Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

2004-06-30 Thread Dave 






Charles Perry Locke wrote:

  We consider Jesus to be one person of the
Trinity, all of which are God. Angels are created beings distinct in
nature from humans. They most likely pre-existed human creation, and
humans are a unique creation apart from angels. Humans did not
pre-exist their birth as spirits.


DAVEH:  That is the part that I'm trying to find out about your (and
Slade's) belief.  What is it that makes you think spirits could not
have been created prior to mortality?  There must be some passages in
the Bible that lead you to that conclusion?  Or.is it merely
traditional Protestant dogma that has instilled such a belief?

  
  
First, none of the churches that I have attended, no commentaries that
I have read, and none of the teachers I have learned under ever even
suggested that there may have been a spiritual existence prior to life.
DAVEH:   I understand that is common Christian belief..  But, I would
think there is a reason the common beliefs evolved that way.  I thought
there might be a passage in the Bible that would persuade Christian
thought to develop along that line of reasoning.
 This leads me to believe that it is not, and never has
been, a common Christian belief.
  
  
Second, I find no positive evidence, i.e., nowhere in the Bible where
it is positively stated that there was no pre-existence of humans, but
then again I find no positive statements iondicating that there is,
either. I agree with Slades's comment that the foreknowledge of God
accounts for any biblical statements that suggest a pre-existence to
you.
  

DAVEH:  Do you think the foreknowledge of God figures into the passage
Slade originally quoted...

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.
His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his
parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this
man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed
in him. (John 9:1-3)

..?  To me, this
seems like indirect evidence there was some cognition of a pre-mortal
existence.  


  

In LDS lore there seems to be only one type of being, which during it's
existence may progress through several stages...spirit, angel, man, and
god (I believe you call this "eternal progression"). This is like
insect progression...egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The LDS jesus is not
distinct in the LDS model. He is just another insect making his eternal
march toward LDS godhood.
  


DAVEH:  You are mixing some truths as to what I believe with some
inaccuracies.  Your assumption that /Jesus is not distinct/ is
incorrect.  Jesus was not progressing toward Godhood.he was God
prior to his mortal life.  However, he consisted of only spirit form
prior to his birth.

  
  
Now, I find that interesting because of the LDS thought (paraphrasing)
that what man is, god once was, what god is, man shall become. Wasn't
the LDS god once a man,
DAVEH:  I assume you believe your Protestant God was once a man too, do
you not?
 and his god (father) once a man, and his god (father)
once a man, etc.
DAVEH:  Though it is not doctrinal, it is widely believed by many
(most) LDS folks.
 Why did the LDS jesus get to circumvent this seemingly
natural order of the LDs eternal progression of gods?
DAVEH:  He was the firstborn of the spirits in the pre-mortal
existence.  (I know that doesn't exactly answer your question in
detail, but it is a significant occurrence, IMO.)
 You know, the Bible does not support any this.
  

DAVEH:  I didn't say it does.  You were the one who brought it up.  I'm
not trying to quote LDS Scripture here to support my beliefs.as you
know, that is not my purpose.  I just wonder why you don't understand
the pre-mortal spirit implication Jn 9:1-3 as I do.
After his resurrection, he then consisted of a spirit body
clothed with an exalted physical body of flesh and bone.  From what
I've learned on TT, I assume that is not too much different than what
you might believe?
  
  
Well, aside from the fact that we are trying to compare the fictional
LDS jesus with the real Jesus, a comparison I find mainly a useless
exercise and a waste of time, some of the words and thoughts do
parallel each other,
DAVEH:  I don't understand why you think discussing your understanding
of the nature of God is a waste of time, even if it does parallel my
(LDS biased) belief.  If a Protestant wanted to discuss the nature of
God, I would think you would not find that a waste of time.  Is it just
because I'm a Mormon that you don't want to condescend to my level to
discuss God?

    Let me lay out what I was trying to explain.  I believe Jesus
existed as a spirit being in the OT.  His spirit body then became
clothed in a body of flesh and blood for a brief span some 2000 years
ago.  At his death, the spirit and physical body departed, only to be
reunited a short time later in a resurrected form of flesh and bones. 
I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is clothed with
phy

Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson: Kruger is the man.. Smithson waxes an elephant

2004-06-30 Thread Knpraise 

Some of Kruger in review with embelishment from Smithson:

Started my study with Kruger.   I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy this guy.  I like the sound of bible verses quoted -- he doesn't much care for that but I am a big boy,  I can fill in the blanks.   

I have never considered the teaching of the Trinity to be of any great importance.   I have seen the teaching as a description of God  like  red hair, short, stocky, rugged good looks, and an intellectual prowess that is bordered only by the ends of the galaxy  --that sort of thing but enough about me.   (substitute "Father Son and Spirit" for other description detail)

Kruger assumes the Trinity for a number of reasons (biblical and historical) and presents the idea that central to the reality of the Father, Son and Spirit is the relationship of the three to each other.  We tend to think of fellowship as something that you seek to encounter or restore or to flee from; with God (the Father Son and Holy Spirit) fellowship is something of a life source, it is that which joins the Three.   Kruger describes this fellowship as the womb of human history.  Applied to humans (Let us make man in our image), I am thinking that God gives birth to that which also requires fellowship, and more specifically, fellowship with Him.   And so here we are.   The drag is this, many try to find meaning in their life without God.    In a sense, God is our birthing parent.  We are in His image as a matter of creation. We have no choice. and when we seek other definition, we resist the reality that fully explains who we are.   When we seek other definition, we are a mess we kick against the pricks.   When we are involved in passionate fellowship with each other, when our search for God is centered in our outpouring for others (Isa 58:9-11), we find God, we see Him, we realize His presence because He is what we are doing.   We do love -- He is love.  We do fellowship -- his very existence is fellowship (Father Son and Holy Spirit).  In accepting His nature, we move from doing to becoming.  And when we stand in the fulfillment of that "becoming,"  when we are full grown we shine forth His light into this world  --  like Father, like son.    

Such is the impact on my thinking from my first real visit with Kruger.   

Sounds fantastic.   

pastor John

Sorry about the sermon but I will be doing this through my time with these authors (Kruger and Torrance) .   Get the delete button warmed up. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video

2004-06-30 Thread LaurHamm 




In a message dated 6/30/2004 9:48:50 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Izzy, no 
  fear. This video was an ultrasound.

Yes  I thought it was an ultrasound also.  I just thought it was 
interesting.  Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video

2004-06-30 Thread Charles Perry Locke 
Izzy, no fear. This video was an ultrasound.

From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:38:31 -0500
I couldn't get it to play.  The sad thing about videos like this is that 
the
baby is aborted after the video is taken.  They won't attempt something 
this
dangerous on a child that is not going to be aborted. Izzy

  _
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video
Click
  here: MSN Video   Some time ago we had a thread about when 
life
really began.  This is a video from inside the womb.  I managed to open it
but other I know had trouble.  Maybe some of you would like to view it.
Laura

--
"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] Check out MSN Video

2004-06-30 Thread ShieldsFamily 








I couldn’t get it to play.  The sad thing about videos like this is
that the baby is aborted after the video is taken.  They won’t attempt something this
dangerous on a child that is not going to be aborted. Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004
4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN
Video



 



Click
here: MSN Video   Some time ago we had a thread about when life
really began.  This is a video from inside the womb.  I managed to
open it but other I know had trouble.  Maybe some of you would like to
view it.  Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

2004-06-30 Thread Charles Perry Locke 
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Sorry to jump into your discussion, DaveH,

DAVEH:  No problem, Perry.  I appreciate your viewpoint and comments.

but I think something important needs to be pointed out with respect to 
the LDS view of Angels, Jesus, and humans.

DAVEH wrote:  If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others?  Jer 1:4-5 seems 
evidential.  And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of 
God pre-existing.  I presume most Protestants believe angels 
pre-existed.  Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal 
existence as well.  So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the 
precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits?

Christians do not consider Angels, Jesus, or humans to be of the same 
nature, or "stuff". We do not consider Jesus to be our literal spirit 
brother in the pre-existence, or to be the brother of the fallen angel 
Lucifer, as the LDS do.
DAVEH:  I understand that, and am not expecting you to believe as I do.  
I'm trying to figure out why you believe as you do.  (I know.you've 
heard that before, but please bear with me on this for a bit.)

We consider Jesus to be one person of the Trinity, all of which are God. 
Angels are created beings distinct in nature from humans. They most likely 
pre-existed human creation, and humans are a unique creation apart from 
angels. Humans did not pre-exist their birth as spirits.
DAVEH:  That is the part that I'm trying to find out about your (and 
Slade's) belief.  What is it that makes you think spirits could not have 
been created prior to mortality?  There must be some passages in the Bible 
that lead you to that conclusion?  Or.is it merely traditional 
Protestant dogma that has instilled such a belief?
First, none of the churches that I have attended, no commentaries that I 
have read, and none of the teachers I have learned under ever even suggested 
that there may have been a spiritual existence prior to life. This leads me 
to believe that it is not, and never has been, a common Christian belief.

Second, I find no positive evidence, i.e., nowhere in the Bible where it is 
positively stated that there was no pre-existence of humans, but then again 
I find no positive statements iondicating that there is, either. I agree 
with Slades's comment that the foreknowledge of God accounts for any 
biblical statements that suggest a pre-existence to you.


In LDS lore there seems to be only one type of being, which during it's 
existence may progress through several stages...spirit, angel, man, and 
god (I believe you call this "eternal progression"). This is like insect 
progression...egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The LDS jesus is not distinct 
in the LDS model. He is just another insect making his eternal march 
toward LDS godhood.
DAVEH:  You are mixing some truths as to what I believe with some 
inaccuracies.  Your assumption that /Jesus is not distinct/ is incorrect.  
Jesus was not progressing toward Godhood.he was God prior to his mortal 
life.  However, he consisted of only spirit form prior to his birth.
Now, I find that interesting because of the LDS thought (paraphrasing) that 
what man is, god once was, what god is, man shall become. Wasn't the LDS god 
once a man, and his god (father) once a man, and his god (father) once a 
man, etc. Why did the LDS jesus get to circumvent this seemingly natural 
order of the LDs eternal progression of gods? You know, the Bible does not 
support any this.

After his resurrection, he then consisted of a spirit body clothed with an 
exalted physical body of flesh and bone.  From what I've learned on TT, I 
assume that is not too much different than what you might believe?
Well, aside from the fact that we are trying to compare the fictional LDS 
jesus with the real Jesus, a comparison I find mainly a useless exercise and 
a waste of time, some of the words and thoughts do parallel each other, but 
I do not think spiritual reality is at all like the LDS think it is.

   BTW Perry..I have not forgotten our previous /quick and dead/ 
discussion.  I've done a little studying of it, but need to do much more.  
It really is a topic that interests me, and I do intend to get back to it 
as I have time.  I just don't feel knowledgeable at this point to discuss 
it much.
Hey, whenever you get around to it. Let me know if you want off the hook. No 
problem. I have made my point, and if there were any readily available 
examples to support your interpretation I am sure they would have popped up 
pretty quickly. Did you get your interpretation from the Bible, or from some 
LDS dogma?


Perry
Sort of like insects...eggs, larvae, pupae, then adult insects.

Perry

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned

[TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video

2004-06-30 Thread LaurHamm 



Click 
here: MSN Video   Some time ago we had a thread about when life 
really began.  This is a video from inside the womb.  I managed to 
open it but other I know had trouble.  Maybe some of you would like to view 
it.  Laura

Re: Smithson: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Gener...

2004-06-30 Thread Knpraise 
In a message dated 6/30/2004 8:01:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Secondly, do you consider any of us on TT to fellow brethren?

John

  
I don't have a list.


Didn't ask about a list.  Do you consider any on this forum to be brethren?

Smithson: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Chris Barr 





\o/ !HALALU Yah! 
\o/ 
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua [that's the name Jesus was called by His mom, dad, 
brothers, sisters, disciples and others who loved Him] !!
 
... and the last shall be first ...
 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 06/30/2004 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Secondly, do you consider any of us on TT to fellow 
brethren?John
 
I don't have a list.
 


Ahava b' YahShua













(Love in The 
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,








(Bless The 
LORD)
 Chris Barr 


a servant of 
YHVH

Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Knpraise 
In a message dated 6/30/2004 7:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Lance: No (though I'm not convinced she's gone), Yes, 'read' Matt. 5:37.


Two questions: 

What impact do the examples I gave previously concerning how Christ handled error in the lives of his friends have to do with you?


Secondly, do you consider any of us on TT to fellow brethren?

John

Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Chris Barr 



Lance: No (though I'm not convinced she's 
gone), Yes, 'read' Matt. 5:37.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: 06/30/2004 8:54 AM
  Subject: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
  
  Chris:Are you sorry to see Judy go? Do you take 
  yourself as seriously as you appear to? My 'read' of you is that you 
  don't.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Chris Barr 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: June 30, 2004 09:29
Subject: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: 
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin


\o/ !HALALU Yah! 
\o/ 
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua [that's the name Jesus was called by His mom, dad, 
brothers, sisters, disciples and others who loved Him] !!
 
Partially correct?  Nice dodge, 
Jonathan.  Don't admit that you erred in the primary statement but 
rather bring in a secondary aspect so that you can say you were actually 
right ... or at least not wrong.
 
Repentance, and the lack thereof, is 
the single most missing factor amongst all those who call themselves 
believers.  Repentance is FOUNDATIONAL ... it is THE first step (Acts 
2:38 just for starters) ... and that is why many CALL themselves believers 
but VERY FEW (almost none) are (Matthew 7:13-14).
 
Y'all miss more Scriptures than y'all 
get ... MANY more.  Y'all can cheerlead yourselves straight to 
hell.
 
You can wax poetic all you want, 
Jonathan, but Jude 21-23 is still Scripture, and your Dead Poetic (License) 
Society will lead to your demise.
 


Y'all are a SICK bunch 
... likely unto death.

 


Ahava b' YahShua













(Love in The 
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,








(Bless The 
LORD)
 Chris Barr 


a servant of 
YHVH

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Jonathan 
  Hughes 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: 06/29/2004 6:07 PM
  Subject: RE: JONATHAN! -- Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
  
  
  Hi 
  Chris,
   
  Aye you are 
  partially correct.  You were involved in this conversation and made 
  your opinion known (in fact I think you started it all).  The 
  difference in our opinion is that even though I abhor Judy’s teaching on 
  this issue I still believe that she is loved by God and is more than 
  deserving of love from me.  I believe Judy to be a sincere believer 
  who needs light in her darkness (as do I).  I believe that even 
  though I may be in disagreement with Judy she is in need of being lifted 
  up and encouraged especially in this trying time.
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris BarrSent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:39 
  AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
   
  
  
  \o/ !HALALU 
  Yah! 
  \o/ 
  
  
  
  
  
  Greetings Jonathan et 
  al in the Matchless Name of YahShua 
  !!
  
   
  
  What sickens me 
  most is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up against this aberrant 
  teaching 
  
   
  
  Never ceases to amaze 
  me ... I LIGHT up Judy and her darkness and am roundly criticized, then 
  down the road others follow the trail I've blazed as though they are 
  pioneers.  Has happened over and over.  Lance has often LIFTED 
  UP the darkened sorceress.  He chastized me in this latest instance 
  for that which you now praise him for doing.  
  *sigh*
  
   
  
  Y'all are a SICK 
  bunch.
  
   
  
  
  
  
  Ahava b' 
  YahShua
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Love in 
  The SAVIOUR)
  
  Baruch 
  YHVH,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Bless 
  The LORD)
  
   
  Chris 
  Barr 
  
  
  
  a 
  servant of 
  YHVH
  

- Original Message - 


From: Jonathan 
Hughes 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Sent: 
06/29/2004 7:31 AM

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational 
Sin

 
Judy,
 
Your posts 
today remind me of a raccoon that has been backed into a corner and 
knows only to fight back.  You are not above reproach or rebuke on

Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Lance Muir 



Chris:Are you sorry to see Judy go? Do you take 
yourself as seriously as you appear to? My 'read' of you is that you 
don't.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Chris Barr 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: June 30, 2004 09:29
  Subject: Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
  
  
  \o/ !HALALU Yah! 
  \o/ 
  Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua [that's the name Jesus was called by His mom, dad, 
  brothers, sisters, disciples and others who loved Him] !!
   
  Partially correct?  Nice dodge, 
  Jonathan.  Don't admit that you erred in the primary statement but rather 
  bring in a secondary aspect so that you can say you were actually right ... or 
  at least not wrong.
   
  Repentance, and the lack thereof, is the 
  single most missing factor amongst all those who call themselves 
  believers.  Repentance is FOUNDATIONAL ... it is THE first step (Acts 
  2:38 just for starters) ... and that is why many CALL themselves believers but 
  VERY FEW (almost none) are (Matthew 7:13-14).
   
  Y'all miss more Scriptures than y'all get 
  ... MANY more.  Y'all can cheerlead yourselves straight to 
  hell.
   
  You can wax poetic all you want, 
  Jonathan, but Jude 21-23 is still Scripture, and your Dead Poetic (License) 
  Society will lead to your demise.
   
  
  
  Y'all are a SICK bunch ... 
  likely unto death.
  
   
  
  
  Ahava b' YahShua
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Love in The 
  SAVIOUR)
  Baruch YHVH,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Bless The 
  LORD)
   Chris Barr 
  
  
  a servant of 
  YHVH
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Jonathan 
Hughes 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: 06/29/2004 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: JONATHAN! -- Re: 
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin


Hi 
Chris,
 
Aye you are 
partially correct.  You were involved in this conversation and made 
your opinion known (in fact I think you started it all).  The 
difference in our opinion is that even though I abhor Judy’s teaching on 
this issue I still believe that she is loved by God and is more than 
deserving of love from me.  I believe Judy to be a sincere believer who 
needs light in her darkness (as do I).  I believe that even though I 
may be in disagreement with Judy she is in need of being lifted up and 
encouraged especially in this trying time.
 
Jonathan
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Chris 
BarrSent: Tuesday, June 
29, 2004 9:39 AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
 


\o/ !HALALU 
Yah! \o/ 





Greetings Jonathan et al 
in the Matchless Name of YahShua 
!!

 

What sickens me 
most is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up against this aberrant 
teaching 

 

Never ceases to amaze me 
... I LIGHT up Judy and her darkness and am roundly criticized, then down 
the road others follow the trail I've blazed as though they are 
pioneers.  Has happened over and over.  Lance has often LIFTED UP 
the darkened sorceress.  He chastized me in this latest instance for 
that which you now praise him for doing.  
*sigh*

 

Y'all are a SICK 
bunch.

 




Ahava b' 
YahShua














(Love in 
The SAVIOUR)

Baruch 
YHVH,









(Bless The 
LORD)

 
Chris Barr 




a 
servant of 
YHVH

  
  - Original Message - 
  
  
  From: Jonathan 
  Hughes 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Sent: 
  06/29/2004 7:31 AM
  
  Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational 
  Sin
  
   
  Judy,
   
  Your posts today 
  remind me of a raccoon that has been backed into a corner and knows only 
  to fight back.  You are not above reproach or rebuke on this 
  forum.  Each time someone rebukes you, you bring out your tired old 
  line “you don’t know me…”.  Blah blah blah.  I know what you 
  have written and will comment on it.  You are responsible for what 
  you write on the forum.  This must be a stretching experience for you 
  to realize that what you say matters and that you won’t get away with 
  it.  I must ask you to read your own post again, this time without 
  the blinders.  You quote your esteemed teacher Wright and his ideas 
  on leukemia.  Let me quote: “There is a pastor I know of in Georgia who 
  ministers in the light of this wisdom and many are healed from what is 
  considered incurable chronic disease.  He has

Re: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Chris Barr 




\o/ !HALALU Yah! 
\o/ 
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua [that's the name Jesus was called by His mom, dad, 
brothers, sisters, disciples and others who loved Him] !!
 
Partially correct?  Nice dodge, 
Jonathan.  Don't admit that you erred in the primary statement but rather 
bring in a secondary aspect so that you can say you were actually right ... or 
at least not wrong.
 
Repentance, and the lack thereof, is the 
single most missing factor amongst all those who call themselves 
believers.  Repentance is FOUNDATIONAL ... it is THE first step (Acts 2:38 
just for starters) ... and that is why many CALL themselves believers but VERY 
FEW (almost none) are (Matthew 7:13-14).
 
Y'all miss more Scriptures than y'all get 
... MANY more.  Y'all can cheerlead yourselves straight to 
hell.
 
You can wax poetic all you want, Jonathan, 
but Jude 21-23 is still Scripture, and your Dead Poetic (License) Society will 
lead to your demise.
 


Y'all are a SICK bunch ... 
likely unto death.

 


Ahava b' YahShua













(Love in The 
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,








(Bless The 
LORD)
 Chris Barr 


a servant of 
YHVH

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Jonathan Hughes 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: 06/29/2004 6:07 PM
  Subject: RE: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
  
  
  Hi 
  Chris,
   
  Aye you are partially 
  correct.  You were involved in this conversation and made your opinion 
  known (in fact I think you started it all).  The difference in our 
  opinion is that even though I abhor Judy’s teaching on this issue I still 
  believe that she is loved by God and is more than deserving of love from 
  me.  I believe Judy to be a sincere believer who needs light in her 
  darkness (as do I).  I believe that even though I may be in disagreement 
  with Judy she is in need of being lifted up and encouraged especially in this 
  trying time.
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Chris 
  BarrSent: Tuesday, June 29, 
  2004 9:39 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
   
  
  
  \o/ !HALALU 
  Yah! \o/ 
  
  
  
  
  Greetings Jonathan et al 
  in the Matchless Name of YahShua 
!!
  
   
  
  What sickens me most 
  is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up against this aberrant teaching 
  
  
   
  
  Never ceases to amaze me 
  ... I LIGHT up Judy and her darkness and am roundly criticized, then down the 
  road others follow the trail I've blazed as though they are pioneers.  
  Has happened over and over.  Lance has often LIFTED UP the darkened 
  sorceress.  He chastized me in this latest instance for that which you 
  now praise him for doing.  *sigh*
  
   
  
  Y'all are a SICK 
  bunch.
  
   
  
  
  
  
  Ahava b' 
  YahShua
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Love in The 
  SAVIOUR)
  
  Baruch 
  YHVH,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Bless The 
  LORD)
  
   
  Chris Barr 
  
  
  
  
  a servant 
  of 
  YHVH
  

- Original Message - 


From: Jonathan Hughes 


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Sent: 
06/29/2004 7:31 AM

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational 
Sin

 
Judy,
 
Your posts today 
remind me of a raccoon that has been backed into a corner and knows only to 
fight back.  You are not above reproach or rebuke on this forum.  
Each time someone rebukes you, you bring out your tired old line “you don’t 
know me…”.  Blah blah blah.  I know what you have written and will 
comment on it.  You are responsible for what you write on the 
forum.  This must be a stretching experience for you to realize that 
what you say matters and that you won’t get away with it.  I must ask 
you to read your own post again, this time without the blinders.  You 
quote your esteemed teacher Wright and his ideas on leukemia.  Let me 
quote: “There 
is a pastor I know of in Georgia who ministers in the light of this wisdom 
and many are healed from what is considered incurable chronic disease.  
He has written a book called "The More Excellent Way" and in his 
experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted bitterness coming from 
unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always found a breach between 
the person who has that disease and their father. I've never found a mother 
involved in the breach; abandonment by a father, literally or emotionally, 
is also implicated"  Our son-in-law is a good father, but he 
came out of a shocking situation although he is an Annapolis graduate and a 
high achiever in everything he puts his hand to.  The chickens 
have a way of coming home to roost.  If we, as a family, can 
accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing of all breaches and 
perfect peace in the Lord.

Re: [TruthTalk] FINALLY ...

2004-06-30 Thread Knpraise 
In a message dated 6/30/2004 6:16:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ 

Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua !!
  
Smithson got something right ...


Shock therapy here I come

Smithson

[TruthTalk] FINALLY ...

2004-06-30 Thread Chris Barr 




\o/ !HALALU Yah! 
\o/ 
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua !!
 
Smithson got something right ...
 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: 06/29/2004 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Yo, Smithson ... Re: JONATHAN! 
-- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies an...
God is good.
Then back to SOP for him with nothing else 
right.
 


Ahava b' YahShua













(Love in The 
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,








(Bless The 
LORD)
 Chris Barr 


a servant of 
YHVH

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: 06/29/2004 4:39 PM
  Subject: Re: Yo, Smithson ... Re: 
  JONATHAN! -- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies an...
  In a message dated 6/29/2004 1:35:06 PM 
  Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  And you are such a nice guy JUST LIKE THE REST OF 
US (?).  Nothing like the 
  rest.God is good.
  You wonder why the difference in response?  
No wonder 
here ... amazement (amusement, too) ... there is a difference.  Call your wife 
a sorceress and maybe you will understand exactly what it is 
about your writings that piss people off.   I understand people's 
carnality and wickedness very well.  The Saviour and His prophets p'd 
people off in the same manner so I am in the very best of 
  company.Love of the brethren is what they taught.  You are in the 
  company of one  -- yourself.  
   You actually have a lot to offer  --  but you see 
no benefit with memo's that disagree with you  Still waiting for you 
to get something right.I rest my case.
   and you make that crystal clear over and over ad 
nausea.  That should be "ad nauseum" (if it were in fact 
  so).Actually, I give this up to "spell check."  
  
   You are right and everyone is a heretic and you actually 
think that this was Christ's attitude as well.   That's a straw man ... 
I ain't no scarecros and you quite obviously ain't no 
  wizard.Nothing straw man about it.  Your ministry has nothing to 
  do with unity and building others up.  If I saved your posts, I would be 
  able to line item a thousand put downs and maybe not one compliment or positve 
  statement.   You're a big boy  --  look at your 
  posts.  You certainly know how to blast others; should be a problem in 
  seeing your own negativity.  
   What a joke.  John  Bad 
  joke.Amen to that. 

[TruthTalk] important words

2004-06-30 Thread Terry Clifton 




Mornin' Judy.  I do not know just how to respond to your leaving.  My
wife has family that no longer speak to one another.  It tears her up,
but there is nothing physically that she can do about it, so she
prays.  If you choose to leave this group, I will miss you.  You are
family.  Still, I cannot grab you and force you to stay.  I cannot even
come up with words that might cause you to stay, so let me offer some
words that our Savior spoke.  They may cause you to reconsider, and if
they don't they may be of value wherever you go.  Please consider them
seriously.
Turn the other cheek.
Go the extra mile.
 Love your neighbor, and your enemy, whether they return that love or
not.
If you follow me, expect persecution.
Count it all joy.

We love you Judy, maybe with a very imperfect love that needs much
improvement, but we love you none the less.  Borrow some of that thick
skin from the old Mormon boy and hang in there like a hair in a
biscuit.  We still have much to learn from one anothering.
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Yeah, Judy—just because I opt out of arguing with you doesn’t
mean I don’t enjoy watching you slug it out with the guys. J Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004
4:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin



 



Judyt:If you're still there, I'd offer a hearty Amen!! to
what John said herein. Please stay?





 





Lance







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 





To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






Sent: June 30, 2004
02:54





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin





 



In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:58:59
PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:




DAVEH:  I do hope you will reconsider, Judy. 
Rather than become exasperated with continuing exchanges of punches, please
consider lurking for awhile.  Sometimes the boys here tend to play a bit
rough, and it helps to have a thick skin.  (If you've seen my picture,
you'd know I've got a really thick skin!)   :-)  

   And...if you prefer more reserved and casual discussions, I'll
willingly engage you without threat of harshness.  I just hope you won't
leave on a sour note, as I don't think that's what the nature of TT should
be.  We should be inviting others to join, rather than encouraging those
who disagree with us to leave.  At least that's how I see it. 
Perhaps others would disagree though.  And even though you and I
doctrinally disagree on many things, I think you are an asset to TT and I'd like
you to stay!!!



Amen

RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Ditto, jt.  Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wm. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:27
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin



 



Well, Judy, I must say you have surprised me with this
one. There will certainly be a void in your absence. You are a strong person;
you evoke strong responses from others -- too strong sometimes. Perhaps if
you take a few days reprieve you may want to reconsider. If not, I want to wish
you and yours the very best. I truly hope Jenna is healed. She is in our
prayers.





 





Sincerely,





    Bill







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






Sent: Tuesday, June 29,
2004 10:03 PM





Subject: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin





 





OK folk:





I guess I know when I've had enough.
Maybe things are a bit raw for me right now but today I've been called a
cornered badger, a witch, and a sorceress and I can't remember what else -
this is love?  It feels more like religious abuse - even an old dog
knows to get under the couch rather than be beat over the head all the time -
so I'm choosing to exit at this point leaving you all to enjoy your peace
and pet doctrines.  jt.





 





 





From:
"ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>





Jonathan,  As you know I don’t
correspond with jt, as experience has proven that it is the road to endless
conflict.  To keep peace I keep quiet.  If you would like to discuss my personal
ideas about sickness/illness please let me know. I don’t like to butt
into others’ conversations. 
Don’t assume anything due to “silence”.  Izzy



 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:01
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin



 

Hi John,

 

I accept your mild rebuke and think that
it is well said.  Thank you.

 

Jonathan

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:43
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical
Fallacies and Generational Sin



 

In a message dated 6/29/2004 6:34:47
AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





What sickens me most is that only Lance has
had the guts to stand up against this aberrant teaching (actually Terry did
come forth and say that you may not always be right in your interpretation here
– you blasted him with your, “I didn’t say it, God did”
line that is so tiresome).  This is a 4 year old girl with leukemia and we
are blaming her and her father for it and we think we have scripture to back
this up?  Shame on the rest of the group.

  

Jonathan

  

Please do not assume that since we did not weigh in, we must
necessarily agree with Judy. I, for one, do not agree with Judy. I also read
her post concerning her son-in-law and came away with the same impression as
you. She is cornered and must find someone to blame for her granddaughter's
illness. I did not respond, quite frankly, because I am tired of arguing with
Judy. Perhaps a chorus of voices is what is needed to change some people's
minds; I do not get that impression with Judy. If the sound doctrine and
reproof of one brother can not teach her, nothing will reach her. Her mind is
set.

  

Bill

  



Jonathan, I  have taken a more subtle stance than in the past regarding
this forum.   There are so many good exchanges that I find it
beneficial to read, listen to what I have read, and ask more
questions.   

I do not view JudyT and her comments as heretical.   I do not agree
with her understanding of scripture on the point in question.   Jenna
is receiving the kind of attention she needs.  Her grandmother's views
have nothing to do with the little one's prognosis and recovery.   To
press the matter is to do what you say you dislike in many of JudyT's
responses.  

JudyT is extremely well read but often a little hard  with her
rebuttals.  She certainly is family (a sister in Christ) and needs the
patience of the rest of us  ---  especially at such a time as
this. More than this, she remains in
the TT forum.   That should say something about her regard for the
rest of us.  In fact, I seem to remember a time or two when she has given
this forum it's positive due.   Be that as it may  --  our
response to her and each other is not fashioned as a causal  circumstance
to others but to Christ within us.  I can't even count the number of times
I have forgotten that rule of new life, but it is in full memory as I
write.  The full miracle of God in partnership with each of us is seen in
the absolute fact that His will is working in us IN SPITE OF even our mistaken
opinions

RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Sorry, I thought it was you. 
Oh well! Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:10
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin



 



Who's the third leg of this "Canadian
Trinity"? I thought Chris was from Arizona.





 





Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






Sent: Tuesday, June 29,
2004 10:01 PM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin





 



Good to hear your words, John. J  Re: the Canadian Trinity, knowing they are
good at heart encourages me personally, as I know they won’t give up
easily when I challenge the heck out of their ideas.  (I know they are cahoots, and encourage each
other!) Some folks can’t take it so well. 
J Izzy

 











One more note  --  I know of some of the kindness that is a part of Lance. His
heart is in the right place and I am certain that this is true with Jonathan,
Bill and others.   Assume this to be true.   And when the
boys get on your case, just smile, knowing that you have challenged them once
again.   Look at Jonathan.   At least your discent offers
him a chance to test his evolving belief.  

May God bless this forum.  I have taken a closer walk with the Lord
specifically because of my association with you all (Chris  ? 
--  aaahhh  maybe).  

Thank you 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

2004-06-30 Thread Lance Muir 



Judyt:If you're still there, I'd offer a hearty 
Amen!! to what John said herein. Please stay?
 
Lance

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: June 30, 2004 02:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical 
  Fallacies and Generational Sin
  In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:58:59 PM Pacific 
  Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  DAVEH:  I do hope you will reconsider, Judy.  Rather 
than become exasperated with continuing exchanges of punches, please 
consider lurking for awhile.  Sometimes the boys here tend to play a 
bit rough, and it helps to have a thick skin.  (If you've seen my 
picture, you'd know I've got a really thick skin!)   :-)  
   And...if you prefer more reserved and casual 
discussions, I'll willingly engage you without threat of harshness.  I 
just hope you won't leave on a sour note, as I don't think that's what the 
nature of TT should be.  We should be inviting others to join, rather 
than encouraging those who disagree with us to leave.  At least that's 
how I see it.  Perhaps others would disagree though.  And even 
though you and I doctrinally disagree on many things, I think you are an 
asset to TT and I'd like you to stay!!!Amen

RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

2004-06-30 Thread Slade Henson 



The 
thought here, Izzy, seems to be that there are only two covenants.. the "Old" 
and the "New." I think this is wrong. When God makes a covenant, it's a 
permanent thing. There are no "ifs." People speak of an Adamic covenant. Is that 
one gone now that we have the Noachide covenant? Is the Noachide covenant dead 
now that God made a covenant with Avraham? Is Avraham's covenant dead now that 
He gave a covenant to Moshe/Moses? Get my point?
 
Please 
look up the words used for "new" in reference to "new covenant" in Jeremiah 31. 
Please know that it is the word "Rosh" which means to "make afresh." We 
celebrate Rosh Chodesh which is not a "new" moon, because it is the same old 
moon. It, instead, a "renewing moon..." a moon that is returning to full 
brightness... much like this "new covenant" (I say this because under the 
covenantal conditions of Jeremiah's Renewed covenant, Torah is a condition (it 
will be written on our hearts), Ezekiel tells us that the Spirit will be given 
so that we CAN obey Torah, and (according to Jeremiah) we will not have to go to 
our neighbor and say "Know YHVH" (i.e., evangelize) because we ALL will know 
YHVH. Therefore, according to Jeremiah 31 (and reiterated in Hebrews), we have 
not seen the absolute fulfillment of the "new Covenant."
 
-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 29 June, 2004 07:19To: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer 
  Request
  
  I 
  would love to hear Slade’s response to this post. Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Actually, 
  the person of God never changes but His administration does.  
  Obviously.  For example  --  the fact that His original 
  covenant is replaced by a new covenants haseverything to do with 
  administration and nothing to do with the existence and/or personality of 
  God

RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

2004-06-30 Thread Slade Henson 



DAVEH wrote:  Thank you for your 
below response, Slade.  However, would you be so kind as to explain what 
there is in the Bible that makes you think there is not a pre-mortal existence 
of our spirits?  IOW.are there any passages that lead you to think our 
spirits did not exist prior to our birth?
 
slade 
wrote: I have explained why I do not believe in the preexistence of the human 
spirit. I have given the burden of proof by my explanation of your proof 
texts (or whatever kind term is to be used). Therefore there is no reason for me 
to discuss the next question.
 
-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  DaveSent: Tuesday, 29 June, 2004 00:32To: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer 
  RequestSlade Henson wrote:
  


  
DAVEH:  From my (LDS) perspective, I believe stories to which you 
are referring could be true (midrash (parable) stories of souls speaking with 
God before they're implanted in a body on 
earth) And, they would be further evidence of a 
pre-mortal existence of our spirits. 
I 
do not subscribe to that particular belief. I do not think the passage or 
any other OT/NT passage supports the belief either.
 
DAVEH:  If Jesus could 
pre-exist, why not others?  Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential.  And, Job 
(38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing.  
I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed.  Of course, Paul 
(Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well.  So 
Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal 
existence in the form of spirits?   
I 
believe Jesus preexists because He is the Holy One of Israel. All other 
passages you provide simply shows the sheer knowledge of God because He is 
able to see the future with perfect clarity. I believe these passages 
dictate this innate ability of YHVH. For Example, Jeremiah 1:4-5 speaks of 
God's foreknowledge.Job 38:4-7 is a set of rhetorical questions whose 
answers so clear that many miss them. Ephesians 1:4-5, again, speaks of 
God's foreknowledge.
 
DAVEH:  From that specific 
passage alone.  What else do you think it could infer? 
Please explain how you came to that conclusion. I cannot see 
it. 
 
 -- 
slade

  

  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On 
  Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Saturday, 26 June, 2004 
  23:10To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer RequestDAVEH:  
  SladeI've always viewed this passage as good evidence the Jews at 
  the time of Jesus believed in an existence before birth.  How do 
  you view the underlying message of this passage? 
  Slade Henson wrote: 
    
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from 
birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his 
parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this 
man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be 
revealed in him. (John 
9:1-3) 
-- 
slade-- 
~~~
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] Prayer Request

2004-06-30 Thread Slade Henson 



Yes I 
do. All I'm saying is that some diseases require Yeshua to say, "Be Healed." 
Some diseases require Yeshua to say, "Your sins are forgiven." Who are we to say 
which is required? A friend of mine recently discovered malignant cancer in her 
sinuses. Would anyone dare to say it's directly related to her malicious sin 
nature? Perhaps one would like to say her rebellion against God caused this sin? 
Personally I think it's my sin that's a partial cause. I think every time we 
deceive ourselves into thinking we're perfect, every time we [knowingly] rebel 
against God, every time a nasty/uncaring word or phrase comes out of our mouths 
or rolls off our typing fingers, we help my friend's cancer along. Every time we 
realize just how small/insignificant/imperfect/filthy we are before YHVH, every 
time we intentionally follow the/a commandment of YHVH, every time we say a kind 
word or phrase (especially when we really feel like sticking the knife in deep), 
we help her body fight that cancer.
 
Perhaps that's simplistic and I'm not going to fight this theologically, 
but I do believe in the Hebrew ideal of Tikkun HaOlam (repairing the 
world).
 
-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 29 June, 2004 07:19To: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer 
  Request
  
  Slade, 
  You must admit that there are many people suffering 
  from inherited physical or mental diseases, caused by genetic flaws? Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Slade 
  HensonSent: Monday, June 28, 
  2004 3:35 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer 
  Request
   
  
  This, too, is a minor 
  point of difference. While I agree with Scripture that an "UNdeserved curse 
  goes NOwhere," I do not necessarily believe the exact opposite occurs every 
  time. If so, none of us would exist this very day. I trust the words 
  of Yeshua who said that the man's plight was not the direct result of anyone's 
  sin (i.e., parents/fathers equals forbearers or forefathers in 
  general).
  
   
  
  Let me ask you a 
  question Judy If all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then all A's are 
  C's... right?
  
-Original 
Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 27 June, 2004 
16:03To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer 
Request

Hi 
Slade:

Thank you for posting this 
scripture. I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples 
query to mean 

or to prove that sin and this man's 
blindness are unrelated.  However, the scriptures teach that the "curse 
causeless

does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there 
was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss 
it right

then.  It could have been 
grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to 
focus on the 

works of God being revealed in the 
man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with .. 
judyt

 

 

From: "Slade 
Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As he passed by, he saw a man blind 
from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this 
man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither 
did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be 
revealed in him. (John 9:1-3)

-- 
slade