RE: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Oh, isnt that true about the mainstream mediaLOL. Izzy You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] false notions
Omigosh, this must be trueI think I saw it on Star Trek!!! Izzy Blaine: Kolob is a ruling planet that lies near the vicinity of God's abode--it takes 1000 earth years to make one revolution--it was never touted in any Mormon scripture as being God's actual place of residence.
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
In my library I have many different translations Bill and I can find the gospel in all of them. However, when I want to dig a little deeper I always goto the KJV which IMO is better than anything that has come along since.. As for fighting and dividing, I'm not into that either. We are all at different places in our pilgrimage and if we really love the Lord from our heart and feed upon His Word those who are like minded will want to walk with us; in fact this is the only way true fellowship happens ie: "when we walk in the light as HE is in the light". Jesus is the one building HIS Church and it's future is not up to any man - translater, cult leader, whatever judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, I have nothing against the KJV. I prefer the NKJV for the simple reason that it is easier to teach from -- I'm talking about teaching people whowere not rearedin KJ language. During the time I was doing my Greek studies, my professors were from Westminster Theological Seminary. There isn't a more conservative seminary in the country. They had us translating from the UBS, TR, and Nestle/Aland texts.The purpose of this multi-texting approach was to not only familiarize us with the variants within the texts, but across the texts as well. I am aware of the bickering that goes on between the different "schools" of thought. I don't even disagree with you concerning the footnoting. But the texts themselves are remarkably similar, considering the 1700-2000 years ofcopying and passing forward. It just seems to me that instead of marveling atour God for preservingthe text, we Christians use this as just one more way to fight with each other and divide. I am not so sure that is the best of our options. Bill From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy, There are dozens of NT manuscripts, thousands of fragments,and thousands and thousands of referents from antiquity. From time to time new discoveries are made, some of which are older than previous manuscript evidence. If the new discovery checks out, how is that a bad thing? jt: Well I'm reading that they are not a sure thing. Many errors and ommissions and the reason they were stored away was probably because they weren't the best manuscripts and so didn't get worn out. One was missing whole books and all of Paul's epistles. If it doesn't check out, then it is catalogued and "marginalized." Most variants have to do with the spelling of pronouns eautou (of himself) instead of autou (of him), for instance, something like that, not enough to affect doctrine but noteworthy nonetheless. Don't you want at least someone to be informed in stuff like this, even if you yourself are not? Bill IMO the new translations have caused a lot of confusion even though I have many of them myself. I don't use them as much as the KJV which is hard to beat. Some of the ommissions in the newer versions are quite serious. These translators remove the text and replace it with footnotes etc. and in years to come the footnotes will probably be thoughtunnecessary and we willlose all the way around. From: Judy Taylor I plan to Bill; you talk like these men are reworking a science manual rather than the Words of the Living God. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep on reading, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it
[TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 31, 2004 22:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Waiting on pins and needles! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract Well I promised myself I wouldnt write any more posts until I had finished writing an exam next Monday but I wanted to put one small one forward. Blaine and Johns comments below (thank you gentlemen) highlight an area that I have had a lot of change in lately. Basically it comes down to figuring out whether Gods relationship with me (and all TT members) is a covenantal relationship or a contractual relationship. Lets have a discussion of the difference(s) between covenant and contract. I would suggest beginning with a simple definition (marriage is an example of covenant, business agreement an example of a contract) and then go to scripture (as Blaine is doing below) to determine which type of relationship God has with us. To tip my hand I come in fully on the covenant side. I have come to see that God always begins with grace, then gives law, and then the consequences. In other words, I am the Father of Abraham etc. (grace), Follow my commandments (law) and you will be blessed (consequences). If that order is misconstrued or changed around I think one runs into a lot of trouble. How would the verse Blaine mentions below work out? Is it an example of works being a prerequisite for saving grace? One may want to work out what to do with all the Ifs that are often placed in verses dealing with covenant (for example, If you follow my commandments I shall bless you). Do they make them into contracts or are they descriptive ifs, prescriptive ifs etc.? This is part where I am still fuzzy but Ill get there. And finally I would like to discuss how our Christian lives would be different if we realized Gods relationship with us was one of covenant instead of contract. This will lead us into discussing Christs High priesthood and His vicarious humanity. I am getting excited just thinking about where we could go with all this. Thank you God! Lets work it out. Now I may not be able to post much until next Monday or Tuesday so please do not be suspicious if I do not reply to any responses right away. I cannot stress how important I think it is to deeply understand the difference between a Covenant God and a Contract God. May the Spirit of God lead us in this discussion. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blaine Borrowman Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Men's Doctrines Blaine: Greater love hath no man than this--that he give his life for his friends. You are my friends if you Keep My Commandments. I did not bother to look this scripture up, what I have written I wrote from memory. It is basically accurate, andit is a fundamental truth. You will only be saved if you are willing to keep his commandments--although works alone will not save you,through both works ANDhis saving grace--his mercy--one MAY repent and start from scratch, and thereby be saved. Otherwise, the justice of God will bind you to your sins, and you will have to pay for them yourself before you may come out from that prison ruled over by Satan. Jesus alone has the keys to that prison, and only he stands at the gate to Heaven--he employs no servant there. He will not let just anybody through, for strait is the gate, and narrow the way, and FEW there be that find it. This scripture tells us not everyone that saith Lord, Lord, will be admitted--just a few. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Men's Doctrines In a message dated 3/29/2004 6:10:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is grace verses works, whether Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or whatever. **Red flag; doctrine of men. Grace is no covering for sin and it is only accessed by faith...(Romans 5:2) and faith is dead without corresponding actions (Jame 2:17) Just for the record, Blaine -- God's grace even saves a works-salvantionist. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. A works-salvationist would say Well, duh. As one who is aware of his/her continued sinful self (Romans 3:23, IJo 1:8 etc), this statement Christ died for us while we yet sinners must have some relevance other than the obvious -- I mean all sacrifice for sin is created for those who are yet sinners. What is significant about this statement is the fact that the sacrifice is once and for all time -- that the flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO MORE. The problem for the sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His solution. The problem is already solved. That is why the gentile (Romans 2) who has no knowledge of God or
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 31, 2004 22:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of the
blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's memory
The problem for the
sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His
solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go back
to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself"
The problem is already
solved.
jt: Not when sin is
still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse the heart
John
john:I am not surprised at Blaine's
works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of Blaine
posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God become
"works-salvation?"
john:but the single most devastating teaching,
striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the biblical doctrine of salvation
by grace through faith apart from obedience to a system of commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of God (the
Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is no for the "right
church."
jt: There is ONLY one right one and that
is the one that Jesus is presently building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious reality
that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8 makes a
statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we say that we
are having no sin, the truth is not within us."
When I sat in first year greek and read that, understanding the
impact of continuous linear action ("are having no") I was stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the old
Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin, HE is
faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"
(1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of this
verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek class, for
crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not smoking. Not
drinking. Not lusting. No t ... well you get it.
AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I
WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. Bummer.
jt: Why? This is thereality and when we begin to
deal with Truth is when we make progress. Since that first
shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in, at least, two quantitative
forms: time/space (historical sins such as drinking, lying,
and the like --- things that last for a relatively brief period of time;
things I can hide; things that often do not define who I am) and
sins of character -- like envy, jealousy, hatred, bitterness, anger,
slothfulness -- all those things that lay the foundation for
historical sin. One murders because one is filled with hate or
some type of perversion.
jt: We don't have to look to tradition or
history.The mirror will tell uswhere the sin problem resides:
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,
fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness,
an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come FROM
WITHIN and defile the man.(Mark
7:21)
This is exactly why Paul says that "all have sinned and are
falling short of the glory of God."
jt: Because we are all born into this world with this
Adamic "fallen" human nature and a heart described as in Mark
7:21.
Grace people recognize the fact that sin is ever upon us, inescapable,
often intentional, always disastrous and deserving of death. Works
are commanded, they are necessary, but they are never accomplished by those who
are righteous on their merits -- never. So God
substitutes our faith for our supposed righteousness and refuses to consider our
sins.
jt: This is where things get a bit twisted.
Righteousness and obedience are boththe fruit of repentance and faith
which in themselves are gifts from God. Judyt
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
I wouldn't get my hopes too high. Older doesn't necessarily mean better and the Essenes were a cult like group. The major intact texts from caves 1 and 11 were published by the late 1950's and didn't make any big waves. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance From: Wm. Taylor Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C
discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If this
then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and only if".
`Are there "conditions" attached to grace? If there are and, we are fallen how
then do we fulfil them? If we "do" them without assistance then we are not THAT
fallen. If we "do" them with assistance (divine) then we are priviledged over
those who are not the recipients of such. One can see where this
leads.Lance
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 01, 2004 05:49
Subject: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus
Contract
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of the
blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's memory
The problem for the
sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His
solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go
back to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid
myself"
The problem is
already solved.
jt: Not when sin is
still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse the heart
John
john:I am not surprised at Blaine's
works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of Blaine
posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God become
"works-salvation?"
john:but the single most
devastating teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the biblical
doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience to a system
of commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of God
(the Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is no
for the "right church."
jt: There is ONLY one
right one and that is the one that Jesus is presently building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious reality
that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8 makes a
statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we say that we
are having no sin, the truth is not within us."
When I sat in first year greek and read that, understanding the
impact of continuous linear action ("are having no") I was
stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the old
Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin, HE is
faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of this
verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek class, for
crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not smoking. Not
drinking. Not lusting. No t ... well you get it.
AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I
WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. Bummer.
jt: Why? This is thereality and when we begin
to deal with Truth is when we make progress. Since that
first shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in, at least, two
quantitative forms: time/space (historical sins such as
drinking, lying, and the like --- things that last for a relatively
brief period of time; things I can hide; things that often do not define
who I am) and sins of character -- like envy, jealousy,
hatred, bitterness, anger, slothfulness -- all those things that
lay the foundation for historical sin. One murders because
one is filled with hate or some type of perversion.
jt: We don't have to look to tradition or
history.The mirror will tell uswhere the sin problem
resides: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil
things come FROM WITHIN and defile the man.(Mark 7:21)
This is exactly why Paul says that "all have sinned and are
falling short of the glory of God."
jt: Because we are all born into this world with this
Adamic "fallen" human nature and a heart described as in Mark
7:21.
Grace people recognize the fact that sin is ever upon us, inescapable,
often intentional, always disastrous and deserving of death. Works
are commanded, they are necessary, but they are never accomplished by those
who are righteous on their merits -- never. So God
substitutes our faith for our supposed righteousness and refuses to consider
our sins.
jt: This is where things get a bit twisted.
Righteousness and obedience are boththe fruit of repentance and faith
which in themselves are gifts from God. Judyt
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
This book contains the 2,000 year old texts of the Bible. THAT VERY SAME BIBLE you read daily. These are not non-biblical texts. (ISBN 0060600640) Check it out "man". (intended as humour (Cdn sp) not sarcasm) Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 06:07 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I wouldn't get my hopes too high. Older doesn't necessarily mean better and the Essenes were a cult like group. The major intact texts from caves 1 and 11 were published by the late 1950's and didn't make any big waves. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance From: Wm. Taylor Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
We probably need to lay all preconceived ideas aside
andexamine our understanding of what grace means, that is the definition
ofgrace in the Word of God. We are taught that it means "unmerited favor"
- who coined that one? We are also taught that noone could ever fulfill
God's Law (which makes Him a bit of an ogre because all through the OT this was
His standard with covenant blessings for those who walked in his statutes and
covenantcurses following those who did not) along with a place of
repentance (through the Levitical system) for those who missed it and had to
repent. The word "contract" is not scriptural and neither is
"unmerited favor" and the condition for receiving grace from God (which
incidentally is the ability to do as we ought) is obedience from the heart. Yes
we can be conformed to His image and yes we can also fulfill the law through
Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21); Paul said he wasn't without the law to God but
under the law to Christ and this is where we are at also if we are His.
judyt
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C
discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If this
then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and only if".
`Are there "conditions" attached to grace? If there
are and, we are fallen how then do we fulfil them? If
we "do" them without assistance then we are not THAT
fallen. If we "do" them with assistance (divine) then
we are priviledged over those who are not the recipients of such. One can see
where this leads.Lance
From:
Judy
Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of the
blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's memory
The problem for the
sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His
solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go
back to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid
myself"
The problem is
already solved.
jt: Not when sin is
still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse the heart
John
john:I am not surprised at Blaine's
works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of Blaine
posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God become
"works-salvation?"
john:but the single most devastating teaching,
striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the biblical doctrine of salvation
by grace through faith apart from obedience to a system of commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of God
(the Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is no for the "right
church."
jt: There is ONLY one right one and
that is the one that Jesus is presently building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious reality
that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8 makes a
statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we say that we
are having no sin, the truth is not within us."
When I sat in first year greek and read that, understanding the
impact of continuous linear action ("are having no") I was
stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the old
Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin, HE is
faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of this
verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek class, for
crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not smoking. Not
drinking. Not lusting. No t ... well you get it.
AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I
WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. Bummer.
jt: Why? This is thereality and when we begin
to deal with Truth is when we make progress. Since that
first shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in, at least, two
quantitative forms: time/space (historical sins such as
drinking, lying, and the like --- things that last for a relatively
brief period of time; things I can hide; things that often do not define
who I am) and sins of character -- like envy, jealousy,
hatred, bitterness, anger, slothfulness -- all those things that
lay the foundation for historical sin. One murders because
one is filled with hate or some type of perversion.
jt: We don't have to look to tradition or
history.The mirror will tell uswhere the sin problem
resides: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil
things come FROM WITHIN and defile the man.(Mark 7:21)
This is exactly why Paul says that "all have sinned
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 06:14 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Jt's meaning? Anyone presented with what you
outlined from scripture then, has the capacity within to say in response: a. I
do understand what you've just explained to me and I accept it and will repent
or, b. Same but, nope I don't want it.Lance
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 01, 2004 06:31
Subject: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus
Contract
We probably need to lay all preconceived ideas aside
andexamine our understanding of what grace means, that is the definition
ofgrace in the Word of God. We are taught that it means "unmerited
favor" - who coined that one? We are also taught that noone could ever
fulfill God's Law (which makes Him a bit of an ogre because all through the OT
this was His standard with covenant blessings for those who walked in his
statutes and covenantcurses following those who did not) along with a
place of repentance (through the Levitical system) for those who missed it and
had to repent. The word "contract" is not scriptural and neither
is "unmerited favor" and the condition for receiving grace from God (which
incidentally is the ability to do as we ought) is obedience from the heart.
Yes we can be conformed to His image and yes we can also fulfill the law
through Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21); Paul said he wasn't without the law to
God but under the law to Christ and this is where we are at also if we are
His. judyt
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C
discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If
this then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and only
if". `Are there "conditions" attached to grace? If
there are and, we are fallen how then do we fulfil
them? If we "do" them without assistance
then we are not THAT fallen. If we "do" them with
assistance (divine) then we are priviledged over those who are not the
recipients of such. One can see where this leads.Lance
From:
Judy
Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of
the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's
memory
The problem for the
sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His
solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go
back to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid
myself"
The problem is
already solved.
jt: Not when sin
is still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse the
heart John
john:I am not surprised at Blaine's
works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of
Blaine posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God
become "works-salvation?"
john:but the single most
devastating teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the
biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience
to a system of commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of God
(the Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is
no for the "right church."
jt: There is ONLY one
right one and that is the one that Jesus is presently building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious
reality that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8
makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we
say that we are having no sin, the truth is not
within us." When I sat in first year greek and read that,
understanding the impact of continuous linear action ("are having no")
I was stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the
old Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin,
HE is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of
this verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek
class, for crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not
smoking. Not drinking. Not lusting. No t ...
well you get it. AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE
IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN.
Bummer.
jt: Why? This is thereality and when we begin
to deal with Truth is when we make progress. Since that
first shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in, at least, two
quantitative forms: time/space (historical sins such as
drinking, lying, and the like --- things that last for a relatively
brief period of time; things I can hide; things that often do not
define who I am) and sins of character -- like envy,
jealousy, hatred, bitterness,
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 06:14 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
I would hope that anyone presented with anything I say
would be Berean enough to look for it themselves in scripture gobefore the
Lord toask God forwisdom - thenwe will make some progress in
the right direction (I'm not looking for a following), and yes I do believe that
in spite of being fallen in nature mankind's will is free enough to make this
choice for himself when drawn to Jesus by the Holy Spirit (there He is again)
and that God is no respecter of any man's person. jt
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jt's meaning? Anyone presented with what you
outlined from scripture then, has
the capacity within to say in response:
a. I do understand what you've just explained to me
and I accept it and will repent or,
b. Same but, nope I don't want
it.Lance
From: Judy Taylor
We probably need to lay all
preconceived ideas aside andexamine our understanding of what grace
means, that is the definition ofgrace in the Word of God. We are taught
that it means "unmerited favor" - who coined that one? We are also
taught that noone could ever fulfill God's Law (which makes Him a bit of an
ogre because all through the OT this was His standard with covenant blessings
for those who walked in his statutes and covenantcurses following those
who did not) along with a place of repentance (through the Levitical system)
for those who missed it and had to repent. The word "contract" is
not scriptural and neither is "unmerited favor" and the condition for
receiving grace from God (which incidentally is the ability to do as we ought)
is obedience from the heart. Yes we can be conformed to His image and yes we
can also fulfill the law through Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21); Paul said he
wasn't without the law to God but under the law to Christ and this is where we
are at also if we are His. judyt
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C
discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If
this then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and only
if". `Are there "conditions" attached to grace? If
there are and, we are fallen how then do we fulfil
them? If we "do" them without assistance
then we are not THAT fallen. If we "do" them with
assistance (divine) then we are priviledged over those who are not the
recipients of such. One can see where this leads.Lance
From:
Judy
Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of
the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's
memory
The problem for the
sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His
solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go
back to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid
myself"
The problem is
already solved.
jt: Not when sin
is still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse the
heart John
john:I am not surprised at Blaine's
works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of
Blaine posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God
become "works-salvation?"
john:but the single most devastating
teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the biblical doctrine
of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience to a system of
commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of God
(the Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is no for the
"right church."
jt: There is ONLY one right one and
that is the one that Jesus is presently building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious
reality that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8
makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we
say that we are having no sin, the truth is not
within us." When I sat in first year greek and read that,
understanding the impact of continuous linear action ("are having no")
I was stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the
old Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin,
HE is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of
this verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek
class, for crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not
smoking. Not drinking. Not lusting. No t ...
well you get it. AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE
IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN.
Bummer.
jt: Why? This is thereality and when we begin
to deal with Truth is when we make progress. Since
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 06:46 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 06:14 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Thanks for putting your "cards on the table"
Lance
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 01, 2004 06:54
Subject: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus
Contract
I would hope that anyone presented with anything I
say would be Berean enough to look for it themselves in scripture
gobefore the Lord toask God forwisdom - thenwe will
make some progress in the right direction (I'm not looking for a following),
and yes I do believe that in spite of being fallen in nature mankind's will is
free enough to make this choice for himself when drawn to Jesus by the Holy
Spirit (there He is again) and that God is no respecter of any man's person.
jt
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jt's meaning? Anyone presented with what you
outlined from scripture then, has
the capacity within to say in response:
a. I do understand what you've just explained to
me and I accept it and will repent or,
b. Same but, nope I don't want
it.Lance
From: Judy Taylor
We probably need to lay
all preconceived ideas aside andexamine our understanding of what
grace means, that is the definition ofgrace in the Word of God. We are
taught that it means "unmerited favor" - who coined that one? We are
also taught that noone could ever fulfill God's Law (which makes Him a bit
of an ogre because all through the OT this was His standard with covenant
blessings for those who walked in his statutes and covenantcurses
following those who did not) along with a place of repentance (through the
Levitical system) for those who missed it and had to repent. The
word "contract" is not scriptural and neither is "unmerited favor" and the
condition for receiving grace from God (which incidentally is the ability to
do as we ought) is obedience from the heart. Yes we can be conformed to His
image and yes we can also fulfill the law through Christ (1 Corinthians
9:21); Paul said he wasn't without the law to God but under the law to
Christ and this is where we are at also if we are His. judyt
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C
discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If
this then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and
only if". `Are there "conditions" attached to
grace? If there are and, we are fallen how then
do we fulfil them? If we "do" them without
assistance then we are not THAT fallen. If we "do" them with assistance (divine) then we are priviledged over
those who are not the recipients of such. One can see where this
leads.Lance
From:
Judy
Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the flow of
the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO
MORE.
jt: Unrepented sin has not gone
anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's
memory
The problem for
the sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence,
His solution.
jt: And why do we avoid God? Go
back to Genesis 3:10 "I was afraid because I was naked and I hid
myself"
The problem is
already solved.
jt: Not when
sin is still present justholdingto a doctrine will not cleanse
the heart John
john:I am not surprised at
Blaine's works salvantionist position.
jt: If it is the post I am thinking of
Blaine posted the words of Jesus ONLY. How does obedience to God
become "works-salvation?"
john:but the single most
devastating teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the
biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience
to a system of commandments.
jt: What about obedience to the Word of
God (the Lord Jesus Christ)
john: If we are saved by grace, there is
no for the "right church."
jt: There is ONLY
one right one and that is the one that Jesus is presently
building.
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious
reality that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this. I Jo 1:8
makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we
say that we are having no sin, the truth is
not within us." When I sat in first year greek and read that,
understanding the impact of continuous linear action ("are having
no") I was stunned.
jt: Because of the condition of our heart and the
old Adamic nature which plagues us. However, "IF we confess our sin,
HE is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) - so what does that make us?
My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of
this verse.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
The Dead sea scrolls were individual finds of individual manuscripts. There were multiple finds. A manuscript is not a "Bible" or codexLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 31, 2004 22:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Kevin: Please research this title I listed. See exactly what mss were translated. Are you devaluing this find? lance - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 07:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God The Dead sea scrolls were individual finds of individual manuscripts. There were multiple finds. A manuscript is not a "Bible" or codexLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 31, 2004 22:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
I am not detracting justclarifying your use of the word "Bible" they were mssLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin: Please research this title I listed. See exactly what mss were translated. Are you devaluing this find? lance - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 07:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God The Dead sea scrolls were individual finds of individual manuscripts. There were multiple finds. A manuscript is not a "Bible" or codexLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (The oldest known Bible translated for the first time into English) Harper More than 1000 years older than any previously discovered biblical manuscripts with material never before published or translated. Lance - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 31, 2004 22:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well educated sectarian.All you have proven is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in theory. That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others). Do you have some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology.Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version? John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter todayDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; youcan make anything sound seedy.Bill From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair. jt From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a lot of problems with the NA text.When they finally get it right I will give you a critique.Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the
Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:21 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons) John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Jonathan Hughes wrote: Well I promised myself I wouldnt write any more posts until I had finished writing an exam next Monday but I wanted to put one small one forward. Blaine and Johns comments below (thank you gentlemen) highlight an area that I have had a lot of change in lately. Basically it comes down to figuring out whether Gods relationship with me (and all TT members) is a covenantal relationship or a contractual relationship. Lets have a discussion of the difference(s) between covenant and contract. I would suggest beginning with a simple definition (marriage is an example of covenant, business agreement an example of a contract) and then go to scripture (as Blaine is doing below) to determine which type of relationship God has with us. To tip my hand I come in fully on the covenant side. I have come to see that God always begins with grace, then gives law, and then the consequences. In other words, I am the Father of Abraham etc. (grace), Follow my commandments (law) and you will be blessed (consequences). If that order is misconstrued or changed around I think one runs into a lot of trouble. How would the verse Blaine mentions below work out? Is it an example of works being a prerequisite for saving grace? One may want to work out what to do with all the Ifs that are often placed in verses dealing with covenant (for example, If you follow my commandments I shall bless you). Do they make them into contracts or are they descriptive ifs, prescriptive ifs etc.? This is part where I am still fuzzy but Ill get there. And finally I would like to discuss how our Christian lives would be different if we realized Gods relationship with us was one of covenant instead of contract. This will lead us into discussing Christs High priesthood and His vicarious humanity. I am getting excited just thinking about where we could go with all this. Thank you God! Lets work it out. Now I may not be able to post much until next Monday or Tuesday so please do not be suspicious if I do not reply to any responses right away. I cannot stress how important I think it is to deeply understand the difference between a Covenant God and a Contract God. May the Spirit of God lead us in this discussion. Jonathan I look forward to more as your time permits, John. At present, the biggest difference I see in a covenant and a contract is that a contract is an agreement acceptable to two or more parties, while in a covenant, the stronger party always sets the terms. Give me more! Terry
[TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
He ate with them but ATST was separate from them, fellowship and relationship involve trust and commitment.. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24) and "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26) Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? From: Judy Taylor John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Lance Muir wrote: A distinction I've found helpful on this C vs C discussion is drawn from IF IFF. The former can be understood as" If this then that" while the latter is understood to mean (not say) "If and only if". `Are there "conditions" attached to grace? If there are and, we are fallen how then do we fulfil them? If we "do" them without assistance then we are not THAT fallen. If we "do" them with assistance (divine) then we are priviledged over those who are not the recipients of such. One can see where this leads.Lance = I am really glad that "one" can see. Could you ask that one to explain it to me? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Judy Taylor wrote: We probably need to lay all preconceived ideas aside andexamine our understanding of what grace means, that is the definition ofgrace in the Word of God. We are taught that it means "unmerited favor" - who coined that one? We are also taught that noone could ever fulfill God's Law (which makes Him a bit of an ogre because all through the OT this was His standard with covenant blessings for those who walked in his statutes and covenantcurses following those who did not) along with a place of repentance (through the Levitical system) for those who missed it and had to repent. The word "contract" is not scriptural and neither is "unmerited favor" and the condition for receiving grace from God (which incidentally is the ability to do as we ought) is obedience from the heart. Yes we can be conformed to His image and yes we can also fulfill the law through Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21); Paul said he wasn't without the law to God but under the law to Christ and this is where we are at also if we are His. judyt = Can you explain to me, Judy, the difference between keeping the law and fulfilling the law. I firmly believe that no one has ever kept even the first commandment without fail. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:35 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory
Re: [TruthTalk] false notions
David, you are denying what several of your own prophets have stated. Have you not seen the multitude of references that Kevin has provided that indicate such? Are you saying that they were NOT prophets, and had no authority, or were they wrong on just this one occasion? Please set me straight. Explain to me the DH understanding of the relationship between the LDS god and Mary that produced Jesus' earthly body. If it differs from the LDS teachings, please tell me what the LDS believe about this. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:04:33 -0800 DAVEH: Interestingly.Perry you have once again quoted /He had physical sex with Mary/ which I have several times denied to be LDS doctrine on TT. Why do you make such a claim when you know it to be false? Did you think I lied to you? Blaine Borrowman wrote: *Blaine: I have covered all of the doctrines I know about that can be substantiated by Mormon scriptures, at least I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your list of truths about what we believe, Perry, would not stand up to any scriptures that I know of, Mormon or otherwise. You are touching on almost all the doctrines I have heard repeated by anti-Mormons in their many attempts to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They dig up some obscure commentaries made in moments of unwary speculation, and try to attach these to the official belief system of the LDS Church. If I as a sunday school teacher were to dwell on these doctrines as if they were fundamental truths, with more than passing commentary, I would soon be removed from teaching the Latter-day Saint people. If you want to know what we teach, read current commentary by current LDS writers, or go to the official scriptures--the BoM, the DC, and etc. * *If I wanted to know what Jews teach, would I go to an anti-semitic source? Not unless I wanted to hear with itching ears the devil's version of what they teach.* *(:)* - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] false notions Blaine, Great! You caovered the parts that are similariities between you god and jesus, and the God and Jesus of the Bible. Now tell the WHOLE story, Blaine... give the other aspects of God from your own DC, and the writings of your other LDS prophets which you ALSO believe. It is THOSE characterisitcs that make your god and jesus different from the biblical God and Jesus. Please don't hold anything back. He is from KOLOB. He was once a MAN. He had a father himself that was once a man, and is now a god. He had physical sex with Mary. There are infinite such gods. Jesus is a brother of SATAN. Be truthful, Blaine. Tell us all of it. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:26:04 -0700 I would like to try once again to clarify my (Mormon) beliefs as to who Jesus really is. If needed, I can verify all of these assertions by biblical scripture. He is as follows: 1) The God of the Old Testament--Jehovah--he was the I Am that I Am that gave commandments to Moses, and delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt. 2) He was the firstborn of all spirit creations OF the Father. (Rev 3:14) 3) All other things were created BY him (but OF the father). 4) He is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. 5) He gave his life and blood to atone for the sins of all, as he overcame all things, including death. 6) He was the firstborn of the resurrection, having pre-eminance in all things. 7) He now reigns on the right hand of the Father (both in bodies of flesh and bone) and caringly intervenes in the affairs of men, by speaking to his ordained and authorized servants, the prophets. 8) He will again set his foot on the earth, which is his footstool, and will reign forever as King and Prince over all, in justice and equity, and his Kingdom will never end.I can't see that any of these beliefs make my Jesus different from your Jesus--unless you don't believe your own scriptures.Blaine -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. _ Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ -- Let your speech be always with grace,
Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
Wrong. He fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, then they loved him. I John 4.18-19 -- "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.We love Him because He first loved us." The movement is always, Godmanward. Was Jesus not God? Did he not always do the will of his Father? Why would his dining with tax collectors and harlots be anything less than his love and demonstration of that perfect love for them; and thatbeing the reason for the change of their heart/attitudefor him? Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons) He ate with them but ATST was separate from them, fellowship and relationship involve trust and commitment.. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24) and "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26) Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? From: Judy Taylor John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
PS, This is not to say that fellowship and relationship does not involve trust and commitment. It is to say that that relationship was initiatesby Jesus at his movement toward them, in his utter acceptance of them in spite of who they were, and his absolute refusal to leave them in their sin. That fellowship is what removed the fear on the part of his recipients, allowing them to drop the pretence and be real with him about who they were; that then is their repentance, resulting in trust and commitment. Bill - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons) Wrong. He fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, then they loved him. I John 4.18-19 -- "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.We love Him because He first loved us." The movement is always, Godmanward. Was Jesus not God? Did he not always do the will of his Father? Why would his dining with tax collectors and harlots be anything less than his love and demonstration of that perfect love for them; and thatbeing the reason for the change of their heart/attitudefor him? Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons) He ate with them but ATST was separate from them, fellowship and relationship involve trust and commitment.. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24) and "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26) Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? From: Judy Taylor John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
I don't know that there is a difference Terry - keeping and fulfilling is the same thing but we have been taught doctrines in Christendom that do not conform us to godliness and holiness. Enoch was pleasing to God and so was Elijah (they were translated). We are not required to keep the letter of the law and we fulfill the law through Christ by walking after the Spirit in obedience to Him. Just holding on to a doctrine that says "He did it so I don't have to" will not conform us to His image so that we will be like Him when He comes. judyt From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you explain to me, Judy, the difference between keeping the law and fulfilling the law. I firmly believe that no one has ever kept even the first commandment without fail.Terry Judy Taylor wrote: We probably need to lay all preconceived ideas aside andexamine our understanding of what grace means, that is the definition ofgrace in the Word of God. We are taught that it means "unmerited favor" - who coined that one? We are also taught that noone could ever fulfill God's Law (which makes Him a bit of an ogre because all through the OT this was His standard with covenant blessings for those who walked in his statutes and covenantcurses following those who did not) along with a place of repentance (through the Levitical system) for those who missed it and had to repent. The word "contract" is not scriptural and neither is "unmerited favor" and the condition for receiving grace from God (which incidentally is the ability to do as we ought) is obedience from the heart. Yes we can be conformed to His image and yes we can also fulfill the law through Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21); Paul said he wasn't without the law to God but under the law to Christ and this is where we are at also if we are His. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we have a common parent, I think I'd consider that qualifies as a brotherhood of sorts. I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" John
Re: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of A.Word.A.Day
In a message dated 3/31/2004 11:45:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God has no religion He's not Mormon? J
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you? judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance From: Judy Taylor Are you being funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order toreceive wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other theologians were about. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk it. Yup,convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence others.Lance From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott
Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:24:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians John did not write this (above). Try again. John wrote this (below_ Good post. And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia "Walking in the light " has nothing to do with works. The verse actually says "If we are walking in the light as He is in the light, we are having fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us from our sins" (JJo 1:7) If the blood "keeps on cleansing" it is because we "keep on sinning." Mere logic would tell us this. As we read on, (the next verse) low and behold, it actually says that we always have sin. We are never free from things like pride, conceit, bigotry and the like. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Though it is difficult nay, nigh on impossible to underestimate the ability of even "long-time" believers to articulate on The Nature of God The Nature of God's Gospel I will readily nay (once again) acknowledge the following: 1. God is gracious. By His Spirit He takes the most inarticulate expressions and changes lives. 2. When welcomed into His Presence we ought not to expect "Good for you you figured it all out"; instead "Well done good and faithful servant." Blessings, Lance Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 08:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you? judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all truth. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to do with your scripture quotations. Every one of them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning that makes whatever point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc) can be seen to have lead you away from that which is intrinsically true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrong. He fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, then they loved him. I John 4.18-19 -- jt: He didn't fellowship with any of the disciples before calling them. He said "Come follow me" and they left everything and came. Who are these ppl who he committed to first (in his personal ministry); you are thinking of the song "O How I Love Jesus" "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.We love Him because He first loved us." The movement is always, Godmanward. Was Jesus not God? Did he not always do the will of his Father? jt: The above is true but even those of us who are serving him are not yet free from fear - why not? As Terry just said, we don't love Him like we think we do. The movement may be God/manward but it is on His terms and Jesus did not commit himself to the ungodly, he was also separate from sinners. Paul warned of the same thing when he spoke about being delivered from unreasonable and wicked men forall men have not faith (2 Thess 3:2); Jesus had to walk through a crowd wanting to kill him more than once. Even Jesus could only deal with those who would receive from Him. Why would his dining with tax collectors and harlots be anything less than his love and demonstration of that perfect love for them; and thatbeing the reason for the change of their heart/attitudefor him? jt: Their heart attitude changed because they were drawn to Him by the Father and even then it wasn't all of them. There were only 125 in the upper room at Pentecost. I know love is important but we shouldn't try to read into the text what is not there. judyt From: Judy Taylor He ate with them but ATST was separate from them, fellowship and relationship involve trust and commitment.. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24) and "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26) Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? From: Judy Taylor John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils' judyt
[TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
This apparently is where your doctrine veers off into a wide sweeping thing Bill. I don't see it in scripture. When the young man came to Jesus who was rich and unwilling to part with his riches; he walked off and Jesus was sad but he didn't go running after him. So from what we know Jesus left that man in his sin. Also we are not real with him. Church people are not real with him or with each other. We are still full of fear and all kinds of other stuff that we need to deal with. Sanctification is a second work of grace. jt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS, This is not to say that fellowship and relationship does not involve trust and commitment. It is to say that that relationship was initiatesby Jesus at his movement toward them, in his utter acceptance of them in spite of who they were, and his absolute refusal to leave them in their sin. That fellowship is what removed the fear on the part of his recipients, allowing them to drop the pretence and be real with him about who they were; that then is their repentance, resulting in trust and commitment. Bill From: Wm. Taylor Wrong. He fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, then they loved him. I John 4.18-19 -- "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.We love Him because He first loved us." The movement is always, Godmanward. Was Jesus not God? Did he not always do the will of his Father? Why would his dining with tax collectors and harlots be anything less than his love and demonstration of that perfect love for them; and thatbeing the reason for the change of their heart/attitudefor him? Bill Taylor From: Judy Taylor He ate with them but ATST was separate from them, fellowship and relationship involve trust and commitment.. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24) and "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26) Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. Do you mean that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots? From: Judy Taylor John wrote:I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though.Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). jt:Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true fellowship (lightalso meaning truth) and this is when the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with themixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the standardJesus and the First Century Church left to us. john: My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on to 'doctrines of devils'
[TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- 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] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
Yes we can. Lance- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 09:52 Subject: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we have a common parent, I think I'd consider that qualifies as a brotherhood of sorts. I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" DAVEH: I would not be opposed to that, but fear that by doing so it deemphasizes the literal nature of the parenthood of our Heavenly Father. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] false notions
Charles Perry Locke wrote: David, you are denying what several of your own prophets have stated. DAVEH: No, Perry. I am denying the spin you are putting on their words. Have you not seen the multitude of references that Kevin has provided that indicate such? DAVEH: No.I have not. The references I have seen have not said God had physical sex with Mary. So I do not understand why you continue saying that we do believe that, despite me telling you previously that it is not LDS doctrine or teaching. Are you saying that they were NOT prophets, and had no authority, or were they wrong on just this one occasion? DAVEH: Please quote the passage you think applies and I'll explain it as I understand it. Please set me straight. Explain to me the DH understanding of the relationship between the LDS god and Mary that produced Jesus' earthly body. If it differs from the LDS teachings, please tell me what the LDS believe about this. DAVEH: OK Perry.once again FTR..LDS doctrine is very specific about Mary.She was a virgin. Furthermore, I do believe God the Father is Jesus' literal father. Do you not believe both those concepts, Perry? I also believe there is a genetic (if that is the correct word) connection between God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus that took place by virtue of the power of the Holy Ghost. That does not mean that the HG created Jesus. But rather Jesus was conceived in the womb from genetic (as best as I understand it) material of both the Heavenly Father and Mary without a physical/sexual union that would disqualify Mary's virginity. Now that you presumably understand what I just explained, Perry.will you continue expounding that we believe the opposite? Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:04:33 -0800 DAVEH: Interestingly.Perry you have once again quoted /He had physical sex with Mary/ which I have several times denied to be LDS doctrine on TT. Why do you make such a claim when you know it to be false? Did you think I lied to you? Blaine Borrowman wrote: *Blaine: I have covered all of the doctrines I know about that can be substantiated by Mormon scriptures, at least I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your list of "truths" about what we believe, Perry, would not stand up to any scriptures that I know of, Mormon or otherwise. You are touching on almost all the doctrines I have heard repeated by anti-Mormons in their many attempts to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They dig up some obscure commentaries made in moments of unwary speculation, and try to attach these to the official belief system of the LDS Church. If I as a sunday school teacher were to dwell on these doctrines as if they were fundamental truths, with more than passing commentary, I would soon be removed from teaching the Latter-day Saint people. If you want to know what we teach, read current commentary by current LDS writers, or go to the official scriptures--the BoM, the DC, and etc. * *If I wanted to know what Jews teach, would I go to an anti-semitic source? Not unless I wanted to hear with itching ears the devil's version of what they teach.* *(:)* - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] false notions Blaine, Great! You caovered the parts that are similariities between you god and jesus, and the God and Jesus of the Bible. Now tell the WHOLE story, Blaine... give the "other" aspects of God from your own DC, and the writings of your other LDS prophets which you ALSO believe. It is THOSE characterisitcs that make your god and jesus different from the biblical God and Jesus. Please don't hold anything back. He is from KOLOB. He was once a MAN. He had a father himself that was once a man, and is now a god. He had physical sex with Mary. There are infinite such gods. Jesus is a brother of SATAN. Be truthful, Blaine. Tell us all of it. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "TT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:26:04 -0700 I would like to try once again to clarify my (Mormon) beliefs as to who Jesus really is. If needed, I can verify all of these assertions by biblical scripture. He is as follows: 1) The God of the Old Testament--Jehovah--he was the "I Am that I Am" that gave commandments to Moses, and delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt. 2) He was the firstborn of all spirit creations OF the Father. (Rev 3:14) 3) All other things were created BY him (but OF the father). 4) He is the only begotten of the Father in the
[TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
You know what the key to the scriptures is Lance? It's not Church doctrine, it's not words and it's not indicatives and imparatives It's the parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13:3, Mark 4:3, Luke 8:5. jtFrom: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Yes we can. Lance-~~~ Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend 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] Covenant versus Contract
In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:55:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO MORE. jt: Unrepented sin has not gone anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's memory Because I ahve changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23. Whio said there was something wrong with God's memory. I was just quoting the words found in Jere 31:31-34.
Re: [TruthTalk] false notions
DavidH, If I produce a statement from one of the LDS prophets that says it WAS a physical union, will you change your position? Or will you deny that the one who stated it was a prophet? Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 07:24:17 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: David, you are denying what several of your own prophets have stated. DAVEH: No, Perry. I am denying the spin you are putting on their words. Have you not seen the multitude of references that Kevin has provided that indicate such? DAVEH: No.I have not. The references I have seen have *not *said /God had physical sex with Mary/. So I do not understand why you continue saying that we do believe that, despite me telling you previously that it is not LDS doctrine or teaching. Are you saying that they were NOT prophets, and had no authority, or were they wrong on just this one occasion? DAVEH: Please quote the passage you think applies and I'll explain it as I understand it. Please set me straight. Explain to me the DH understanding of the relationship between the LDS god and Mary that produced Jesus' earthly body. If it differs from the LDS teachings, please tell me what the LDS believe about this. DAVEH: OK Perry.once again FTR..LDS doctrine is very specific about Mary.She was a virgin. Furthermore, I do believe God the Father is Jesus' literal father. Do you not believe both those concepts, Perry? I also believe there is a genetic (if that is the correct word) connection between God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus that took place by virtue of the power of the Holy Ghost. That does not mean that the HG created Jesus. But rather Jesus was conceived in the womb from genetic (as best as I understand it) material of both the Heavenly Father and Mary without a physical/sexual union that would disqualify Mary's virginity. Now that you presumably understand what I just explained, Perry.will you continue expounding that we believe the opposite? Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:04:33 -0800 DAVEH: Interestingly.Perry you have once again quoted /He had physical sex with Mary/ which I have several times denied to be LDS doctrine on TT. Why do you make such a claim when you know it to be false? Did you think I lied to you? Blaine Borrowman wrote: *Blaine: I have covered all of the doctrines I know about that can be substantiated by Mormon scriptures, at least I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your list of truths about what we believe, Perry, would not stand up to any scriptures that I know of, Mormon or otherwise. You are touching on almost all the doctrines I have heard repeated by anti-Mormons in their many attempts to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They dig up some obscure commentaries made in moments of unwary speculation, and try to attach these to the official belief system of the LDS Church. If I as a sunday school teacher were to dwell on these doctrines as if they were fundamental truths, with more than passing commentary, I would soon be removed from teaching the Latter-day Saint people. If you want to know what we teach, read current commentary by current LDS writers, or go to the official scriptures--the BoM, the DC, and etc. * *If I wanted to know what Jews teach, would I go to an anti-semitic source? Not unless I wanted to hear with itching ears the devil's version of what they teach.* *(:)* - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] false notions Blaine, Great! You caovered the parts that are similariities between you god and jesus, and the God and Jesus of the Bible. Now tell the WHOLE story, Blaine... give the other aspects of God from your own DC, and the writings of your other LDS prophets which you ALSO believe. It is THOSE characterisitcs that make your god and jesus different from the biblical God and Jesus. Please don't hold anything back. He is from KOLOB. He was once a MAN. He had a father himself that was once a man, and is now a god. He had physical sex with Mary. There are infinite such gods. Jesus is a brother of SATAN. Be truthful, Blaine. Tell us all of it. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:26:04 -0700 I would like to try once again to clarify my (Mormon) beliefs as to who Jesus really is. If needed, I can verify all of these assertions by
Re: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
"Key" comes off a little too much like "doctrine" Judy. Even a JTD but,reading, indwelling Scripture is always and ever an EXCELLENT IDEA! Blessings, Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 10:23 Subject: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER You know what the key to the scriptures is Lance? It's not Church doctrine, it's not words and it's not indicatives and imparatives It's the parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13:3, Mark 4:3, Luke 8:5. jtFrom: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Yes we can. Lance-~~~ Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend 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] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:01:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. And a wonderful bunch of deserters they were.
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO MORE. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Unrepented sin has not gone anywhere John and there is nothing wrong with God's memory john: Because I ahve changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) jt: We not only have to change our mind and hate it, we separate ourselves from it andstop doing it. There is no sacrifice for presumptuous sin. None under the Old Covenant and according to Heb 10:26 and 27 there is none for us either.Whio said there was something wrong with God's memory. jt: I don't know whether or not you said it but you hear it all the time in Churches, that God has separated us from sin as far as the east is from the west and he doesn't remember it any more. This is not true if we continue to actively participate with it. I was just quoting the words found in Jere 31:31-34. Good words...
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
In a message dated 4/1/2004 4:26:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not detracting just clarifying your use of the word "Bible" they were mss Ditto all present day translations -- they are mss in the vein of B and Siniaticus. John
Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:33:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, Perfect. Read it and weep, judyt. john
[TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:01:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made a total (left all) commitment to him. jt. john: And a wonderful bunch of deserters they were. jt: Only while natural menas soon as they received the Holy Spirit of Promise at Pentecost they turned the known world upside down in Jesus Name. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:14:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Well done good and faithful servant." It just struck me that I say these words to my grand kids all the time. " Matty, your coloring is great" (when , in fact, it leaves much to be desired). "Well done" encourages me to continue, to learn how to color between the lines, to sin not. Judy's gospel leaves notroom for spiritual growth if we understand that growth includes overcoming sin. John
Re: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was Dialogue with Mormons)
In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:19:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He didn't fellowship with any of the disciples before calling them. He said "Come follow me" and they left everything and came. But they did not stop sinning. He did not make THAT a requirement of apostleship. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:41:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians. Not the least of whom is Jesus the Lord. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:09:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" DAVEH: I would not be opposed to that, but fear that by doing so it deemphasizes the literal nature of the parenthood of our Heavenly Father. W would think it to be enhanced. John
[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Are you saying the sacrifice is not sufficient to overcome sin John That he left us no power and no gifts when he ascended? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:14:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Well done good and faithful servant."It just struck me that I say these words to my grand kids all the time. " Matty, your coloring is great" (when , in fact, it leaves much to be desired). "Well done" encourages me to continue, to learn how to color between the lines, to sin not. Judy's gospel leaves notroom for spiritual growth if we understand that growth includes overcoming sin. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:48:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: john: Because I ahve changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) jt: We not only have to change our mind and hate it, we separate ourselves from it and stop doing it. There is no sacrifice for presumptuous sin. None under the Old Covenant and according to Heb 10:26 and 27 there is none for us either. Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. And addressed none of them.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
In a message dated 4/1/2004 8:04:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying the sacrifice is not sufficient to overcome sin John no. Your are the one saying. that. He did all that He could but, in the end, it depends upon us. Absolutely crazy. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:48:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know whether or not you said it but you hear it all the time in Churches YOU said that I made that statement and when put on the spot, you ignore and move on. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:56 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) [Judy, that's like saying you are now the only one among us who is not confused, yet you gobbled up Kevin's mss rhetoric yesterday--that is before we began to talk and you backed off a bit. I say this simply to say that you are as influenced still by the world as is the next mature Christian. It's when we are honest about this that we are paidia --children, because me arepaideai, formable.]and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me [that is when things began to come together for me also]. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine [What are the implications of this statement: thatI do haveto"cut out" portions of the Bible "because they don't fit into my doctrine"? Can you give me examples of where I have done this?]. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians [I don't know that I have ever heard John mention the name of any theologian]. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you?[Yes, Judy, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You agree with Kevin because his theology is close to your own. You disagree with others of us because your theology is less compatible with ours. This, however, is a reflection and demonstration of our own limitations, ourown theologies,and not a reflection or demonstrationof the absence ofSpirit guidence onthe part of us with whom you do not agree. Godly, obedient, Spirit filled, turthseeking Christians can havesincere and honorable disagreements concerning matters of truth, without that necessitating an either/or scenario on behalf of any of us. Bill]judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Got to take grandson to the Dr. will address them when we get back. However, it is all true and the one I quoted negates nothing Paul taught neither does Romans invalidate Hebrews. jt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:48:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: john: Because I ahve changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) jt: We not only have to change our mind and hate it, we separate ourselves from it and stop doing it. There is no sacrifice for presumptuous sin. None under the Old Covenant and according to Heb 10:26 and 27 there is none for us either. Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. And addressed none of them.
[TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Show me where I said you said it. I just stated it as general fact... jt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:48:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know whether or not you said it but you hear it all the time in ChurchesYOU said that I made that statement and when put on the spot, you ignore and move on. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
John, I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like the elders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your grace doctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that therewas a transference of righteousness whichtook place between Christ and us. I just have a small question about the substitution of our faith for Christ's righteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness thatstands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As you would, I'm sure,agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the fleshand is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that we are saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthly life -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness. Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and is thus the primepurveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, is justification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinction is important, I believe, because itleaves room for other aspects ofatonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonement post below). Allowme now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by humans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct fromourfaith in him), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is, after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness of Christ" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ...in these eight versesand just see what it does for your understanding of Christ's atoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basic occurrences are: Gal 2.16 (twice) --"We... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and not from works of law."Gal 2.20 --"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.Gal 3.22-- "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou) might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)."Rom 3.22-- "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) unto all who believe (pisteuontas)."Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same section) --"to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from the faithfulness of Jesus (pistis Iesou)."Phil3.9-- "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on the ground of that faith(pistis)."Eph3.12-- "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the faithfulness of him(pistis autou)." John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. The phrase pistis Christou is a genitive construct and can be translated either "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The first translationis what would be called an objective genitive, and the second translation a subjective genitive. It isthe same distinction we have tomake when interpreting the phrase "the righteousness of God." Is this God's righteousness bestowed upon us, i.e. "righteousness from God"? or is it the righteousness God demands of us?or might it be something else? We can only commit to and answer this question, and hence draw a distinction,in prayerful interpretation. If you are interested I will be glad to expand and clarify. Bill Taylor Appendix. From03/02/04 on TruthTalk. In regards to the Atonement: Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Preach it, elder John! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:14:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Well done good and faithful servant."It just struck me that I say these words to my grand kids all the time. " Matty, your coloring is great" (when , in fact, it leaves much to be desired). "Well done" encourages me to continue, to learn how to color between the lines, to sin not.
RE: [TruthTalk] Chat Session Thursday, 9:00 pm Eastern Time
Bill wrote: I won't be coming to the party. My connection is just too slow for that much fun. Slow dial-up connections are fine for this chat. Don't let a slow connection keep you from coming. 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] Chat Session Thursday, 9:00 pm Eastern Time
David, I have a 57 k modem, but I usually can only connect at around 9600-14400. Will that still work? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Chat Session Thursday, 9:00 pm Eastern Time Bill wrote: I won't be coming to the party. My connection is just too slow for that much fun. Slow dial-up connections are fine for this chat. Don't let a slow connection keep you from coming. 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] Chat Session Thursday, 9:00 pm Eastern Time
Bill wrote: David, I have a 57 k modem, but I usually can only connect at around 9600-14400. Will that still work? There are two levels to the chat. One is voice. The other is text. If you really are getting connections that slow, you might have some trouble with audio. You certainly could participate in the text part of it. I don't think it would be a bad idea to give it a try. You might check around for alternative dial-up numbers offered by your ISP provider to make sure you are using one that has the fastest connection. Following are the system requirements given at PalTalk's website, www.PalTalk.com: PalTalk system requirements Windows 98/Me/NT4 w/SP6/2000/XP/2003* Intel Pentium 166MHz Processor 16MB of RAM or better. Internet Connection (28.8kbps modem or better) Full Duplex sound card required (for Audio) USB Digital Web Camera (For video, not required for only viewing) If you are going to try it, it would be best to download and install the software right away. That is the thing that will probably take awhile at your connection speeds. 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] Covenant versus Contract
Judy Taylor wrote: I don't know that there is a difference Terry - keeping and fulfilling is the same thing but we have been taught doctrines in Christendom that do not conform us to godliness and holiness. Enoch was pleasing to God and so was Elijah (they were translated). We are not required to keep the letter of the law and we fulfill the law through Christ by walking after the Spirit in obedience to Him. No arguement on the above. I fully agree. God is very big on obedience. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
In a message dated 4/1/2004 8:46:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. Hey -- thank you for the compliment. And this particular post appeals to me on a number of levels. First, it is a discussion about faith -- absolutely my favorite subject (including politics). Secondly, I have for years, allowed myself academic license regarding the use of nuance. I trust and respect a number of exegete's (if I might use that word in that way), to wit: AT Robertson (I actually have one of his books dated in 1930's -- found it in used book store for $20.00) "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, Kittles, Arnt and the other German guy, Liddle and Scott's lexicon of common greek. Big names in academia. I own few commentaries but a good number of exegetical works. These absolutely awesome individual works offer definition and grammatical assistance that dwarfs my knowledge and abilities. I often have to read these works with a dictionary at my side - and I am not ashamed to say that. (Blass , Debrunner and Funk -- Greek Grammar of the New Testament takes me hours to discern -- tough reading for a layman -- but I want to know so I labor along). HERE THEY ARE and here I am. I fully accept their scholarship. However, with much of their work, they refer to nuance. Lexicographers function on nuance. And in that, I allow myself some freedom. I often say, "what if this notion of the word is actually meant rather than that one." It produces some exciting and insightful conclusions. And right here in Gotham City, a fellow groupie actually proposes the same freedom. So you truly have my attention on this, Bill Taylor. 3. And then there is the heart of your post. It is a shame that I have to go work. We never know when God will give us another shot of maturity or a deeper sense of understanding and then, all of a sudden BAM -- there it is. I have read the entire post. Absolutely great. And here is the difference between the knowledge of the world and that which comes from God -- at the conclusion of your post, I thanked my God - truly thankful, with tears, actualkly. A filling monent. You made my day.. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Rhetoric LOL Open your eyes and look at the shameful condition of these Manuscripts. They are full of additions subtractions blank spaces, big ugly blotches from erasing. VATICANus Sainaiticus are tainted on almost every page. It is the product of hundreds of years of tampering. Whay all the fixes? Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:56 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) [Judy, that's like saying you are now the only one among us who is not confused, yet you gobbled up Kevin's mss rhetoric yesterday--that is before we began to talk and you backed off a bit. I say this simply to say that you are as influenced still by the world as is the next mature Christian. It's when we are honest about this that we are paidia --children, because me arepaideai, formable.]and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me [that is when things began to come together for me also]. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine [What are the implications of this statement: thatI do haveto"cut out" portions of the Bible "because they don't fit into my doctrine"? Can you give me examples of where I have done this?]. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians [I don't know that I have ever heard John mention the name of any theologian]. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you?[Yes, Judy, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You agree with Kevin because his theology is close to your own. You disagree with others of us because your theology is less compatible with ours. This, however, is a reflection and demonstration of our own limitations, ourown theologies,and not a reflection or demonstrationof the absence ofSpirit guidence onthe part of us with whom you do not agree. Godly, obedient, Spirit filled, turthseeking Christians can havesincere and honorable disagreements concerning matters of truth, without that necessitating an either/or scenario on behalf of any of us. Bill]judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance From: Judy Taylor Correct me if I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading youstating that I misread scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Thank you, my brother, and through you God has made my day as well. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract In a message dated 4/1/2004 8:46:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation.Hey -- thank you for the compliment. And this particular post appeals to me on a number of levels. First, it is a discussion about faith -- absolutely my favorite subject (including politics). Secondly, I have for years, allowed myself academic license regarding the use of nuance. I trust and respect a number of exegete's (if I might use that word in that way), to wit: AT Robertson (I actually have one of his books dated in 1930's -- found it in used book store for $20.00) "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, Kittles, Arnt and the other German guy, Liddle and Scott's lexicon of common greek. Big names in academia. I own few commentaries but a good number of exegetical works. These absolutely awesome individual works offer definition and grammatical assistance that dwarfs my knowledge and abilities. I often have to read these works with a dictionary at my side - and I am not ashamed to say that. (Blass , Debrunner and Funk -- Greek Grammar of the New Testament takes me hours to discern -- tough reading for a layman -- but I want to know so I labor along). HERE THEY ARE and here I am. I fully accept their scholarship. However, with much of their work, they refer to nuance. Lexicographers function on nuance. And in that, I allow myself some freedom. I often say, "what if this notion of the word is actually meant rather than that one." It produces some exciting and insightful conclusions. And right here in Gotham City, a fellow groupie actually proposes the same freedom. So you truly have my attention on this, Bill Taylor. 3. And then there is the heart of your post. It is a shame that I have to go work. We never know when God will give us another shot of maturity or a deeper sense of understanding and then, all of a sudden BAM -- there it is. I have read the entire post. Absolutely great. And here is the difference between the knowledge of the world and that which comes from God -- at the conclusion of your post, I thanked my God - truly thankful, with tears, actualkly. A filling monent. You made my day.. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract
Oh,and don't ever let go of Robertson without first giving me a shout. I paid over a hundred for mine at seminary. I have the others you mentioned also, all purchased at marked-up prices. It's not that I am all that upset, even seminary bookstores have to stay in business; but sometimes I thought the prices to be a bit on the ram-it-in-you-and-twist-it-off high side of reasonable. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract In a message dated 4/1/2004 8:46:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation.Hey -- thank you for the compliment. And this particular post appeals to me on a number of levels. First, it is a discussion about faith -- absolutely my favorite subject (including politics). Secondly, I have for years, allowed myself academic license regarding the use of nuance. I trust and respect a number of exegete's (if I might use that word in that way), to wit: AT Robertson (I actually have one of his books dated in 1930's -- found it in used book store for $20.00) "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, Kittles, Arnt and the other German guy, Liddle and Scott's lexicon of common greek. Big names in academia. I own few commentaries but a good number of exegetical works. These absolutely awesome individual works offer definition and grammatical assistance that dwarfs my knowledge and abilities. I often have to read these works with a dictionary at my side - and I am not ashamed to say that. (Blass , Debrunner and Funk -- Greek Grammar of the New Testament takes me hours to discern -- tough reading for a layman -- but I want to know so I labor along). HERE THEY ARE and here I am. I fully accept their scholarship. However, with much of their work, they refer to nuance. Lexicographers function on nuance. And in that, I allow myself some freedom. I often say, "what if this notion of the word is actually meant rather than that one." It produces some exciting and insightful conclusions. And right here in Gotham City, a fellow groupie actually proposes the same freedom. So you truly have my attention on this, Bill Taylor. 3. And then there is the heart of your post. It is a shame that I have to go work. We never know when God will give us another shot of maturity or a deeper sense of understanding and then, all of a sudden BAM -- there it is. I have read the entire post. Absolutely great. And here is the difference between the knowledge of the world and that which comes from God -- at the conclusion of your post, I thanked my God - truly thankful, with tears, actualkly. A filling monent. You made my day.. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Excuse me, Kevin, I did it to you again. - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Okay, Terry, I'll do that in my quiet time, while reading,meditating upon, andlovingGod's Word. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Rhetoric LOL Open your eyes and look at the shameful condition of these Manuscripts. They are full of additions subtractions blank spaces, big ugly blotches from erasing. VATICANus Sainaiticus are tainted on almost every page. It is the product of hundreds of years of tampering. Whay all the fixes? Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:56 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) [Judy, that's like saying you are now the only one among us who is not confused, yet you gobbled up Kevin's mss rhetoric yesterday--that is before we began to talk and you backed off a bit. I say this simply to say that you are as influenced still by the world as is the next mature Christian. It's when we are honest about this that we are paidia --children, because me arepaideai, formable.]and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me [that is when things began to come together for me also]. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine [What are the implications of this statement: thatI do haveto"cut out" portions of the Bible "because they don't fit into my doctrine"? Can you give me examples of where I have done this?]. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians [I don't know that I have ever heard John mention the name of any theologian]. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you?[Yes, Judy, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You agree with Kevin because his theology is close to your own. You disagree with others of us because your theology is less compatible with ours. This, however, is a reflection and demonstration of our own limitations, ourown theologies,and not a reflection or demonstrationof the absence ofSpirit guidence onthe part of us with whom you do not agree. Godly, obedient, Spirit filled, turthseeking Christians can havesincere and honorable disagreements concerning matters of truth, without that necessitating an either/or scenario on behalf of any of us. Bill]judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
Okay, Terry, I'll do that in my quiet time, while reading,meditating upon, andlovingGod's Word. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Rhetoric LOL Open your eyes and look at the shameful condition of these Manuscripts. They are full of additions subtractions blank spaces, big ugly blotches from erasing. VATICANus Sainaiticus are tainted on almost every page. It is the product of hundreds of years of tampering. Whay all the fixes? Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:56 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God I don't know that I would phrase it like that Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) [Judy, that's like saying you are now the only one among us who is not confused, yet you gobbled up Kevin's mss rhetoric yesterday--that is before we began to talk and you backed off a bit. I say this simply to say that you are as influenced still by the world as is the next mature Christian. It's when we are honest about this that we are paidia --children, because me arepaideai, formable.]and came asking God for wisdom that things came together for me [that is when things began to come together for me also]. I no longer need to cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my doctrine [What are the implications of this statement: thatI do haveto"cut out" portions of the Bible "because they don't fit into my doctrine"? Can you give me examples of where I have done this?]. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians [I don't know that I have ever heard John mention the name of any theologian]. I recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the Lord.Does this make any sense to you?[Yes, Judy, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You agree with Kevin because his theology is close to your own. You disagree with others of us because your theology is less compatible with ours. This, however, is a reflection and demonstration of our own limitations, ourown theologies,and not a reflection or demonstrationof the absence ofSpirit guidence onthe part of us with whom you do not agree. Godly, obedient, Spirit filled, turthseeking Christians can havesincere and honorable disagreements concerning matters of truth, without that necessitating an either/or scenario on behalf of any of us. Bill]judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does that necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart ofany discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill From: Judy Taylor What about the HS giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness who will
[TruthTalk] Being free of sin
John wrote: But they did not stop sinning. He did not make THAT a requirement of apostleship. I thought he made it a requirement of all disciples. Didn't he tell the woman caught in adultery, go and sin no more? Didn't he tell us that we must be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mat. 5:48)? Didn't Paul call himself perfect in Phil. 3:15? Didn't Paul speak of us being made free from sin in Romans 6? 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] Perverting the words of the living God
John wrote: Well done good and faithful servant. It just struck me that I say these words to my grand kids all the time. Matty, your coloring is great (when , in fact, it leaves much to be desired). Well done encourages me to continue, to learn how to color between the lines, to sin not. Judy's gospel leaves notroom for spiritual growth if we understand that growth includes overcoming sin. I sure hope God doesn't act this way. If God were to say to me, well done, good and faithful servant, I hope to be able to trust that he really means it. For this reason, I never tell my children that their coloring is great when it is not. I might say, hey, that is pretty good for a 2 year old or something like that, or I might say, that's pretty, but try to keep within the lines... here, let me show you. When I tell my kids, hey, that is great, fantastic without any qualifiers, they know that I mean it. I sure hope God treats me this way or I might always be wondering if he really is satisfied with how I have done. 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] Covenant versus Contract
John wrote: I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: if we say that we are having no sin, the truth is not within us. all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God. [Romans 3:23?] Hey, John, aren't you mangling these verses? The mood of these verbs are in the indicative, yet you use a participle form to stress continuous action which is not indicated in the Greek. Can you name for me a reputable translation which translates these verses this way? There is no doubt that the Scriptures teach that all have sinned (past tense) and that all, therefore, need Christ, but to suggest that believers continue to sin would mean that Christ either is insufficient to deal with the sin problem in our lives, or Christ himself is a minister of sin. I would have problems with either of these conclusions. 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] Covenant versus Contract
John wrote: Because I have changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. Romans 7:25 is a summation of what it is like for the unregenerated person living under the law. Read Romans 7:1-6, pay special attention to the tense of Romans 7:5, when we WERE in the flesh. Compare it with Romans 8:4 which speaks of us not walking after the flesh. Romans 7 for the most part describes a life of condemnation, which is not the normal Christian life. 1 John 1:8, likewise, must be taken in context. He just got done saying in verse 7 that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Clearly verse 8 in context is an answer to the objection that we don't need Jesus to cleanse us of sin. It is like speaking to someone dirty who says, I don't need a bath. If I tell him that he does need a bath, that does not mean that he always needs a bath even after he has taken one. Use some common sense here. Verse 10 keeps the context in check by using past tense, if we say that we have not sinned... That is the point. Read on and learn that he that is born of God does not continue to sin. Romans 3:23? Look at the tense again. Past Tense. All have SINNED, and because of that PAST SIN, we come [present tense] short of God's glory. Now enters Jesus Christ who washes away our sins. When Jesus washes away our sins, does he do a bad job and leave some on us? Are we still fallen, dirty creatures after experiencing the grace 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] Graven images
I'm "cleaning house" a little today and ran across this post I saved from way back in February. My point of interest concerns the "uncovering of Noah." I suggest you all look up the biblical connotations of this term "to uncover." The offence was a bit more violating than anything so non-physical as just taking a peek. A lack of respect and dishonoring certainly, extremely unloving, I don't disagree, but let's not make Noah the pervert here and accuse him of anything too majorin terms of over-reacting,before we rule out the possibility that just maybe the curse does fit the crime. Bill From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:39 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Graven images Blaine: When Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, Noah, Noah laid a curse on him that was to be passed on to each succeeding generation. This seems like some kind of major over-reaction, does it not? If Ham had simply gone into Noah's tent and pulled the bed covers off him, and thus exposed his naked body, I see no reason why such an incidental act would elicit a curse upon Ham. Judy: Ham was not honoring and respecting his Father. He not only stood and took a good look himself rather than covering his Father, he went and got his brothers to have a look also. Noah wasn't being vengeful, he spoke prophetically. The problem wasn't a naked male body, the problem was with love and respect.
[TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe)
DAVID SURPRISES!!!Christ insufficientChrist a minister of sin DO BELIEVERS CONTINUE TO SIN? Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. This might just be huge. Lance From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 13:44 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract John wrote: I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: if we say that we are having no sin, the truth is not within us. all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God. [Romans 3:23?] Hey, John, aren't you mangling these verses? The mood of these verbs are in the indicative, yet you use a participle form to stress continuous action which is not indicated in the Greek. Can you name for me a reputable translation which translates these verses this way? There is no doubt that the Scriptures teach that all have sinned (past tense) and that all, therefore, need Christ, but to suggest that believers continue to sin would mean that Christ either is insufficient to deal with the sin problem in our lives, or Christ himself is a minister of sin. I would have problems with either of these conclusions. 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] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe)
Lance wrote: Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. My position is that Christ is sufficient; therefore, when we are found in him, he is found living in us, and in Him is no sin. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 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] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS
THIS WORRIES ME. WHAT DAVID MILLER WROTE BELOW CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED UPON. I VERY SELDOM AGREE WITH DAVID MILLER. BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS SO GRAVE, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU PRINT- OUT WHAT DAVID WROTE AND TAPE IT TO YOUR "REFRIGERATOR", AS THE IMPORT IS SO MAJOR THAT IT MAY MAKE A NEW MAN OUT OF YOU, AND/OR SEND YOU SKIPPING DOWN THE STREET. (WOMEN INCLUDED IN THE GENERIC ABOVE.) AFTER ALL, YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A "NEW CREATION' PER II CORINTH. 5, OR NOT. CHRISTIANS ARE "SAINTS"; DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES "SINNERS". WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO TELL THE WORLD THAN THAT PEOPLE CAN STAY IN THEIR SAME STATE!! -ELSMAN, THE LAWYER P.S. THE ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE DEVIL , THE FLESH AND THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. In a message dated 4/1/2004 1:49:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: Because I have changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. Romans 7:25 is a summation of what it is like for the unregenerated person living under the law. Read Romans 7:1-6, pay special attention to the tense of Romans 7:5, "when we WERE in the flesh." Compare it with Romans 8:4 which speaks of us not walking after the flesh. Romans 7 for the most part describes a life of condemnation, which is not the normal Christian life. 1 John 1:8, likewise, must be taken in context. He just got done saying in verse 7 that the blood of Jesus Christ "cleanses us from all sin." Clearly verse 8 in context is an answer to the objection that we don't need Jesus to cleanse us of sin. It is like speaking to someone dirty who says, "I don't need a bath." If I tell him that he does need a bath, that does not mean that he always needs a bath even after he has taken one. Use some common sense here. Verse 10 keeps the context in check by using past tense, "if we say that we have not sinned..." That is the point. Read on and learn that he that is born of God does not continue to sin. Romans 3:23? Look at the tense again. Past Tense. All have SINNED, and because of that PAST SIN, we come [present tense] short of God's glory. Now enters Jesus Christ who washes away our sins. When Jesus washes away our sins, does he do a bad job and leave some on us? Are we still fallen, dirty creatures after experiencing the grace of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. --
[TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES AGAIN!!(MAYBE AGAIN)
David: surely I'm misunderstanding you. Re-phrase, re-visit, play it again David 'cause I'm about to laugh out loud. Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 13:49 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract John wrote: Because I have changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. Romans 7:25 is a summation of what it is like for the unregenerated person living under the law. Read Romans 7:1-6, pay special attention to the tense of Romans 7:5, when we WERE in the flesh. Compare it with Romans 8:4 which speaks of us not walking after the flesh. Romans 7 for the most part describes a life of condemnation, which is not the normal Christian life. 1 John 1:8, likewise, must be taken in context. He just got done saying in verse 7 that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Clearly verse 8 in context is an answer to the objection that we don't need Jesus to cleanse us of sin. It is like speaking to someone dirty who says, I don't need a bath. If I tell him that he does need a bath, that does not mean that he always needs a bath even after he has taken one. Use some common sense here. Verse 10 keeps the context in check by using past tense, if we say that we have not sinned... That is the point. Read on and learn that he that is born of God does not continue to sin. Romans 3:23? Look at the tense again. Past Tense. All have SINNED, and because of that PAST SIN, we come [present tense] short of God's glory. Now enters Jesus Christ who washes away our sins. When Jesus washes away our sins, does he do a bad job and leave some on us? Are we still fallen, dirty creatures after experiencing the grace 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. -- 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] Perverting the words of the living God
Wm. Taylor wrote: Excuse me, Kevin, I did it to you again. - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Okay, Terry, I'll do that in my quiet time, while reading,meditating upon, andlovingGod's Word. Bill Uh, you lost me Bill. Do what in your quiet time? Terry
[TruthTalk] Re:LANCE-THE ODD MAN(SINNER) OUT APPARENTLY
Elsman, I'm no theologian so you gonna' have to 'splain it simply. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS THIS WORRIES ME. WHAT DAVID MILLER WROTE BELOW CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED UPON. I VERY SELDOM AGREE WITH DAVID MILLER. BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS SO GRAVE, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU PRINT- OUT WHAT DAVID WROTE AND TAPE IT TO YOUR "REFRIGERATOR", AS THE IMPORT IS SO MAJOR THAT IT MAY MAKE A NEW MAN OUT OF YOU, AND/OR SEND YOU SKIPPING DOWN THE STREET. (WOMEN INCLUDED IN THE GENERIC ABOVE.) AFTER ALL, YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A "NEW CREATION' PER II CORINTH. 5, OR NOT. CHRISTIANS ARE "SAINTS"; DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES "SINNERS". WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO TELL THE WORLD THAN THAT PEOPLE CAN STAY IN THEIR SAME STATE!! -ELSMAN, THE LAWYERP.S. THE ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE DEVIL , THE FLESH AND THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. In a message dated 4/1/2004 1:49:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: Because I have changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you.Romans 7:25 is a summation of what it is like for the unregeneratedperson living under the law. Read Romans 7:1-6, pay special attentionto the tense of Romans 7:5, "when we WERE in the flesh." Compare itwith Romans 8:4 which speaks of us not walking after the flesh. Romans7 for the most part describes a life of condemnation, which is not thenormal Christian life.1 John 1:8, likewise, must be taken in context. He just got done sayingin verse 7 that the blood of Jesus Christ "cleanses us from all sin."Clearly verse 8 in context is an answer to the objection that we don'tneed Jesus to cleanse us of sin. It is like speaking to someone dirtywho says, "I don't need a bath." If I tell him that he does need abath, that does not mean that he always needs a bath even after he hastaken one. Use some common sense here. Verse 10 keeps the context in check by using past tense, "if we say thatwe have not sinned..." That is the point. Read on and learn that hethat is born of God does not continue to sin. Romans 3:23? Look at the tense again. Past Tense. All have SINNED,and because of that PAST SIN, we come [present tense] short of God'sglory. Now enters Jesus Christ who washes away our sins. When Jesuswashes away our sins, does he do a bad job and leave some on us? Are westill fallen, dirty creatures after experiencing the grace of Christ? Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. --
Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God
I be lookin for scribbled out spots in the NT text. Just funnin with Kevin. I am sorry a misused your name. I was thinking Kevin and writing Terry. Can you ever forgive me }:) bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Wm. Taylor wrote: Excuse me, Kevin, I did it to you again. - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God Okay, Terry, I'll do that in my quiet time, while reading,meditating upon, andlovingGod's Word. Bill Uh, you lost me Bill. Do what in your quiet time? Terry
[TruthTalk] Re:DAVID-I HAVE NO PEACE WITH ME OVER THIS
Of course He is without sin. Are you? even though He is in you? We're missin one another's meanin' right? Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:07 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe) Lance wrote: Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. My position is that Christ is sufficient; therefore, when we are found in him, he is found living in us, and in Him is no sin. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 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.
[TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY???
Have we been had? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:07 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe) Lance wrote: Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. My position is that Christ is sufficient; therefore, when we are found in him, he is found living in us, and in Him is no sin. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 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] knowing Truth
how is his Grammar(?); if you wake up in time, ask him aboutthe Ap. Paulanyi's use of indicatives and imperatives (tell himDrGTthinks it's easy to exegete, but others, less brilliant,struggle to distinguish betwPaulanyi's head trips andhis dreams..apparently that's whyhe's the populist' candidate for newPope:) On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:07:18 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes I hear from the Lord in my dreams, g..Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY???
I see Lance is thinking the same thing, my brother. We'll be praying for you. Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY??? Have we been had? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:07 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe) Lance wrote: Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. My position is that Christ is sufficient; therefore, when we are found in him, he is found living in us, and in Him is no sin. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 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. -- 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] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY???
Someone had better check on John. He may have had a heart attack. This is too much for me. What's it like for our older brother? I'm serious. Someone pick up the phone and call him. Send me his number; I'll call him. John if you're a part of this, then speak, speak NOW! - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY??? I see Lance is thinking the same thing, my brother. We'll be praying for you. Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY??? Have we been had? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:07 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:DAVID SURPRISES (Maybe) Lance wrote: Before I RSVP please clarify what you mean. My position is that Christ is sufficient; therefore, when we are found in him, he is found living in us, and in Him is no sin. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 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. -- 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] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS
Elsman, Would you kindly turn down the volume? We can all read normal typeset. We are not deaf, dumb or blind. Or do you consider your points to be so insignificant that you must SCREAM them out at us in HUGE RED LETTERS? Manners are sincerely appreciated here as acts of love. Otherwise, I CANT HEAR YOU WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING!!! Thank you, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS THIS WORRIES ME. WHAT DAVID MILLER WROTE BELOW CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED UPON. I VERY SELDOM AGREE WITH DAVID MILLER. BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS SO GRAVE, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU PRINT- OUT WHAT DAVID WROTE AND TAPE IT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR, AS THE IMPORT IS SO MAJOR THAT IT MAY MAKE A NEW MAN OUT OF YOU, AND/OR SEND YOU SKIPPING DOWN THE STREET. (WOMEN INCLUDED IN THE GENERIC ABOVE.) AFTER ALL, YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A NEW CREATION' PER II CORINTH. 5, OR NOT. CHRISTIANS ARE SAINTS; DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES SINNERS. WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO TELL THE WORLD THAN THAT PEOPLE CAN STAY IN THEIR SAME STATE!! -ELSMAN, THE LAWYER P.S. THE ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE DEVIL , THE FLESH AND THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. In a message dated 4/1/2004 1:49:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: Because I have changed my mind about sin does not eliminate sin from my life (Rom 7:25, I John 1:8 , Ro 3:23) Quoting other scriptures does not change the truth expressed in those I offered to you. Romans 7:25 is a summation of what it is like for the unregenerated person living under the law. Read Romans 7:1-6, pay special attention to the tense of Romans 7:5, when we WERE in the flesh. Compare it with Romans 8:4 which speaks of us not walking after the flesh. Romans 7 for the most part describes a life of condemnation, which is not the normal Christian life. 1 John 1:8, likewise, must be taken in context. He just got done saying in verse 7 that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Clearly verse 8 in context is an answer to the objection that we don't need Jesus to cleanse us of sin. It is like speaking to someone dirty who says, I don't need a bath. If I tell him that he does need a bath, that does not mean that he always needs a bath even after he has taken one. Use some common sense here. Verse 10 keeps the context in check by using past tense, if we say that we have not sinned... That is the point. Read on and learn that he that is born of God does not continue to sin. Romans 3:23? Look at the tense again. Past Tense. All have SINNED, and because of that PAST SIN, we come [present tense] short of God's glory. Now enters Jesus Christ who washes away our sins. When Jesus washes away our sins, does he do a bad job and leave some on us? Are we still fallen, dirty creatures after experiencing the grace of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. --
RE: [TruthTalk] knowing Truth
Thank you for the information, g. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 2:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] knowing Truth how is his Grammar(?); if you wake up in time, ask him aboutthe Ap. Paulanyi's use of indicatives and imperatives (tell himDrGTthinks it's easy to exegete, but others, less brilliant,struggle to distinguish betwPaulanyi's head trips andhis dreams..apparently that's whyhe's the populist' candidate for newPope:) On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:07:18 -0600 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes I hear from the Lord in my dreams, g..Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:WE ARE SAINTS, NOT SINNERS OF THE GENTILES
LANCE, SURE, I WILL EXPAND. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE ALL CHRISTIANS, AND HAD WORKED OUT THESE SIMPLE PRELIMINARIES, AS I DO NOT ATTEND TO THIS LIST OFT, AND DO NOT KNOW THE COMPOSITION OF SUCH. TAKE WHAT DAVID WROTE RE "HOLINESS" , PLUS ADD: 1. DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT DO A PERFECT WORK, OR, JUST HALF-BAKED? PERFECT. 2. DID JESUS DIE TO LEAVE US IN THE SAME SINNER STATE? NO. HE MADE "NEW CREATIONS". 3. ADD JUST A DOSE OF SCRIPTURE MORE, BEYOND PETER'S "BE YE THEREFORE PERFECT" , AND WHAT DAVID GLEANED FROM ROMANS AND FIRST JOHN. 4. "HE WILL NOT LET YOU BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU CAN BEAR...HE WILL ALSO PROVIDE A WAY OUT , SO YOU CAN STAND UP TO TEMPTATION." ---I CORINTH. 10:13 OLD MAN ELSMANSTEIN, THE LAWYER P.S. LIFE IS A FIGHT , PAUL USED THAT LANGUAGE. IT IS CONSTANT SPIRITUAL WARFARE, BUT IT DOES CEASE SOMEWHAT WHEN YOU "DIE TO SELF" IN THE COLOSSIANS 3 SENSE. IF THERE IS NO MORE EGOTISTICAL "YOU", THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE DEVIL AND WORLD TO ATTACK ERGO, YOU ARE A SAINT AT PEACE. FRANKLY, THE DIFFERENCE IS HELL ITSELF. I CORINTH. 15:1-4 MAKES CLEAR THAT YOU CAN "BELIEVE IN VAIN", IF YOU DON'T KEEP THE "DEATH , BURIAL AND RESURRECTION IN MEMORY". JUST ABOUT EVERY BOOK IN THE N.T. SAYS YOU CAN LOSE YOUR SALVATION. THUS, THIS IS FAIR WARNING TO THE "ETERNAL SECURITY" CROWD, IF ANY THERE BE OUT THERE. In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Elsman, I'm no theologian so you gonna' have to 'splain it simply. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 14:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS THIS WORRIES ME. WHAT DAVID MILLER WROTE BELOW CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED UPON. I VERY SELDOM AGREE WITH DAVID MILLER. BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS SO GRAVE, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU PRINT- OUT WHAT DAVID WROTE AND TAPE IT TO YOUR "REFRIGERATOR", AS THE IMPORT IS SO MAJOR THAT IT MAY MAKE A NEW MAN OUT OF YOU, AND/OR SEND YOU SKIPPING DOWN THE STREET. (WOMEN INCLUDED IN THE GENERIC ABOVE.) AFTER ALL, YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A "NEW CREATION' PER II CORINTH. 5, OR NOT. CHRISTIANS ARE "SAINTS"; DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES "SINNERS". WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO TELL THE WORLD THAN THAT PEOPLE CAN STAY IN THEIR SAME STATE!! -ELSMAN, THE LAWYER P.S. THE ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE
Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS
In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:15:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Elsman, Would you kindly turn down the volume? We can all read normal typeset. We are not deaf, dumb or blind. Or do you consider your points to be so insignificant that you must SCREAM them out at us in HUGE RED LETTERS? Manners are sincerely appreciated here as acts of love. Otherwise, I CANT HEAR YOU WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING!!! Thank you, Izzy SORRY. I CANNOT TYPE WELL, AND this allow me to skip the shift-key. will try to watch it. ---elsmanstein
RE: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS
Thank you kindly, Brother! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract--SAINTS, NOT SINNERS In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:15:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Elsman, Would you kindly turn down the volume? We can all read normal typeset. We are not deaf, dumb or blind. Or do you consider your points to be so insignificant that you must SCREAM them out at us in HUGE RED LETTERS? Manners are sincerely appreciated here as acts of love. Otherwise, I CANT HEAR YOU WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING!!! Thank you, Izzy SORRY. I CANNOT TYPE WELL, AND this allow me to skip the shift-key. will try to watch it. ---elsmanstein
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY???
In a message dated 4/1/2004 12:20:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in greek, a present tense statement: "if we say that we are having no sin, the truth is not within us." "all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God." [Romans 3:23?] Hey, John, aren't you mangling these verses? The mood of these verbs are in the indicative, yet you use a participle form to stress continuous action which is not indicated in the Greek. Can you name for me a reputable translation which translates these verses this way? Wow. I come flying back home in my Silerado -- going to hook up with Bill's post of this morning and BAM (I think I have used that word before , today), I have all this stuff from Miller. David Miller. A good guy. A works salvationist? I don't think so. But, hey, I will answer some of your commits as time permits. Your remarks above: actually all first year greek grammars present the kind of verb ending(s) I used in my post. (I have Summers and Mounce on my shelves). I am kind of startled that this would be an issue. Not that I am always right (an admission I can freely make on this list because my children do not read these posts). Because participle endings are similar makes little difference to me. These are not participles. Present indicative active gives us activity WITH NO END IN VIEW. That does not mean the action is on going but it can mean that -- and very often does. With that admission, I guess I am allowing a works theologian to go his own way. Do you have reference material that condemns "my" application of the greek tense? I don't think so. But if so, I certainly can change my mind. I am going to close this post and see what others have said. No doubt this is somewhat of a surprise to others on this list as well. Maybe I don't have to do all the talking. BUT, in closing, David, let me say this: stark raving and absolute sinlessness is a consideration in the mind of God -- not an actual event in our lives. God CONSIDERS our faith to be righteousness. Paul tells us to CONSIDER ourselves dead to sin (Ro 6:11) -- he tells us that because it is already a fact in the mind of God. "He remembers our sins" no more is a consideration on the part of God. I think lance said it was unilateral and something or other sorry Lance. I'll have to look it up. Anyway ... I am going to read the mail first and then, hopefully, do some serious thinking about BillyT's post. Later John
Re: [TruthTalk] knowing Truth
In a message dated 4/1/2004 12:40:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: how is his Grammar(?); if you wake up in time, ask him about the Ap. Paulanyi's use of indicatives and imperatives (tell him DrGT thinks it's easy to exegete, but others, less brilliant, struggle to distinguish betw Paulanyi's head trips and his dreams..apparently that's why he's the populist' candidate for new Pope:) On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:07:18 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes I hear from the Lord in my dreams, g..Izzy I love this post John
