and find their greatest fulfillment in acknowledging that. Others interpret it to mean that only by reading the Bible and praying can one learn truth. I heartily recommend you learn which people are going to appreciate what you share and which people are not. Ignore somewhat those among us who are ignorant. Did not Paul say: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1 Corinthians 14:38 KJV) Also, it is good for us to remember that it is not good for a man of God to strive. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient... (2 Timothy 2:24 KJV) 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] POLYANYI
whilePolanyi criticizes subjectivity,you fluidlyembracesubjectivismand, therefore,teachpeople, falsely; e.g.,: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:24:04 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I came to..understanding by a revelation concerning 1 Cor. 2:6-7...[in which] there is much overlap.. with what you shared about Polanyi. The terms explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge will certainly help me explain this better. your answer tocriticism about it: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004.. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Polanyi doesn't teach subjectivity, G. i know; but youtaught DavidMthat he does, as above;andapparently youcan'tdeal withit--yournice novice-ness: I am tired of this conversation...Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Judy wrote: They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of it dung. Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. He did not forsake his foundation in Judaism, but instead God used his Pharisaical training to give us a significant contribution of the Holy Scriptures. A person can consider it all dung in the light of Christ, but that does not mean that it is a sin to study and learn. Judy wrote: We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. If Jesus IS ALL TRUTH, then all disciplines of study that lead to truth lead to Jesus Christ. I think we have been more focused on this list on Judy than we have on Polanyi. Who was Polanyi but another brother in Christ? Why would you want to make him any more or any less than that? Does his great learning intimidate you or something? Is ignorance bliss? 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] POLYANYI
disagree, DavidM; knowing the source of certain valid doctrine, acc to JC,is only contingent upon something afollowerdoes, not at all contingent on, e.g., philosophy,experience/s in which the follower is already trained or otherwise (unwittingly:) engrossed ftr, this comment is germane to the critique of your comments to Judy--acc to the NT, the Ap. Paul's Judaisim (the Pharisaic 'doctrine' he was taught) radically conflicts with the 'doctrine' of God, as above, acc to JC S/Paul's mind was changed radically aboutJC as he followed JCs instructions in Acts 9, afterhe got floored there is no NT evidence that the Ap Paul relied on on any otherexperience asthe source of sound doctrine--read carefully for this and see what you (all)come up with G On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:48:18 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:|| Do agree or disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ himself embraced subjectivism
RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Vince wrote: Theology is more like math than science I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can elaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like math than science. Vince wrote: you start with an assumption or set of assumptions, regardless of how much they do or do not seem to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you are saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they make fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say? All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those assumptions. Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit. Vince wrote: Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc. To those who accept the basic premises of astrology, that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on peoples' personalities and the events which occur in peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe the basic premises. Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology? Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, let them be for signs...? Doesn't Daniel 6:27 and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked with a star? I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but I think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-) You are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which is rooted in objectivity and materialism. Vince wrote: Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature, speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions. Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesis based upon the results of the experiments. Reproduction of the experiments and results by other scientists. Peer review of the final package. You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these paths. They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate it with events on earth. So what is the difference? Well, one philosopher has suggested that astrology attempts to modify their theory such that eventually their theory becomes unfalsifiable. Astronomy, on the other hand, has followed a method called Strong Inference whereby they disproved theories and constructed new hypotheses which they also attempted to falsify. So the idea is that progress toward truth is better made when we construct hypotheses that are potentially falsifiable and then attempt to falsify it. The underlying thinking here is that it is much easier to demonstrate one disproof to dismiss an erroneous idea rather than an infinite number of proofs to try and bolster an idea. 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.
[TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of it dung. Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. jt: Not so ... after his conversion Paul was no longer the Pharisee of the Pharisees and one who persecuted the Church. He did not forsake his foundation in Judaism, but instead God used his Pharisaical training to give us a significant contribution of the Holy Scriptures. jt: Not so ... Paul spent up to 14yrs in the desert being retrained and when he returned to Jerusalem and checked his gospelwith the other apostles he stated thathe had not been taught by flesh and blood and his Pharisaical training would have been given by flesh and blood ie: "I certify you brethren that the gospel which was preached of me IS NOT after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11,12) A person can consider it all dung in the light of Christ, but that does not mean that it is a sin to study and learn. jt: Please don't make what Bill calls a "straw man" Noone is saying it's a sin to study and learn. The sin is in some of the attitudes here. It's a sin to allow the wrong kind of wisdom to pre empt Christ and when he losespre eminence among those who claim to belong to Him - something is very wrong. Judy wrote: We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. If Jesus IS ALL TRUTH, then all disciplines of study that lead to truthlead to Jesus Christ. I think we have been more focused on this list onJudy than we have on Polanyi. jt:First we mustbe able to discern between good and evil or we will be calling evil good and like Pilate asking "What is truth?"I have no philosophy - no system of thoughtpeople spend hours and hours trying to interpret. Noone listens to me on MP3, DVD, and tape player - what would make you say such a thing? Who was Polanyi but another brother in Christ? Why would you want to make him any more or any less than that? jt: I don't know about that DavidM so far I've not heard histestimony, have you? Does his great learning intimidate you or something? Is ignorancebliss? jt: Why am I not surprised to find myself among the ignorant ones on your sliding scale DavidM. Oh well!I've got lots of company; I'm so glad that God does not choose the wise and prudent he gives us all a level playing field. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish"
[TruthTalk] Interesting Poetry WDYT G
FIVE-LETTER WORD It shines in the shadowsIt shines where the sun shines leastIt lights up the basementAnd the breeding grounds of the beastYou can always see it comingAnd run from its rays if you please There's a plot to destroy itA plot to stifle its effectIts engineered suppressionIs what they call "Politically Correct"The mannequins who hate itEnsure that its credentials will be wrecked A witness swears to tell itThe whole of it and nothing elseIt frees you from illusionBut telling it can make your world a hellIt hurts those who resist itBut it soothes the broken soul as well Refrain: You think you can hide from its heartachesYou think you can make yourself scarceYou think you can remain beyond its tentaclesBut you will never escape it in the end It's stranger than fictionIts beauty gives your eyes a treatIt's more than just a virtueIts objectivity so neatIt's only worth pursuingIf you think you can shoulder all the heat The captains of darknessTry to drown it in their brineThey pretend that its survivalWas all part of their grand designThe thing they love the mostHas a letter missing from the line When Pilate said "What is it?"There was no answer givenThat's because it's always obviousAnd only rarely hiddenIf you don't know the answerThen to you it will always be forbidden You think you can hide from its heartachesYou think you can make yourself scarceYou think you can remain beyond its tentaclesBut you will never escape it in the end It shines in the shadowsIt shines where the sun shines least © Alan Morrison, 2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Judy wrote: there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate. Let me take a stab at it. John 1:1-3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3 KJV) The Greek word used in this passage and translated Word is logos. It means much more than just word. It includes the concept of reasoning itself, and also refers to the actual idea and understanding. Our English words attach logos to the end of words that signify disciplines of study. Hence, bio-logy is the study of life (logos=study of, bio=life) and psychology is the study of the mind (logos=study of, psyche=mind). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that if Jesus is the Logos and Jesus is the Truth, then all studies are something that participates with Jesus Christ. ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, and without him was not anything made that was made. Therefore, disciplines of study like biology and psychology, while in actuality being mere child's play, is in fact touching Christ. You may not be able to relate to them, but perhaps that is simply because it is a part of Christ that you have not yet seen. It is as if you are looking at one side of a coin while others observe the other side of the coin. Try as you might to convince the others that they are describing the coin incorrectly, they know what they are looking at. Maybe it is time for you to consider that they truly are describing a side of the coin that is hidden from you. 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.
[TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate. Let me take a stab at it. John 1:1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Wordwas God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made byhim; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3KJV) The Greek word used in this passage and translated "Word" is "logos."It means much more than just "word." It includes the concept ofreasoning itself, and also refers to the actual idea and understanding.Our English words attach "logos" to the end of words that signifydisciplines of study. Hence, "bio-logy" is the study of life(logos=study of, bio=life) and psychology is the study of the mind(logos=study of, psyche=mind). Therefore, it seems reasonable toconclude that if Jesus is the Logos and Jesus is the Truth, then allstudies are something that participates with Jesus Christ. jt: Jesus created all of it yes, but God is transcendent; and the discipline of for instance biology is steeped in evolutionary thought so how do you figure he is involved in all that? People with minds darkened by the God of this world trying to figure out how He spoke the worlds into existence. ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, and without him was not anything made that was made. Therefore, disciplines of study like biology and psychology,while in actuality being mere child's play, is in fact touching Christ. jt: Are you saying that because He created ppl that study of the body and mind of fallen humanity is touching Him? You may not be able to relate to them, but perhaps that is simplybecause it is a part of Christ that you have not yet seen. It is as ifyou are looking at one side of a coin while others observe the otherside of the coin. Try as you might to convince the others that they aredescribing the coin incorrectly, they know what they are looking at.Maybe it is time for you to consider that they truly are describing aside of the coin that is hidden from you. jt: And maybe the coin has Caesar's imprint on it. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish"
[TruthTalk] Knowledge, Experience, and Subjectivism
g wrote: disagree, DavidM; You need to define your terms. I suspect you are more knowledgeable about philosophy than I am, and I am not sure we have the same understanding of the philosophical terms that you use. g wrote: knowing the source of certain valid doctrine, acc to JC, is only contingent upon something a follower does, not at all contingent on, e.g., philosophy, experience/s in which the follower is already trained or otherwise (unwittingly:) engrossed You seem to be defining experience here rather narrowly. Is not experience with doing the will of God participating in knowledge in a subjective way? Isn't it true that with this statement of Christ in John 7:17 that he makes a subjective rather than objective argument? Jesus Christ does not prove his instruction to his listeners outside of that person actually experiencing the knowledge of which Christ speaks for himself. Put another way: Jesus does not prove his teachings as being true by appealing to the Hebrew Scriptures as his authority. Rather, he appeals to the subjective experiences of his listeners to determine for themselves the value of his teaching, through their own subjective experience with their knowledge of God. g wrote: ftr, this comment is germane to the critique of your comments to Judy--acc to the NT, the Ap. Paul's Judaisim (the Pharisaic 'doctrine' he was taught) radically conflicts with the 'doctrine' of God, as above, acc to JC Radically conflicts? Why then did Jesus say to the Jews, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39 KJV) Why did he tell his disciples, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3 KJV) It does not look to me like there was a radical conflict in regards to doctrine / teaching. Rather, the conflict was in actually walking according to the teaching rather than treating it academically. g wrote: S/Paul's mind was changed radically about JC as he followed JCs instructions in Acts 9, after he got floored Yes, his mind was changed radically, but did he abandon all his former training, or did his former training take on a new perspective? I think it was the latter. g wrote: there is no NT evidence that the Ap Paul relied on on any other experience as the source of sound doctrine The point was that he had subjective experience with knowledge rather than just a mental exercise or argument. With regard to his use of his Pharisaical training, I think the NT evidence is found in his frequent reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. As it is written was a common phrase of his. Acts 26 also indicates that his arguments were such that other Hebrew men could relate to them, suggesting a reliance on Pharisaical training that other educated men in his day could relate to. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:24-28 KJV) Paul also quoted secular poets (Acts 17:29, Titus 1:12), indicating that he did not discard his education completely in his efforts to further Christ. I guess if Paul would quote Epimenides here in this forum and affirm what he said was true that we would have somebody complaining about how Paul was focusing too much on Epimenides and not talking enough about Jesus Christ! Note that even Jesus Christ himself apparently made reference to the philosophers and thinkers of his day. Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? (John 7:14-15 KJV) The bottom line? Whether we have knowledge or not, all things are for Christ and to the glory of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
David Miller wrote: Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. Judy wrote: Not so ... after his conversion Paul was no longer the Pharisee of the Pharisees and one who persecuted the Church. Check again, Judy. Paul certainly stopped persecuting the church, but many Pharisees believed on Christ (Nicodemus, etc.) and Paul was one of them. In Acts 23:6, Paul took a distinctly Pharisaical doctrine and expressed agreement with it, causing a schism with the Sadducees. In this he specifically says, I AM A PHARISEE not I was a Pharisee. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (Acts 23:6 KJV) Rumors abounded in Jerusalem that Paul forsook his Pharisaical traditions because he taught Gentiles not to observe them. The elders of the church in Jerusalem asked Paul to prove that he was still a Jew, still a Pharisee, and he obliged them and proved that he was by entering into the temple with a Nazarite vow to offer animal sacrifice according to the law. This ought to prove to everyone that Paul was still a Pharisee even though he believed upon Jesus Christ and preached the gospel unto others as a messenger of Jesus Christ. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. (Acts 21:20-26 KJV) Judy wrote: Paul spent up to 14yrs in the desert being retrained and when he returned to Jerusalem and checked his gospel with the other apostles he stated that he had not been taught by flesh and blood and his Pharisaical training would have been given by flesh and blood ie: I certify you brethren that the gospel which was preached of me IS NOT after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11,12) Paul received the gospel by revelation, but he did not learn Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by revelation, he did not learn to write by revelation, and he did not learn the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings of the Greeks by revelation. Paul studied and utilized his studies to help others. When Paul wrote the Scriptures, I do not believe that he used some kind of channeling technique like Joseph Smith did. He utilized his learning of the language to express that which the Holy Spirit put within his heart. I do not believe that it was some kind of automatic writing experience whereby some unseen force guides his hand across the paper and then when he looks, behold it was all legible and understandable. How do you think of it? Judy wrote: Noone is saying it's a sin to study and learn. Good! I thought you would say this. It sure is nice to agree. :-) Judy wrote: The sin is in some of the attitudes here. It's a sin to allow the wrong kind of wisdom to pre empt Christ and when he loses pre eminence among those who claim to belong to Him - something is very wrong. Hmmm. Is this coming from envy? How does Christ lose preeminence by our appreciation for how a brother in Christ expresses some bit of knowledge that he has? Judy wrote: I have no philosophy - no system of thought people spend hours and hours trying to interpret. Noone listens to me on MP3, DVD, and tape player - what would make you say such a thing? More envy here? It does not matter how many people follow you versus Polanyi (or whatever his name is). We are a small group here and I guarantee you that your words and your teaching have had far more prominence in this forum than Polanyi. Judy wrote: Why am I not surprised to find myself among the ignorant ones on your sliding scale DavidM. LOL. Judy, I did not yet list you among the ignorant, but I
[TruthTalk] Knowledge, Experience, and Subjectivism
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]g wrote: ftr, this comment is germane to the critique of your comments to Judy--acc to the NT, the Ap. Paul's Judaisim (the Pharisaic 'doctrine' he was taught) radically conflicts with the 'doctrine' of God, as above, acc to JC Radically conflicts? Why then did Jesus say to the Jews, "Search thescriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are theywhich testify of me." (John 5:39 KJV) Why did he tell his disciples,"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All thereforewhatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not yeafter their works: for they say, and do not." (Matthew 23:2-3 KJV) jt: He also told the Jewish leaders that their traditions had made the Word of God of no effect in the lives of the ppl. Don't forget the Torah which is all the extra teaching they loaded on to the ppl. It does not look to me like there was a radical conflict in regards todoctrine / teaching. Rather, the conflict was in actually walkingaccording to the teaching rather than treating it academically. jt: It was the teaching itself also because although they sat in Moses' seat and were responsible for teaching the ppl these leaders were not understanding and doing it themselves so they were no example for the ppl to follow. g wrote: S/Paul's mind was changed radically about JC as he followed JCs instructions in Acts 9, after he got floored Yes, his mind was changed radically, but did he abandon all his former training, or did his former training take on a new perspective? I think it was the latter. jt: He began to receive understanding from the Lord in person. g wrote: there is no NT evidence that the Ap Paul relied on on any other experience as the source of sound doctrine The point was that he had subjective experience with knowledge rather than just a mental exercise or argument. With regard to his use of his Pharisaical training, I think the NTevidence is found in his frequent reference to the Hebrew Scriptures."As it is written" was a common phrase of his. Acts 26 also indicatesthat his arguments were such that other Hebrew men could relate to them,suggesting a reliance on Pharisaical training that other educated men inhis day could relate to. jt: He had access to the scriptures, why would he need Pharasiacal training when Jesus said they were the blind leading the blind. The more honorable ones in Berea were able to check what Paul taught by the scriptures. Why arn't they and the Spirit of God enough? "And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul,thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said,I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth andsoberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also Ispeak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hiddenfrom him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa,believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippasaid unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts26:24-28 KJV) jt: Yes and the hot shots were also surprised at the disciples who were unlearned fishermen and they took note that they had been with Jesus. Jesus can make ppl appear to be pretty smart. Paul also quoted secular poets (Acts 17:29, Titus 1:12), indicating thathe did not discard his education completely in his efforts to furtherChrist. I guess if Paul would quote Epimenides here in this forum andaffirm what he said was true that we would have somebody complainingabout how Paul was focusing too much on Epimenides and not talkingenough about Jesus Christ! jt: But he didn't quote Epimenides or any other apostle of darkness. and ppl make so much out of that one solitary line. Note that even Jesus Christ himself apparently made reference to thephilosophers and thinkers of his day. "Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, andtaught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters,having never learned?" (John 7:14-15 KJV) jt: Don't you have this backward David. They were marvelling at his understanding BECAUSE he had never learned. When did he make reference to any philosopher or thinker of his day? The bottom line? Whether we have knowledge or not, all things are forChrist and to the glory of Christ. jt: Before we try and get into his presence with the "strange fire" we might need to check some of these things in the light of His Word. judyt "Man in his pomp is like the beaststhat perish"
[TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]David Miller wrote: Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. Judy wrote: Not so ... after his conversion Paul was no longer the Pharisee of the Pharisees and one who persecuted the Church. Check again, Judy. Paul certainly stopped persecuting the church, but many Pharisees believed on Christ (Nicodemus, etc.) and Paul was one of them. jt: Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, he recognized him as a teacher sent by God. Paul was not converted before Calvary, if he had been then he would not have been persecuting the Church and present for the stoning of Stephen. In Acts 23:6, Paul took a distinctly Pharisaical doctrine andexpressed agreement with it, causing a schism with the Sadducees. Inthis he specifically says, "I AM A PHARISEE" not "I was a Pharisee." jt: He only said this in his own defense to try and divide the Pharisees and Sadducees who were against him. He claimed Roman citizenship at one point also to keep from being scourged. However, he saw himself and taught believers that they were citizens of heaven. So far as God is concerned Phariseeism was defunct after the cross. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am aPharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of thedead I am called in question." (Acts 23:6 KJV) jt: Yes because the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, so he may have been hoping to divide them. Rumors abounded in Jerusalem that Paul forsook his Pharisaicaltraditions because he taught Gentiles not to observe them. The eldersof the church in Jerusalem asked Paul to prove that he was still a Jew,still a Pharisee, and he obliged them and proved that he was by enteringinto the temple with a Nazarite vow to offer animal sacrifice accordingto the law. This ought to prove to everyone that Paul was still aPharisee even though he believed upon Jesus Christ and preached thegospel unto others as a messenger of Jesus Christ. jt: Where does this happen in the book of Acts? Why would the elders of the Church be interested in a priesthood and sacrifice that had become defunct? "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him,Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe;and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, thatthou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsakeMoses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neitherto walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude mustneeds come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do thereforethis that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them,that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things,whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thouthyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. jt: The elders here are dealing with rumors and trying to keep the peace, it's not good to borrow trouble and they did not want an uprising amongst the zealous Jews. However Paul himself wasn't so zealous about keeping the law because he confronted Peter to his face over being a hypocrite for the sake of the Jews. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." (Acts 21:20-26 KJV) jt: Yes, well I guess they eased out of it rather than go cold turkey but all that stopped in 70 a.d. and has never been restarted. The sacrifice has been given "once for all" and the altar is in heaven. Judy wrote: Paul spent up to 14yrs in the desert being retrained and when he returned to Jerusalem and checked his gospel with the other apostles he stated that he had not been taught by flesh and blood and his Pharisaical training would have been given by flesh and blood ie: "I certify you brethren that the gospel which was preached of me IS NOT after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11,12) Paul received the gospel by revelation, but he did not learn Greek,Aramaic, and Hebrew by revelation, he did not learn to write byrevelation, and he did not learn the Hebrew Scriptures and the writingsof the Greeks by revelation. Paul studied and utilized his studies tohelp others. jt: He could have known every language under the sun and without spiritual understanding all of themwould have been of no use at all. When Paul wrote the
RE: [TruthTalk] an open forum for discussing Truth
Now Now, CONTEXT David. 1 Co 14 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant Here we have some that claimed to be spiritual, yet they didnot place themselves under the commands of God outlined in His word. If you will not admit the word is the commandments of God, and that they apply to you prophets Apostles out there, you will have to remain ignorant. 2 Timothy 2 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred 1 Tim 2:20 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. The CONTEXT is "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes" Hymenaeus Philetus words ate like a canker or Cancer their word destroyed. So paul turned them over to Satan to learn not to Blaspheme. Better Rightly Divide the Word of Truth avoid profane vain bablings! What did they Blaspheme? 1 tim 6:1 "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." Titus 2:5 "that the word of God be not blasphemed."David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Taylor wrote: Hey David Miller, Is it still alright to discuss science and philosophy on your forum?Yes, Bill, it is still alright to discuss science and philosophy. Weare a diverse group of people here. Some are scientists and some arephilosophers, but some think science and philosophy are paths that leadaway from Christ. It really is interesting how one interprets the concept that JesusChrist is Truth. To some of us, we understand this to mean that alldisciplines of study ultimately are studies of Christ and find theirgreatest fulfillment in acknowledging that. Others interpret it to meanthat only by reading the Bible and praying can one learn truth.I heartily recommend you learn which people are going to appreciate whatyou share and which people are not. Ignore somewhat those among us whoare ignorant. Did not Paul say:"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Corinthians 14:38KJV)Also, it is good for us to remember that it is not good for a man of Godto strive."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto allmen, apt to teach, patient..." (2 Timothy 2:24 KJV)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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
How about some BIBLIOLOGY!David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate.Let me take a stab at it. John 1:1-3."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Wordwas God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made byhim; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3KJV)The Greek word used in this passage and translated "Word" is "logos."It means much more than just "word." It includes the concept ofreasoning itself, and also refers to the actual idea and understanding.Our English words attach "logos" to the end of words that signifydisciplines of study. Hence, "bio-logy" is the study of life(logos=study of, bio=life) and psychology is the study of the mind(logos=study of, psyche=mind). Therefore, it seems reasonable toconclude that if Jesus is the Logos and Jesus is the Truth, then allstudies are something that participates with Jesus Christ. ALL THINGSwere made by Jesus Christ, and without him was not anything made thatwas made. Therefore, disciplines of study like biology and psychology,while in actuality being mere child's play, is in fact touching Christ.You may not be able to relate to them, but perhaps that is simplybecause it is a part of Christ that you have not yet seen. It is as ifyou are looking at one side of a coin while others observe the otherside of the coin. Try as you might to convince the others that they aredescribing the coin incorrectly, they know what they are looking at.Maybe it is time for you to consider that they truly are describing aside of the coin that is hidden from you.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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Hi Judy. We are not that far apart. As per Kevin's admonition, I'm not going to wrangle or strive over words. I do appreciate your comments. 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.
[TruthTalk] Torrance
To whet your appetite for more, I share the following from Torrance's book, The Mediation of Christ: All through the incarnate life and activity of the Lord Jesus we are shown that 'all of grace' does not mean 'nothing of man', but precisely the opposite: all of grace means all of man, for the fullness of grace creatively includes the fullness and completeness of our human response in the equation. But this is not something that can be understood logically, for logically 'all of grace' would mean 'nothing of man', which may tempt people to apportion the role of Christ and of the believer by arguing for 'something of grace' and 'something of man', something done for me by Christ and something I do for myself! All of grace means all of man! ... How could the unconditional grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, crucified and risen again for us, how could 'all of Christ', ever mean a depreciating of the very humanity he came to save?! 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] an open forum for discussing Truth
Thank you, Kevin. You said it much better than I did. It is good to see that we are in agreement. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] an open forum for discussing Truth Now Now, CONTEXT David. 1 Co 14 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant Here we have some that claimed to be spiritual, yet they didnot place themselves under the commands of God outlined in His word. If you will not admit the word is the commandments of God, and that they apply to you prophets Apostles out there, you will have to remain ignorant. 2 Timothy 2 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred 1 Tim 2:20 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. The CONTEXT is But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes Hymenaeus Philetus words ate like a canker or Cancer their word destroyed. So paul turned them over to Satan to learn not to Blaspheme. Better Rightly Divide the Word of Truth avoid profane vain bablings! What did they Blaspheme? 1 tim 6:1 that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. Titus 2:5 that the word of God be not blasphemed. David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Taylor wrote: Hey David Miller, Is it still alright to discuss science and philosophy on your forum? Yes, Bill, it is still alright to discuss science and philosophy. We are a diverse group of people here. Some are scientists and some are philosophers, but some think science and philosophy are paths that lead away from Christ. It really is interesting how one interprets the concept that Jesus Christ is Truth. To some of us, we understand this to mean that all disciplines of study ultimately are studies of Christ and find their greatest fulfillment in acknowledging that. Others interpret it to mean that only by reading the Bible and praying can one learn truth. I heartily recommend you learn which people are going to appreciate what you share and which people are not. Ignore somewhat those among us who are ignorant. Did not Paul say: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1 Corinthians 14:38 KJV) Also, it is good for us to remember that it is not good for a man of God to strive. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient... (2 Timothy 2:24 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/23/2004 6:52:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Funny you would bring up GlasserI stumbled upon his theories in nursing school, and he made more sense than all the others put together. He acted as if there was no such thing as insanity and treated the patients as if they were capable of behaving normally, and they often did exactly that. One of the few things I still remember.Izzy What I liked about him was the fact that his counseling method was a type of directive counseling. He would present a solution to the clients problem and then give that individual a schedule for confronting those problems. Although I am no longer a paid and professional pastor, the work of pastor remains an avocation. And, as I see the scripture, God has given us the greatest of advise and guidance and He expects us to put that advice into practice -- and much of Glasser's approach mirrors that effort. Glasser is an admitted unbeliever, so caution is a key consideration. God bless John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/23/2004 7:46:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, John. Welcome Back. And you get a smiley face {:)
Hey, you mentioned an interest in conscience theory, and you expressed your opposition to secular psychology. Do you have Ed Bulkley, Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993)? Bulkley was a prof of mine at university. He raises some valid concerns. If you don't already have it, I think this book may be a helpful addition to your inquiry.
Bill Taylor
thanks for the tip. I want you to know that I do not dismiss psychology out of hand, but there is comparative little that I respect. Anyone who has taken first year psy has at least one text book that presents the various approaches of the psychology of counseling as a unified mental health science. The truth is that Foster, Freud, Yerkes, Glasser, Wundt, et al, disagree substantially with each other. And, in the real world of psychology counseling, therapeutic appraoches are as numerous as individual authors. Because of that fact, I personally regard little of psychology as science. Anyway, just know that I try to avoid my own bias when I when I read. Change is really not possible if we do not so resist. Thanks again for the reference and thank you to the others who have given me some direction on this.
John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
True, John. This just proves that Believers do not have a corner on all truth. Some unbelievers stumble onto truth also. Truth includes whatever really works, based on discoveries of how Gods creation operates. So we can take the good (Glassers method) and discard the bad (Glassers religious beliefs). If we only accepted truth from Believers or from direct scripture, well then I guess none of us would avail ourselves of polio vaccines, or of modern methods of architecture, or of modern appliances or vehicles, or fabrics, or heating/cooking methods, or of ANYTHING discovered by unbelievers. The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. (Prov.13:22) Sometimes that wealth is a discovery or a method that works. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird In a message dated 3/23/2004 6:52:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Funny you would bring up GlasserI stumbled upon his theories in nursing school, and he made more sense than all the others put together. He acted as if there was no such thing as insanity and treated the patients as if they were capable of behaving normally, and they often did exactly that. One of the few things I still remember.Izzy What I liked about him was the fact that his counseling method was a type of directive counseling. He would present a solution to the clients problem and then give that individual a schedule for confronting those problems. Although I am no longer a paid and professional pastor, the work of pastor remains an avocation. And, as I see the scripture, God has given us the greatest of advise and guidance and He expects us to put that advice into practice -- and much of Glasser's approach mirrors that effort. Glasser is an admitted unbeliever, so caution is a key consideration. God bless John
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Science needs math, but math doesn't need science. Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians. Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics. vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vince wrote: Theology is more like math than science I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can elaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like math than science. Vince wrote: you start with an assumption or set of assumptions, regardless of how much they do or do not seem to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you are saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they make fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say? All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those assumptions. Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit. Vince wrote: Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc. To those who accept the basic premises of astrology, that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on peoples' personalities and the events which occur in peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe the basic premises. Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology? Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, let them be for signs...? Doesn't Daniel 6:27 and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked with a star? I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but I think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-) You are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which is rooted in objectivity and materialism. Vince wrote: Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature, speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions. Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesis based upon the results of the experiments. Reproduction of the experiments and results by other scientists. Peer review of the final package. You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these paths. They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate it with events on earth. So what is the difference? Well, one philosopher has suggested that astrology attempts to modify their theory such that eventually their theory becomes unfalsifiable. Astronomy, on the other hand, has followed a method called Strong Inference whereby they disproved theories and constructed new hypotheses which they also attempted to falsify. So the idea is that progress toward truth is better made when we construct hypotheses that are potentially falsifiable and then attempt to falsify it. The underlying thinking here is that it is much easier to demonstrate one disproof to dismiss an erroneous idea rather than an infinite number of proofs to try and bolster an idea. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there? Just to remind you--maybe you didn't read it, or you dismissed it as being unimportant--I have already posted on the discovery of barley in the Americas before Columbus' time.The December 1983 issue of the Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona by professional archaeologists. Prior to its discovery, barley was thought to be an old world crop only, and was widely used by anti-BoM advocates as proof the BoM was a fake. It is of fundamental importance, since barley has long been associated with the law of Moses as a wave offering during the Passover, which is held during Abib, the first month mentioned in the Bible, which means "the greening,"referring to the greening of the barley crop in the early Spring. This cropwasplanted in the fall as a dry crop. It depended on Spring moisture to bring it up early, and was the first of the grain crops to show maturity. When it was used as a wave offering, it signified Jesus having barely attained maturity (age 33) when he was crucified. The same with the Pascal lamb, which was to be a lamb or goat of the FIRST YEAR. For Lehi and his group to have left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. without barley would have seriously compromised BoM credibility. The BoM references to barleyare found in: Mosiah 7:22 "and one half of our corn, and our BARLEY, and even all our grain of every kind." Mosiah, 9:9 "And we began to till the ground with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of BARLEY, . . . Alma 11:7 "A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of BARLEY, and also for a measure for every kind of grain." Alma 11:15 "A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of BARLEY." - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine, Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700 Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Hi Bill, I agree that the Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform--there is much we don'tunderstand that he does, and I guess the bottom line is--whatever works, works, huh? Advocates of BIBLE ONLY scriptures might take offense at this, but I can't pass up this opportunity to say the BoM has led millions to having faith in Jesus Christ--sans the traditional baggage that usually goes with theBIBLE-IS-THE -ONLY-SCRIPTURE point of view. (:) - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird Hey, Blaine, No problem -- it's not my story. I'm just telling it like I heard it. I happen to know this kid quite well and believe he's telling it like he saw it }:)but beyond that, you'll have to decide. As far as being schizophrenic, I happen to know that he has not been diagnosed as such. By the way, what is schizophrenia? Could it just as easily be demonic? For that matter, where better to pick up a few transient "friends" than at a GD concert, tripping on acid? The point is, whatever the diagnosis, it brought him promptly to the Lord, who promptly received him into the fold and continues to feedhim there. Am I saying that the best way to meet Jesus is on drugs? Should we be teaching an LSD doctrine? Of course not. But why not let the Lord work in mysterious ways and us marvel at his majesty? Praise the Lord! Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Blaine Borrowman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird Blaine: You used the word, "hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator? How old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both visual and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late teens or early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite normal. That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead, members ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators makes this suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is exactly the stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under conditions of stressand/or excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of 6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat lasted for months, which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of the time she was able to tell the difference between her hallucinations and reality. Not to knock your story, but . . . - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Judy wrote: There is ONE Lord Blaine: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin?
[TruthTalk] iron as a decorative metal in the Book of Mormon
Blaine: In the Book of Mosiah in the BoM, King Noah, a wicked Nephite King, built many elegant buildings and "ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron" (Mosiah 11:8) We would not think of iron as a decorative metal nowadays, nor was it considered such in the time of Joseph Smith. However, it was considered a preciousitem at one time, along with gold and silver andthesemi-preciousblue stoneLapis Lazuli in ancient Israel, according to a recent article, "King Og'sIron Bed--Fact or Fancy?"Bible Review 6 (April 1990): 16-20 Here, Allen R. Millard documents archeological evidence of iron being used to decorate beds (Deut 3:11) and thrones, as well as bracelets and jewelry, weapons and royal swords.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Blaine: This has nothing to do with my Mormon upbringing, but I beg to differ with your statement, " Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. Anyone familiar with the subject of astrology will tell you much research has already been done. For instance, the Rosecrucians did elaborate research on the relationship between astrological sign of birth (sun sign) and longevity. This is definitely testable, and in fact the results were rather astounding--women born in the sign Gemini consistently tended to outlive women born in any other sign, and the same with men born under the sign Taurus, with Gemini men coming in a close second. For both men and women, Sagitarrius was the shortest lived sign. I believe I could also show that certain signs favor certain others in choosing marriage partners--or friends. This would be a simple test, and not hard to design an experiment using all of the known statisical methods familiar to scientists. Your comments actually show your almost total ignorance of the subject of Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice for now. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Science needs math, but math doesn't need science. Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians. Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics. vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vince wrote: Theology is more like math than scienceI'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can elaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like math than science. Vince wrote: you start with an assumption or set of assumptions,regardless of how much they do or do not seem to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you are saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they make fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say?All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those assumptions. Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit. Vince wrote: Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc.To those who accept the basic premises of astrology,that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence onpeoples' personalities and the events which occur in peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe the basic premises.Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology? Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, "let them be for signs..."? Doesn't Daniel 6:27 and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked with a star? I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but I think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-) You are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which is rooted in objectivity and materialism.Vince wrote: Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature, speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions. Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesisbased upon the results of the experiments. Reproductionof the experiments and results by other scientists.Peer review of the final package.You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these paths. They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate it with
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Blaine: I think Paul was a disciple of an important Pharisee--Hillel-- before he was converted to Christ, and this training gave him the fertile field he needed to fully understand and explain Christ to the disciples who, although sincere, did not have the beautiful insights Paul's training gave him. They were, if you will pardon the expression, sheep compared to Paul, who was a well qualified shepherd. Paul was no doubt singled out by the Lord to be a special; witness for this very reason. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:51 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Judy wrote: They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of it dung. Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. He did not forsake his foundation in Judaism, but instead God used his Pharisaical training to give us a significant contribution of the Holy Scriptures. A person can consider it all dung in the light of Christ, but that does not mean that it is a sin to study and learn. Judy wrote: We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. If Jesus IS ALL TRUTH, then all disciplines of study that lead to truth lead to Jesus Christ. I think we have been more focused on this list on Judy than we have on Polanyi. Who was Polanyi but another brother in Christ? Why would you want to make him any more or any less than that? Does his great learning intimidate you or something? Is ignorance bliss? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] a well conditioned mind
Blaine: Kevin, I did not say your statements were tortured--I said your arguments were tortuous, which means they twist and turn and present a challenge to anyone trying to follow them--like a road that winds through a canyon with a lot of turns andswitchbacks in it. Maybe having been born in the mountains as I was, I am more likely to be familiar with the term. (:) A second definition of the word tortuous is as follows from my Websters: Not straightforward, devious, deceitful. hmmm. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] a well conditioned mind Again a NO answer, just more verbage from one who has no ears to hear. Blaine you have got to be the KING of ASSERTIONS. The question is WHY ARE MY STATEMENTS TOTURED? WHY IS THE BIBLE WRONG ABOUT LOST SHEEP? 3 Nephi was written in 1829. How does it prove anything? Show proof why this is not ANACHRONISTIC! No gentile heard his voice? Then you provide an example of a Gentile woman, who did. These are the mental gymnastics one must perform to believe this rot. Notice Blaine I said your reasoning requires MENTAL GYMNASTICS, I did not leave it at that I provide an example. Therefore it is not just a baseless assertion as you always do. In order to believe LDS doctrine one must have a well "conditioned" mind in order to perform the mental gynastics required.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin--sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraha! m, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know ! not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voicethat I should not manifest myself unto them s! ave it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Blaine: Good reasoning, as usual, David--good backup scriptures, too - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:48 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Gary wrote: ... you fluidly embrace subjectivism and, therefore, teach people, falsely Gary, what is the definition of subjectivism that you have in mind? Is it the following? Subjectivism: PHILOSOPHY -- theory of the validity of knowledge: a theory stating that people can only have knowledge of what they experience directly. Do agree or disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ himself embraced subjectivism in the following passage: If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine, I offered the challenge a week or so ago: If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands. That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:40 -0700 Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there? Just to remind you--maybe you didn't read it, or you dismissed it as being unimportant--I have already posted on the discovery of barley in the Americas before Columbus' time. The December 1983 issue of the Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona by professional archaeologists. Prior to its discovery, barley was thought to be an old world crop only, and was widely used by anti-BoM advocates as proof the BoM was a fake. It is of fundamental importance, since barley has long been associated with the law of Moses as a wave offering during the Passover, which is held during Abib, the first month mentioned in the Bible, which means the greening, referring to the greening of the barley crop in the early Spring. This crop was planted in the fall as a dry crop. It depended on Spring moisture to bring it up early, and was the first of the grain crops to show maturity. When it was used as a wave offering, it signified Jesus having barely attained maturity (age 33) when he was crucified. The same with the Pascal lamb, which was to be a lamb or goat of the FIRST YEAR. For Lehi and his group to have left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. without barley would have seriously compromised BoM credibility. The BoM references to barley are found in: Mosiah 7:22 and one half of our corn, and our BARLEY, and even all our grain of every kind. Mosiah, 9:9 And we began to till the ground with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of BARLEY, . . . Alma 11:7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of BARLEY, and also for a measure for every kind of grain. Alma 11:15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of BARLEY. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine, Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700 Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD. Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not
RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Vince wrote: The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians. Didn't you ever work on proofs in math class? Math is strictly deductive (isn't it?) meaning that its conclusions are known to be true with certainty whereas science and objective theology uses inductive inference and its conclusions are tentative. Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm just thinking out loud here. Of course, subjective theology goes beyond any logical schemes. Vince wrote: Astrology is not science. Agreed. Vince wrote: They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Uh... sorry, but I do believe that astrologers have theories to explain things in our universe. I'm not sure what you had in mind here. Vince wrote: Their ideas cannot be tested. Some can, but what seems to hinder astrology is this tendency to make their theories unfalsifiable. So in that vein, I guess we agree somewhat. Vince wrote: They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. Astrologers did predict the birth of Christ, did they not? Vince wrote: They cannot explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics. Interesting analogy. I'm somewhat ignorant of astrology so I will have to defer to Blaine's interest in this area. I'm not sure it is all bogus as you represent it. It sure seems to be in our day, but how much is that from our culture? Let me reiterate again, however, that I believe the Bible teaches us NOT to be involved in astrology. Nevertheless, that does not mean that there is no validity to it. We are not to have anything to do with Satan either, but that does not mean that Satan is an imaginary or bogus person. When the Bible teaches us that the stars and planets are for signs, what do you think that means? Is there any possibility that this includes astrology? 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] Strawman gets the Bird
how is it that even redeemd ppl, Jesus' followers today,are at a loss to express "how[God] spoke the worlds into existence"? perhaps even redeemd ppl have "darkened minds"; perhaps the subject matter itself is off limits re: the latter choice, whilewe are faced with the absolutely unknown inattemptgto understand "how" God works, e.g,. in Creation, how can anyone, partic those with thoroughly "darkened minds" propose a knowledge of God which is subjective, meang a (subjectivist's)knowledge strictly acc to experience? (ftr, those who countenance "objective knowledge"face this kind of critique, too:) for followers of Christ, Jesus, Creation is an act of God in whom (not "in which", referringback to Creation per se) we 'live and move and have our being'; Ps. 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. G ~ P 235 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:45:15 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People with minds darkened by the [g]od of this world trying to figure out how[God] spoke the worlds into existence.
RE: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Perry wrote: If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands. That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? 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] All truth leads to Jesus.
Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture? At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL. 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] Blaines Lost sheep of america
David, You are right. Even one falsehood in the BoM should cast skepticism on the entire book, causing one who believes it is true to question every statement. However, LDS apologists are not about to let that happen. They are very clever at twisting scripture to use as prooftexts for the BoM, and weaving long tales that attempt to connect BoM statements to reality. I have read Reynolds and Nibley, two revered LDS apologists, and it is really quite amusing to see the great leaps they will make to try to justify or prove a BoM point. They are desparate men attempting to make a novel they believe to be true fit reality. Their endeavors, while inventive, are fruitless. However, I realized last week that, other than items that were already known in the time of Joseph Smith, such as facts stated from the Bible or other historical facts that were known at the time of it's writing, every other statement in the BoM is fiction. So, I offered to Blaine the challenge to produce even one fact from the BoM, other than things that were already known at the time of JS, that can be proven. I feel confident that the challenge cannot be met. He offered the evidence of barley. Well, that is not proof. It is a possibility, but there are many other possibilities, too. A possibility does not constitute a proof. He offered the evidence of iron. Again, that is a possibility, but does not constitute a proof. You ask exactly what I am looking for. Here are some examples that would constitute a proof to me. 1) If gold plates inscribed in reformed Egyptian were found buried in a hill in New York that were shown scientifically to be of ancient origin, and were translated by independent Egyptologists, and were found to contain the text of the BoM, (including the parts that are EXACT duplicates of the Bible). Now, that would be proof of a monumental nature that some of the facts in the BoM are true. 2) If an extremely large and advanced ancient city in America was excavated, and the hall of records was located, and verifiably ancient dated records were found which contains the names of individuals that are in the BoM. Again, monumental proof that the BoM contains a fact or two. Okay, those last two would be a Mormon's dream come true, and not very likely, but: 3) How about historical evidence that Jared existed. He was promised by God that his seed would be multiplied greater than Abraham's. Hey, I know a lot of Abraham's seed, but have never met a Jaredite. Neither has anyone else! If they were a greater nation than Abraham produced THEY SHOULD BE EVERYWWHERE! How about a historical document that gives a lineage of Jared? How about historical evidence that ANYONE named in the BoM existed! The point is, the BoM is total fiction (except for facts known at the time that the BoM was written by JS, such as the passages that are exact copies of passages from the Bible), and this is demonstrated by the fact that there is not ONE shred of proof that ANY of it is true. Zero. If Blaine believes the BoM to be true, then let him produce proof. Not evidence, not anecdotes, not possibilities, but proof. The ultimate question is how can anyone put any faith at all in a book in which not ONE shred of truth can be found? If ONE falsehood could be found, the LDS apologists would just get their looms out and begin weaving an intricate but possible tale to cover it. Not proof, mind you, but a tale to use to say, See? It IS possible that that this is not false! So, my challenge to Blaine remains...show me one provable fact from the BoM, not something curious or cute or circumstantial or possible, and not something supported by convenient prooftexts out of context, but verifiable, incontrovertible proof. Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:23:07 -0500 Perry wrote: If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands. That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
In a message dated 3/24/2004 5:50:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hope youll stay. Izzy Ditto John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/24/2004 4:31:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. (Prov.13:22) Sometimes that wealth is a discovery or a method that works. Izzy Very well stated. I am and have been a disciple for 47 years --- YEKS. After all that time, it still excites me to find truth (i.e. this William Glasser thing) that demonstrates the subtle acceptance of the Word of God. There was a word of thanksgiving when I read those details from Glasser that testify to God's presence and wisdom. All truth is from God just as suredly as "every good and perfect gift." The Proverbs 13:22 reference is a precisely to this point. John
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
In a message dated 3/24/2004 7:32:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your comments actually show your almost total ignorance of the subject of Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice for now. two things: I'll bet (and I am a betting man) that vince is somewhat less ignorant than you give him credit -- and secondly, there is a difference between one who collects data and records statistics and a scientist. John
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
In a message dated 3/24/2004 1:14:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "I AM A PHARISEE" not "I was a Pharisee." In addition to this observation, Paul did not leave behind the practice of Old Covenant Law. Let's not forget that he went thru temple purification (Acts 21). Actually, Paul's actions prove that nothing is as important as the workings of the gospel I did not say "preaching of the gospel" nor did I say "practice of the gospel." The gospel of scripture (as I view scripture -- my interpretation is just as inspired as anyone's, right?) is the death, burial, resurrection and continued efficiency of the blow of the blood of the Lamb. It means salvation for the entire world and it means salvation apart from obedience to God's "law" (biblical references can be given in spades upon demand.) Paul could go to the temple because he did not believe that form was the primary content of faith. In fact, the closing verses of Romans 14 finds Paul instructing the doctrinally wrong brother (the vegetarian) not to violate his faith !!! Salute Brother John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
In a message dated 3/24/2004 6:47:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was raised in a denomination with a social gospel which was death to me. What we call the "social gospel" is not without merit as I read Isa 58:9-11. Romans 2:18ff shows that there is at least a second path to God other than preaching the gospel. John
