Re: [TruthTalk] question
DAVEH: Perhaps Jesus felt a need to keep the commandments, which (as Laura said) should be an example to all. Terry Clifton wrote: Was just sitting here minding my own business, and a question popped into my head. There is probably a simple answer, but I cannot think of it, so any help will be appreciated. The question is: Why was Jesus baptized? Certainly not to be saved, and not for the remission of sins, so why? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "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] Divine Nature
In a message dated 7/4/2004 8:42:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzyâs comments in red: When was the last time you all read a lengthy and involved email from me? So give me some slack and allow this exception. You all are great. I have included the thread remarks of Slade and Lance. Before we close the lid on the box in which we have place brother and dearly departed John Smithson, allow him self defense. I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course. And maybe, just maybe, I failed in my end of this exchange we call communication. Allow me to ramble a bit, hoping that I can tie it all together in some kind of meaning conclusion. I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (Jame's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the âconflictâ between James and Paul is imaginaryâa definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. Neither do I see a conflict. But I am curious as to why the clue doesn't work from another view -- that James is misunderstood. In my church, brethren run to James to prove that salvation is essentially up to you. The life line has been thrown out and floats near enough to us that all we have to do is reach out and lay hold of it (thus gaining justification via works) It is almost that Jame's comments trump Paul. They never, and I repeat "never," give an explanation for Paul's words to the effect that we "are saved by faith apart from obedience to the law --- apart from obedience to any "law" understanding "law" to mean a "code of ethical conduct." When that kind of thinking is applied to the actuality of who we are, my view of man, I fancy to believe, is in complete accord with God's view because my view has come my way from God. But, of course, we all say that, don't we Chis Barr? I see in the biblical message, a god, the God, who created man in His image and seeks to provide for man;s arrival to that end. I see a god, the God, who valued His creation so much that He is willing to actually participate with His "offspring" in bring them back to Himself. God not only knew from the beginning that man would need help, He knew that man would respond to His ministry of reconciliation. He wants us to be new again. This exploitation of the old man by and through the gracious assistance of God Himself is a wonderful declaration by God of both the value and the confidence He has in His creation and in His ability to bring the task of creation to its desired conclusion. When I counsel those who are not only messed up but broken to the point of not knowing their true value as a person, I often tell them "stop allowing what you do, your sins, your addictions, to define who you are." The fulcrum of my life changed when I decided to define myself by Godâs Word, rather than by the opinion of any human being. I have been horribly independent since that day, many years ago. So blame the Lord. He is the One to which I answer, and the only One whose approval I seek. J Is the God in Christ that you met in the biblical message indwelling, alive, dynamic -- the force in your life that causes you to be what you were created to become? If "yes," our disagreement is semantical only. That advice, as it stands alone, is not good enough to effect any real and vital change. It must be combined another principle. We are defined by creation and the birthing event t
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
In a message dated 7/5/2004 7:15:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the post, John. I wonât respond, as all my posts/questions lately are ignored anyway. Izzy izzy, I am working on a response to your post as we speak. John
Re: [TruthTalk] question
In a message dated 7/5/2004 9:16:45 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is: Why was Jesus baptized? Certainly not to be saved, and not for the remission of sins, so why?Terry I always figured it was to set an example for believers. Probably too simple! LOL Laura
[TruthTalk] question
Was just sitting here minding my own business, and a question popped into my head. There is probably a simple answer, but I cannot think of it, so any help will be appreciated. The question is: Why was Jesus baptized? Certainly not to be saved, and not for the remission of sins, so why? Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
Thanks for the post, John. I won’t respond, as all my posts/questions lately are ignored anyway. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature In a message dated 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature Date: 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from the Internet slade in yaroq I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course. What I meant by the term "Useless argument" was that if two people have divergent mindsets, they can fail to understand each other and discussion between them can break down and fail. Two answers to the same question can be different but yet both correct.. depending on the stance of the author. I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics. I do not see the need to defend what I said above. I certainly did not mean to belittle and if that is what is seen, I will give more attention to what I say. You all know that we are sharing only (maybe) 50% of what would normally be communicated if we were face to face. Body language and tonation are not included in these emails so a sense of humor and the decision to think more highly of others than we do ourselves is critical. Illustration on body language and tonation: Say our loud wand with a big frown, " You've got ten seconds to clean this room or you are in BIG trouble, buster." Now, say the same thing while smiling (yes - a fake smile but smile nonetheless). I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics -- these words make me fear that slade is a little ticked but how can I know for sure without asking. So I will assume the best until it becomes obvious beyond debate. I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (James's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the “conflict” between James and Paul is imaginary—a definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. I agree with Izzy when she says there is no conflict with Shaul and James (Yaakov). After all, Peter says that people twist the words of Shaul to their destruction and Shaul said in his last address in the book of Acts, that he never did anything against the customs of their [Jewish/Israeli] fathers [i.e., Torah]. Did we not read my post a second time? Is John saying there is a conflict between the two? Of course not. Does there appear to be a conflict? To many the answer is yes. Paul would never make the point of Jame's in the way Jame's wrote -- and, guess what, he didn't. I will forgo the opportunity to start a new thread regarding Paul and his opinion of the Law and the old-law abiding saint. I was not even alluding to that theological issue. What I said is to the point of mindset and intention rather than doctrine and needs little defense. Hitler was a child of God. When??? He served the devil. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
In a message dated 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature Date: 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from the Internet slade in yaroq I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course. What I meant by the term "Useless argument" was that if two people have divergent mindsets, they can fail to understand each other and discussion between them can break down and fail. Two answers to the same question can be different but yet both correct.. depending on the stance of the author. I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics. I do not see the need to defend what I said above. I certainly did not mean to belittle and if that is what is seen, I will give more attention to what I say. You all know that we are sharing only (maybe) 50% of what would normally be communicated if we were face to face. Body language and tonation are not included in these emails so a sense of humor and the decision to think more highly of others than we do ourselves is critical. Illustration on body language and tonation: Say our loud wand with a big frown, " You've got ten seconds to clean this room or you are in BIG trouble, buster." Now, say the same thing while smiling (yes - a fake smile but smile nonetheless). I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics -- these words make me fear that slade is a little ticked but how can I know for sure without asking. So I will assume the best until it becomes obvious beyond debate. I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (James's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the âconflictâ between James and Paul is imaginaryâa definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. I agree with Izzy when she says there is no conflict with Shaul and James (Yaakov). After all, Peter says that people twist the words of Shaul to their destruction and Shaul said in his last address in the book of Acts, that he never did anything against the customs of their [Jewish/Israeli] fathers [i.e., Torah]. Did we not read my post a second time? Is John saying there is a conflict between the two? Of course not. Does there appear to be a conflict? To many the answer is yes. Paul would never make the point of Jame's in the way Jame's wrote -- and, guess what, he didn't. I will forgo the opportunity to start a new thread regarding Paul and his opinion of the Law and the old-law abiding saint. I was not even alluding to that theological issue. What I said is to the point of mindset and intention rather than doctrine and needs little defense. Hitler was a child of God. When??? He served the devil. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity. Praise the Lord. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself. To say Hitler was/is a child of God is baffling at best. His works define who he is and he defines himself as DEATH and the DARKNESS of death. In God, there is no darkness and there is no death. W
RE: [TruthTalk] Martin Luther... the Father of the Holocaust
Sorry. I did not intend to post this email. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Monday, 05 July, 2004 19:06To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Martin Luther... the Father of the Holocaust There would be no Hitler's Germany had it not been for Martin Luther. Hitler's early plan for the Jewish people mirrored the "punishment" suggested by Luther in The Jews and Their Lies. There is far more to the historicity of Hitler's Germany than IG Farben who (among hundreds of other corporations) special ordered Jewish slave labor like one would order office furniture or replacement batteries. The idea was to acquire slave labor to produce maximum results with minimal cost. Thus, the average Jewish wartime slave survived six weeks to four months -- the average time it takes to starve a hard-working person to death. As far as compensation... IG Farben slave workers at Auschwitz got $1,700.00 each; AEG-Telefunken slave received $500.00 each; the families of those who were worked to death received nothing. Austria, who was responsible for nearly half of the mindless murders, paid $1,000.00 to a very few victims... claiming that they (Austria) should be considered a "victim" of Nazi Germany. East Germany, Rumania, and the rest of the nations under the Communist Authority never bothered to even answer requests for compensation, thereby paying nothing. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Chris BarrSent: Monday, 05 July, 2004 16:16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Sacrificial goat and Romans 10:2 \o/ !HALALU YAH! \o/Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua! Hitler was a puppet and pawn. There would have been no "Hitler's Germany" if not for multinational pharmaceutical/industrialist cartels. From the lead U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials:"... these IG Farben criminals, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to daylight and if they are not punished, they will represent a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler if he were still alive."http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/...al_industry.htmCheck also (just for starters): http://reformed-theology.org/html/b.../chapter_02.htmFrom Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes in 1941:"If America loses this war it can thank tha Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA)."ALCOA negotiated a deal with the Nazis and IG Farben to supply Germany's war machine RATHER than the US Military with aluminum. ALCOA was a leading corporate supporter of Nazi Germany and eugenics. Sodium fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum production (MILLIONS of tons). IG Farben discovered in slave labor camps that fluoride added to drinking water dulled resistance and made prisoners more submissive to authority ... just as in America today.If not for modern medicine there would have been no Hitler. Also, modern medicine owes a chunk of its success to the Nazi death camps.I'm just getting warmed up. This is the very tiniest tip of the iceberg.Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
[TruthTalk] Martin Luther... the Father of the Holocaust
There would be no Hitler's Germany had it not been for Martin Luther. Hitler's early plan for the Jewish people mirrored the "punishment" suggested by Luther in The Jews and Their Lies. There is far more to the historicity of Hitler's Germany than IG Farben who (among hundreds of other corporations) special ordered Jewish slave labor like one would order office furniture or replacement batteries. The idea was to acquire slave labor to produce maximum results with minimal cost. Thus, the average Jewish wartime slave survived six weeks to four months -- the average time it takes to starve a hard-working person to death. As far as compensation... IG Farben slave workers at Auschwitz got $1,700.00 each; AEG-Telefunken slave received $500.00 each; the families of those who were worked to death received nothing. Austria, who was responsible for nearly half of the mindless murders, paid $1,000.00 to a very few victims... claiming that they (Austria) should be considered a "victim" of Nazi Germany. East Germany, Rumania, and the rest of the nations under the Communist Authority never bothered to even answer requests for compensation, thereby paying nothing. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Chris BarrSent: Monday, 05 July, 2004 16:16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Sacrificial goat and Romans 10:2 \o/ !HALALU YAH! \o/Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua! Hitler was a puppet and pawn. There would have been no "Hitler's Germany" if not for multinational pharmaceutical/industrialist cartels. From the lead U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials:"... these IG Farben criminals, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to daylight and if they are not punished, they will represent a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler if he were still alive."http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/...al_industry.htmCheck also (just for starters): http://reformed-theology.org/html/b.../chapter_02.htmFrom Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes in 1941:"If America loses this war it can thank tha Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA)."ALCOA negotiated a deal with the Nazis and IG Farben to supply Germany's war machine RATHER than the US Military with aluminum. ALCOA was a leading corporate supporter of Nazi Germany and eugenics. Sodium fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum production (MILLIONS of tons). IG Farben discovered in slave labor camps that fluoride added to drinking water dulled resistance and made prisoners more submissive to authority ... just as in America today.If not for modern medicine there would have been no Hitler. Also, modern medicine owes a chunk of its success to the Nazi death camps.I'm just getting warmed up. This is the very tiniest tip of the iceberg.Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
[TruthTalk] Sacrificial goat and Romans 10:2
\o/ !HALALU YAH! \o/Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua! Hitler was a puppet and pawn. There would have been no "Hitler's Germany" if not for multinational pharmaceutical/industrialist cartels. From the lead U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials:"... these IG Farben criminals, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to daylight and if they are not punished, they will represent a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler if he were still alive."http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/...al_industry.htmCheck also (just for starters): http://reformed-theology.org/html/b.../chapter_02.htmFrom Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes in 1941:"If America loses this war it can thank tha Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA)."ALCOA negotiated a deal with the Nazis and IG Farben to supply Germany's war machine RATHER than the US Military with aluminum. ALCOA was a leading corporate supporter of Nazi Germany and eugenics. Sodium fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum production (MILLIONS of tons). IG Farben discovered in slave labor camps that fluoride added to drinking water dulled resistance and made prisoners more submissive to authority ... just as in America today.If not for modern medicine there would have been no Hitler. Also, modern medicine owes a chunk of its success to the Nazi death camps.I'm just getting warmed up. This is the very tiniest tip of the iceberg.Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
Lance, as usual, I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. And I assume that, as usual, you will refuse to explain it to me.. Izzy Speaking as an 'interloper', I'd suggest that all (I do mean ALL) are included in the 'second adam', ' the obedient Israelite', the 'Incarnate Lord". THAT then is the sense in which I'd agree with the 'child of God' reference including Hitler.(qualifier: 'as I see it')
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
Speaking as an 'interloper', I'd suggest that all (I do mean ALL) are included in the 'second adam', ' the obedient Israelite', the 'Incarnate Lord". THAT then is the sense in which I'd agree with the 'child of God' reference including Hitler.(qualifier: 'as I see it') - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 05, 2004 13:56 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature slade in yaroq I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course. What I meant by the term "Useless argument" was that if two people have divergent mindsets, they can fail to understand each other and discussion between them can break down and fail. Two answers to the same question can be different but yet both correct.. depending on the stance of the author. I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics. I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (James's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the conflict between James and Paul is imaginarya definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. I agree with Izzy when she says there is no conflict with Shaul and James (Yaakov). After all, Peter says that people twist the words of Shaul to their destruction and Shaul said in his last address in the book of Acts, that he never did anything against the customs of their [Jewish/Israeli] fathers [i.e., Torah]. Hitler was a child of God. When??? He served the devil. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity. Praise the Lord. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself. To say Hitler was/is a child of God is baffling at best. His works define who he is and he defines himself as DEATH and the DARKNESS of death. In God, there is no darkness and there is no death. We worship the God of light and HE is the God of the living. I found a quote in a book I would like to give: The great mass of Jews who remained [in Europe during the time of the Nazi pogroms] overwhelmingly religious, were deceived and self-deceived. Their history told them that all persecutions, however cruel, came to an end; that all oppressors, however exigent, had demands that were ultimately limited and could be met. Their strategy was always geared to saving 'the remnant.' In 4,000 years the Jews never faced, and had never imagined, an opponent who demanded not some, or most, of their property, but everything; not just a few lives, or even many, but all, down to the lat infant. Who could conceive of such a monster? The Jews, unlike the Christians, did not believe the devil took human shape. This quote refers to your child of god Hitler. Please consider redefining your definition of a "child of God" by using John 1:12 and Matthew 7:16-20. -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
slade in yaroq I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course. What I meant by the term "Useless argument" was that if two people have divergent mindsets, they can fail to understand each other and discussion between them can break down and fail. Two answers to the same question can be different but yet both correct.. depending on the stance of the author. I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics. I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (James's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me. I think that the “conflict” between James and Paul is imaginary—a definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. I agree with Izzy when she says there is no conflict with Shaul and James (Yaakov). After all, Peter says that people twist the words of Shaul to their destruction and Shaul said in his last address in the book of Acts, that he never did anything against the customs of their [Jewish/Israeli] fathers [i.e., Torah]. Hitler was a child of God. When??? He served the devil. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity. Praise the Lord. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself. To say Hitler was/is a child of God is baffling at best. His works define who he is and he defines himself as DEATH and the DARKNESS of death. In God, there is no darkness and there is no death. We worship the God of light and HE is the God of the living. I found a quote in a book I would like to give: The great mass of Jews who remained [in Europe during the time of the Nazi pogroms] overwhelmingly religious, were deceived and self-deceived. Their history told them that all persecutions, however cruel, came to an end; that all oppressors, however exigent, had demands that were ultimately limited and could be met. Their strategy was always geared to saving 'the remnant.' In 4,000 years the Jews never faced, and had never imagined, an opponent who demanded not some, or most, of their property, but everything; not just a few lives, or even many, but all, down to the lat infant. Who could conceive of such a monster? The Jews, unlike the Christians, did not believe the devil took human shape. This quote refers to your child of god Hitler. Please consider redefining your definition of a "child of God" by using John 1:12 and Matthew 7:16-20. -- slade
