Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 10:53:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: H...are you a THEM or an US, JD? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:10:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some >other kind of Trinity? And to be quite honest, I was not the first to separate some from the others. Not a bad thing -- there is a separation on TT. I personally resisted this for months -- a number of posts were written by me emphasizing our oneness as brethren. Events and posts of the recent past have made it clear that this is not the thinking of some. I have simply accepted this thinking. No more "Hey, we are one" posts from me. JD In Christ, I is us -- how's that for staying out of trouble, Mr. Hanson? Mr Smithson -- out !!
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 7:30:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iâd appreciate it if JD or Jonathan or Lance could please write in ONE CONCISE statement what they mean by âEternal Fatherhoodâ or âEternal Sonâ so we could at least decide if we agree once and for all. I still canât fathom why they are all worked up about it. Izzy Although this is part philosophical, I will offer it as an explanation. In eternity, there is no time -- the absense of time. No time, no aging, no change -- what one is in eternity is what one always has been and always will be. He is the great I Am because there is nothing else. If He is God (a word, a title for many) then He is the Eternal God. If He is the Savior, then He is the Eternal Savior. THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLILITIES IN THE ETERNAL WORLD (that's where we are not.) I can live for ever -- that has nothing to do with the statement that I am eternal. One is true, the other is not. THE ONLY REASON ONE IS ETERNAL IS THAT ONE HAS NO BEGINNING. Many of us have no ending. NONE of us have "no beginning" -- just God Manifest. I am forever a Father. That's a fact. God, on the other hand, is "forever" only because He is Eternal. Everything about Him is Eternal if in fact there is no time in his world. Everything that is happening to us, is happening in the twink of an eye twich as far as God is concerned. There is no passage of time for Him. His dreams, His wishes, His thoughts, His plans, His propositions, are our reality. For God, they have ALREADY HAPPENED. Same difference. That is why He is the Eternal Father and Christ is the Eternal Son. Christ has always been our salvation --- there never was a time (for us) that He was not our righteousness. Why? Because the plans of God are facts they are written in stone, they will occur. (in a time run world, they WILL occur.) It has been played out for us IN TIME But the Godhead does not live in a time sphere. If you think that weird -- fine, but give up trying to tell me different. I know that my world IS NOTHING LIKE HIS WORLD. I know that I have no idea what I will be like in that next life except I will be like him (you will find this in I John somewhere). You want to take the definitions for Father, Son, Judge, King and whatever -- you want to impose the definitions of these things from your experience in our world, go ahead. But I know that He is more different than I can say -- therefore, the notions of Fatherhood and Sonship CANNOT be defined and understood from my experience. They HAVE to be different and they HAVE TO BE ETERNAL. In an Eternal realm, one without time, you cannot start AHYTHING -- YOU JUST ARE "God changes not," BECAUSE HE CANNOT CHANGE. "Father and Son" go directly to what he is, to his purpose, to his planing for us -- to his care and keeping of this time worn world. And He does it all as Father and Son to us, for us and with us. You have your scriptures and by God I have mine !! You want your God to be something other than an Eternal Father and Son --- awesome, but not for me. Call me stupid but don't call me late at night and tell me i am wrong about this. I Have Spoken J David Smithson Pastor, Bishop of Love and Idiot. Tea anyone ? ! :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
DAVEH: H...are you a THEM or an US, JD? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:10:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some >other kind of Trinity? And to be quite honest, I was not the first to separate some from the others. Not a bad thing -- there is a separation on TT. I personally resisted this for months -- a number of posts were written by me emphasizing our oneness as brethren. Events and posts of the recent past have made it clear that this is not the thinking of some. I have simply accepted this thinking. No more "Hey, were are one" posts from me. JD -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 6:53:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dang me !! Let's try Gentile Legalist. I really need to proof read more carefully. but I get excited, start typing, and BAM I have fathered another misspelling. John Without a mother??? Izzy A. I see your point, now. Thanks. "Father," even when applied to the heavenly Whoever, is just a play on words like the one I used above. Whoa, you got me. So who is that masked man and the one who sits at His right hand -- ops, maybe "right hand," and "sits" are simply manifestations of .. whoever those two or three or four or five persons/people/whatchamacallits. What if i called Him (or her or ?) the Eternal Whatchamacallits and we can plug in god, father, son, h.g., lord, savior, and the like -- you know, words that help define the Great Whatchmacallits (notice the plurality of being) but have nothing at all to do with his/her nature, essence, existence or purpose. Actually, I think I will stay with Almighty and Eternal Father it sounds so much more reasonable than Whatchamacallits. John the bishop of whatever
Re: [TruthTalk] The Image of God
In a message dated 1/3/2005 6:44:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I meant to tell you that I appreciated the time and work you put into that post Jonathan and I'm sorry I forgot to. Actually I did go over all those scriptures and gave it a lot of thought. [BTW Where does one find Ecclesiasticus?] I believe the viewpoint I have on the image of God right now - even though it is different from yours is supported by scripture. Actually humans are not the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God because He also addresses the angels and Satan our adversary. judyt Who has written this post and what have you done with the real Judy? When can we expect a ransom note -- or in my case, a handsome note? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 6:43:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John are you one of the ones who claimed we humans are merely minds with a body, (or body and soul only)? Guess again, miss judy. Moses knew God was the Father of spirits and so did Aaron [See Numbers 16:22; 27:16] and He is the God of the spirits of the Prophets [Rev 22:6] And where does any of this conflict with the sidebar in Heb 12:9 that God of the father of our spirits? Not written in stone, I know, but much more likely than the other understanding. None of it is absolute. John jt: It's absolute so far as God is concerned - The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy [Revelation 19:10]. You lost me. I have no idea what you and I are debating right now. Bring me up to date. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 6:02:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry So you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD ===What does I don't know mean to you? Well, in view of the fact that you followed up " I don't know" with a rather lengthly surmising, I would say that question was appropriate otherwise you would have simply said, I don't know and I wouldn't have asked the question. I mean, you surmised about this father thing, didn't you, suggesting more than one possibility, didn't you --- and, guess what, you left out the possiblility of the Eternal Father -- so you tell me. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 5:56:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't this an oxymoron since "eternal" means forever and it would be impossible for God to die? On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:09:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry So you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD So, another question you really can't deal with? Whose your mamma, by the way. Let's not forget that. Can't be a Father with one, you know. unless "Father" is not used in same sense Dad or Pop and , news flash --- it's not. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 5:16:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think there's a Scripture that says not to mix beer and tea...or maybe that's tradition! :) Kay You are correct, my dear. It is found in 2 Thought 10:4 next to the passage that allows for tomato juice mixer. I know it is there somewhere because of it's divine taste. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry So you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD === What does I don't know mean to you? I’d appreciate it if JD or Jonathan or Lance could please write in ONE CONCISE statement what they mean by “Eternal Fatherhood” or “Eternal Son” so we could at least decide if we agree once and for all. I still can’t fathom why they are all worked up about it. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:33 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Hi Izzy, The reason I have not replied to you was because of what you said at the end of your first request to me on why my belief in the ‘eternal sonship’ matters. I will quote the ending: How has it made you a better person? (I can’t imagine.) The sarcastic nature of the ‘I can’t imagine part’ is what kept me from replying. I was NOT being sarcastic, Jonathan. I was saying I cannot see how all this gnat-straining could affect your (or anyone’s) walk with the Lord. Why do you consider that to be sarcastic? You see there is no doctrine that makes us more godly. Your own beliefs have not made you mode godly. God Himself makes us more godly. A clearer understanding of doctrines can help us repent of our false beliefs and move closer to the God that works within us. Which would result in being more godly—it seems you have just contradicted yourself. Faith always seeks understanding. Having correct beliefs aids the relationship as it moves from falsehood to truth. Note beliefs do help people become more moralistic but I don’t think you want to go down that road again I said “more godly” not “more moralistic”. J There is a problem with email forums in that most people act like jerks (both of us included). Please speak for yourself. If we had a godly scale for TT none of us would be higher than a 3. Now if we had a godly scale for how we participate outside the forum our godly scale would be much higher. Not necessarily. We are either walking in the Spirit or the flesh. The fact that you think other act like “jerks” may indicate your attitude more than their actually being a jerk. (See your allegation of my “sarcasm” above”.) My post was entitled why the eternal sonship matters to me, not why it has made me a better person. If you read my post you would notice that I do not detach the sonship of Christ from His Person, or who God is inherently in His Being. Does having a proper view of the Trinity make me a better father, husband, and friend? I have no problem believing in the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout eternity, from everlasting to everlasting. I just don’t know why you are so gung ho about whatever your “Eternal Son” issues are. Whether Jesus had the same human physical body prior to His birth on earth is not something I worry about, let alone obsess about. Neither do I lie awake at night trying to figure out which came first the chicken or the egg, etc. To some I have no intellectual curiosity. I like to think that I am content in Him, and trust Him to continue to reveal Himself to me as He desires. I don’t strive. I bask. (Cats do that, you know. J ) I hope so but just like Moses was not aware that his face was shining after spending time on the mountain with God we are not aware of our own godliness aside from when others point it out to us. I have known many a godly person who held many differing views as you have, so how did they arrive w/o them? Perhaps God’s grace is working in your life irregardless of your “orthodox” Trinity views? I can tell you that my wife believes that what I hold to be true about God cements our relationship with each other and our son and allows me to live in grace much more than I used to. That’s a good testimony, coming from your wife. I acknowledge that God has a long way to go with me. Thankfully He is patient. Regarding the Roman Catholic church. There is a reason I use the words church catholic instead of catholic church. I didn’t notice that you put it that way. One is the universal body of believers. It is them that hold to the patristic views of our faith. However, in your attempts to disassociate yourself from the RCC, I would suggest that you have very few beliefs that are not shared by our Roman Catholic brethren. Grab your statement of faith from your church See www.ShieldsFamily.com and click on “Our Faith” for our church’s (and family’s) statement of faith. and compare it to the latest catechism of the RCC. You will be surprised at how close they are on the integral beliefs. I think not. I’ve read enough of their catechism to think not. (Such as Mary is the “Mediatrix” between God and man???) Jonathan are you RCC? Or Episcopalian? (Forgive me if you have already told us this.) Orthodoxy is defined by the ancient creeds. The basic ones are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed although there are many others. It is to these creeds that the church catholic has constantly appealed to as orthodoxy. David is correct in asserting that there was much conflict in the creation of these creeds. Conflict follows any who attempt to identify with the God of scripture. In my belief system i
Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth
Hi Jonathan: God also says in His Law "thou shalt not kill" without reference to God's image. God is a Spirit with a nature and character unlike ours. When Cain slew Abel God said that Abel's blood cried to him from the ground and we know that the life of the flesh is in the blood. I don't understand it all as I would like to but there is a whole lot more to it than we see on the surface. This is not gnosticism or any other ism but there is definitely a spiritual aspect that you are either ignoring or negating here. judyt Hi Judy, Yes the word made is past tense but it is applied to a current situation for why one should not shed another persons blood. The author uses it to explain why murder is not right. There is no logical reason for the author to refer to the image of God if it was no longer present. This is a clear inference that the image of God continued in humanity after the Fall. And of course, how could it not? What God gives to us is not for us to let go of. Jonathan jt: Not sure what the point you are wanting to make is John.. but I'd like to remind you that the adverb here is past tense and a lot of water has gone under the bridge leading up to Genesis 9:6. from Genesis 1:26 when God made A&E in His image and after His likeness. Remember also that God is a Spirit [John 4:24] and this is why we need to be Born of the Spirit before we are able to enter the Kingdom of God. By Genesis 6 following Adam's fall things had really deteriorated and God's patience had worn thin by Genesis 6:3 where he states "My Spirit shall not always strive with man for that he also is flesh, yet his days shall be 120yrs." (Genesis 6:3) - Does this sound like "God's image in man?" On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:41:47 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Genesis 9:6(6) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. A great scripture to the point I am trying to make. John ---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:00 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:21:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Bentile Legalist? What's that mean? Bent people? Kay :) Dang me !! Let's try Gentile Legalist. I really need to proof read more carefully. but I get excited, start typing, and BAM I have fathered another misspelling. John Without a mother??? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Image of God
I meant to tell you that I appreciated the time and work you put into that post Jonathan and I'm sorry I forgot to. Actually I did go over all those scriptures and gave it a lot of thought. [BTW Where does one find Ecclesiasticus?] I believe the viewpoint I have on the image of God right now - even though it is different from yours is supported by scripture. Actually humans are not the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God because He also addresses the angels and Satan our adversary. judyt On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:38:54 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Judy. I admit to being disappointed that you appear to not have wrestled with my post. I put a lot of work into that post to help you move from a non-biblical viewpoint to one supported by scripture. Ah well, two points to me for trying! You are correct in that I do not think that ALL the image of God consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. If I was to give a definition of what it means to be human it would include the image of God in it along with a sentence about being in relation as well as a point made that humans are the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylorjt: Jonathan, Please tell me you don't think that all the "image of God" consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. Is this remaking God in our own image - or is it humanism? David Miller would probably be more qualified to discern. judyt The basis for this is the loss of the imago Dei as a positive orientation of life toward God through the Fall, and the renewal of the imago Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and thus the original imago. He is the image of the invisible God, says Paul, the firstborn of all creation Col. 1:15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature..." When we talk about the image of God we are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as human, that separates us from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown away, even through sin. It is who we are. To remove the image of God from us is to remove our humanness which, of course, is impossible. I believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT) are sufficient evidence for us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a result of the Fall. I hope you will concur. Jonathan
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:44:55 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And where in Heb 12:9 does it speak of angels? The side bar for this verse is "our spirits." jt: John are you one of the ones who claimed we humans are merely minds with a body, (or body and soul only)? Moses knew God was the Father of spirits and so did Aaron [See Numbers 16:22; 27:16] and He is the God of the spirits of the Prophets [Rev 22:6] Not written in stone, I know, but much more likely than the other understanding. None of it is absolute. John jt: It's absolute so far as God is concerned - The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy [Revelation 19:10]. In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:33:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy gave us the passage: Heb. 12:9.The case is much more than surmise and conjecture. It is an absolute proof given the accepted premises. If we define the word "father" to mean someone who is the originator of something, and we call Yahweh the father because he is the originator of all things, then Yahweh becomes the father at the point in time when he begins to originate (create).
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:21:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Bentile Legalist? What's that mean? Bent people? Kay :) Dang me !! Let's try Gentile Legalist. I really need to proof read more carefully. but I get excited, start typing, and BAM I have fathered another misspelling. John == We bin meenin' to talk to you about that.
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry So you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD === What does I don't know mean to you?
RE: [TruthTalk] The Image of God
Hi Judy. I admit to being disappointed that you appear to not have wrestled with my post. I put a lot of work into that post to help you move from a non-biblical viewpoint to one supported by scripture. Ah well, two points to me for trying! You are correct in that I do not think that ALL the image of God consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. If I was to give a definition of what it means to be human it would include the image of God in it along with a sentence about being in relation as well as a point made that humans are the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The Image of God jt: Jonathan, Please tell me you don't think that all the "image of God" consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. Is this remaking God in our own image - or is it humanism? David Miller would probably be more qualified to discern. judyt The basis for this is the ‘loss’ of the imago Dei as a positive orientation of life toward God through the Fall, and the renewal of the imago Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and thus the original imago. “He is the image of the invisible God,” says Paul, “the firstborn of all creation…” Col. 1:15. ”Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature..." When we talk about the image of God we are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as human, that separates us from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown away, even through sin. It is who we are. To remove the image of God from us is to remove our humanness which, of course, is impossible. I believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT) are sufficient evidence for us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a result of the Fall. I hope you will concur. Jonathan --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
Thanks, Judy. Hmmm...just did a little research and found both of them were Catholics. Small wonder. The dude who also came up with the pre-trib rapture theory was also a Catholic a Jesuit priest who claimed to be a Jew.) I can't remember his name. Very interesting indeed. Again, thanks, Judy. Made me more solid in my beliefs. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 20.21To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:God is one, Scripture says so. God has many different aspects or manifestations I still haven't found any reference to trinity in Scripture. What I truly think is that some dude tried to make God more understandable to our very limited minds and taught us about the three in one. Makes sense to me to make a midrash out of something hard to understand. I'd like to know when the trinity concept actually came into being with Christians. I know Judaism has an aspect of it somewhere way back in time Kay Tertullian was the one who came up with the Trinity and Athanasius later came up with the "eternal Son of God concept" Neither are in either Old or New Testaments and neither were taught by the Apostles. I think you've hit the nail on the head so to speak Kay because God did not instruct an elite group to tell us what the scriptures mean. We are individually responsible to study to show ourselves approved unto God as a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Makes sense to me also... judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hi Izzy, The reason I have not replied to you was because of what you said at the end of your first request to me on why my belief in the ‘eternal sonship’ matters. I will quote the ending: How has it made you a better person? (I can’t imagine.) The sarcastic nature of the ‘I can’t imagine part’ is what kept me from replying. You see there is no doctrine that makes us more godly. Your own beliefs have not made you mode godly. God Himself makes us more godly. A clearer understanding of doctrines can help us repent of our false beliefs and move closer to the God that works within us. Faith always seeks understanding. Having correct beliefs aids the relationship as it moves from falsehood to truth. Note beliefs do help people become more moralistic but I don’t think you want to go down that road again J There is a problem with email forums in that most people act like jerks (both of us included). If we had a godly scale for TT none of us would be higher than a 3. Now if we had a godly scale for how we participate outside the forum our godly scale would be much higher. My post was entitled why the eternal sonship matters to me, not why it has made me a better person. If you read my post you would notice that I do not detach the sonship of Christ from His Person, or who God is inherently in His Being. Does having a proper view of the Trinity make me a better father, husband, and friend? I hope so but just like Moses was not aware that his face was shining after spending time on the mountain with God we are not aware of our own godliness aside from when others point it out to us. I can tell you that my wife believes that what I hold to be true about God cements our relationship with each other and our son and allows me to live in grace much more than I used to. I acknowledge that God has a long way to go with me. Thankfully He is patient. Regarding the Roman Catholic church. There is a reason I use the words church catholic instead of catholic church. One is the universal body of believers. It is them that hold to the patristic views of our faith. However, in your attempts to disassociate yourself from the RCC, I would suggest that you have very few beliefs that are not shared by our Roman Catholic brethren. Grab your statement of faith from your church and compare it to the latest catechism of the RCC. You will be surprised at how close they are on the integral beliefs. Orthodoxy is defined by the ancient creeds. The basic ones are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed although there are many others. It is to these creeds that the church catholic has constantly appealed to as orthodoxy. David is correct in asserting that there was much conflict in the creation of these creeds. Conflict follows any who attempt to identify with the God of scripture. Jonathan Jonathan, You continue to ignore my repeated requests to know how/why your belief in the "eternal sonship" matters one whit in living a godly life. Please explain if you are able so that I do not have to conclude that you have logical answer or that you are being evasive, as I have had to do with others on TT.) If you never noticed, Protestants left the RCC a very long time ago. We don't rely on the RCC for our beliefs, as the RCC has a very wicked and non-biblical history in our opinion. Therefore it is NOT the definer of “orthodox”. This is perhaps one reason why we value God's word enough to believe what it says, just as it says it. We have not been taught to allow someone else to (mis)interpret it for us. Please explain the essential doctrines which you believe that we hold in error. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:God is one, Scripture says so. God has many different aspects or manifestations I still haven't found any reference to trinity in Scripture. What I truly think is that some dude tried to make God more understandable to our very limited minds and taught us about the three in one. Makes sense to me to make a midrash out of something hard to understand. I'd like to know when the trinity concept actually came into being with Christians. I know Judaism has an aspect of it somewhere way back in time Kay Tertullian was the one who came up with the Trinity and Athanasius later came up with the "eternal Son of God concept" Neither are in either Old or New Testaments and neither were taught by the Apostles. I think you've hit the nail on the head so to speak Kay because God did not instruct an elite group to tell us what the scriptures mean. We are individually responsible to study to show ourselves approved unto God as a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Makes sense to me also... judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Isn't this an oxymoron since "eternal" means forever and it would be impossible for God to die? On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:09:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary.TerrySo you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD
[TruthTalk] The Image of God
jt: Jonathan, Please tell me you don't think that all the "image of God" consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. Is this remaking God in our own image - or is it humanism? David Miller would probably be more qualified to discern. judyt The basis for this is the loss of the imago Dei as a positive orientation of life toward God through the Fall, and the renewal of the imago Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and thus the original imago. He is the image of the invisible God, says Paul, the firstborn of all creation Col. 1:15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature..." When we talk about the image of God we are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as human, that separates us from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown away, even through sin. It is who we are. To remove the image of God from us is to remove our humanness which, of course, is impossible. I believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT) are sufficient evidence for us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a result of the Fall. I hope you will concur. Jonathan
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
I think there's a Scripture that says not to mix beer and tea...or maybe that's tradition! :) Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 20.08To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic MovementActually, I agree and have made this very point in the past. But here, I'm trying to make a very different point so I went with an unchallenged error, presenting an illustrative parallel, setting up a of contrast of paradigms and forcing the reader to agree with what can only be called absolute proof. Tea anyone?John Boy
Re: [TruthTalk] Humankind in the Image of God
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:44:58 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Judy, judyt: Hi Jonathan, You write: I would like to think that this email will solve the image of God for all of humankind discussion once and for all. I am being naïve if I think this. I would ask that you search the scriptures and allow some credence for my argument below. I used to think that having orthodoxy on my side would be a boon but with you it doesnt seem to matter much at all. What follows is taken from On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology by Ray Anderson (pg. 215-216). Andersons book is a discussion of what it means to be human. The image of God (imago Dei) is an important concept to understand when attempting to define what it means to be human. The doctrine of the imago Dei is explicitly stated in the Old Testament in three texts: Genesis 1:26f, And God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion. Genesis 5:1, This is the book of the generations of Adam In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him Genesis 9:6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed "for in the image of God made he man"m.To these texts, we might add references in the apocrypha: Wisdom ii.23 "For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him " Ecclesiasticus xvii.3. I don't have a Bible with Ecclesiasticus in it. judyt: So how do the above scriptures change anything Jonathan? The likeness and image of God have to be spiritual since God is a Spirit. I would note that Wisdom 2:23 says that man was formed to be imperishable and it was the image of God's nature he was made in; the image of God's nature must be spiritual also and the following verse goes on to say "But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world and they who are in his possession experience it." [since everyone born into this fallen world experiences death - selah] The fall is outlined in the Apocrypha also. In all of these passages, a special quality of life is attributed to the human creature as against the nonhuman, described either as being created in the image of God (tselem) or after the likeness of God (demuth) or both, as in Genesis 1:26. judyt: the "image and likeness" must of necessity be spiritual because God is a Spirit. The imago is also mentioned in the New Testament in a similar sense in two passages: 1 Corinthians 11:7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man" ***This NT scripture conflicts with Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day they were created... which means you are using it out of balance and context, this has to do with social custom in Corinth because both men and women are created in God's image. James 3:9. "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God" - The man representing the human person, whether believe or not, is a bearer of the image and glory of God (I Cor. 11:7) and for that reason should never be cursed. judyt: God has already cursed both the man and the woman along with the serpent [see Genesis 3:14-19] - I understand, James to be referring to the tongue and we can't be cursing people and walking after the Spirit in love toward them at the same time can we? Paul, in his message to the Athenians, even summons the Gentiles as witnesses to this relation with God which characterizes all human beings in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). judyt: Paul is being all things to all people in Acts 17:28 - quoting one of their own poets. True His blessings rain on both the just and the unjust - for a season. He gives us all a measure of time to get it together. In Acts 17 the apostle is not teaching that these superstitious Athenians at Mars Hill are bearers of God's image. In addition to these explicit references to the human person created in the image of God, there are other important New Testament references which add significantly to the concept of the imago. Among them are the following: Romans 8:29, "whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn..." 2 Corinthians 3:18, "but we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image... Ephesians 4:24, "and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness..." Colossians 3:10. "and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" In an even more general sense, one might say that Christ reflects this imago in his own divine sonship, which becomes the basis for becoming
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:49:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll join ya for a Guinness, John! Jeff Amstill Light and tomato juice is good for me. A toast !!! John
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
I thought you were purposely being funny... K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 20.00To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic MovementIn a message dated 1/3/2005 4:21:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Bentile Legalist? What's that mean? Bent people? Kay :)Dang me !! Let's try Gentile Legalist. I really need to proof read more carefully. but I get excited, start typing, and BAM I have fathered another misspelling. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Deceiving and Being Deceived was Judy's Plagiarism
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:40:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glad that I misunderstood you John. The way you worded your post, I got the idea that you felt it was okay for a Christian to marry a lost person as long as they were not unequal. Terry Well, they are noing to hell -- but no, I do not think that kind of marriage is good thing. We are saying the same thing. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry So you don't believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:35:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God is one, Scripture says so. God has many different aspects or manifestations I still haven't found any reference to trinity in Scripture. What I truly think is that some dude tried to make God more understandable to our very limited minds and taught us about the three in one. Makes sense to me to make a midrash out of something hard to understand. I'd like to know when the trinity concept actually came into being with Christians. I know Judaism has an aspect of it somewhere way back in time Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 18.22 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement In a message dated 1/3/2005 1:26:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Denouncing trinity? I didn't know there was such a Biblical term in the first place. I think David has a problem here. If you are not denying God in Trinity by refusing to consider Christ as the Eternal Son, how can we say that Messianics deny God the Reality by asserting the oneness of God? John Actually, I agree and have made this very point in the past. But here, I'm trying to make a very different point so I went with an unchallenged error, presenting an illustrative parallel, setting up a of contrast of paradigms and forcing the reader to agree with what can only be called absolute proof. Tea anyone? John Boy
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:21:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Bentile Legalist? What's that mean? Bent people? Kay :) Dang me !! Let's try Gentile Legalist. I really need to proof read more carefully. but I get excited, start typing, and BAM I have fathered another misspelling. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:20:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think I'll join you, if you don't mind consorting with a dangerous oneHehehehehe... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 18.31 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: None of the ideas in that post appear ill founded to me, but I realize that such may not be the case with those that do not have the background of knowledge that I have. I'm going to go have a beer. JD :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:59:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, can you give us the definition of "father"? Why is Yahweh called "father"? Why does Jesus teach us to address him as, "our heavenly father"? A father is one who births an offspring in relationship with a mother. You would think the Trinity would be The Father, The Mother and The Son Because of His relationship with His Son. Because of our relationship with His Son. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
I'll join ya for a Guinness, John! Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 18:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: None of the ideas in that post appear ill founded to me, but I realize that such may not be the case with those that do not have the background of knowledge that I have.I'm going to go have a beer.JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Jonathan Hughes wrote: The term Father as applied to God that we are referring to is the classical definition of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit. This is not the Father you are referring to. I believe you are thinking that God must have created offspring to be a Father. Jesus Christ and the Spirit were not created; they are eternally begotten. That Father is eternally the Father of the Son. No one is arguing that creation always existed. That is another heresy that Athanasius put dealt with. Once again, when we speak of the Triune God we are speaking of one God who has revealed Himself in three Persons. He is who He is eternally. The fatherhood you are referencing below has nothing to do with who God is; rather, you are talking about a role. God is who He is before the creation of the cosmos. I am continually astounded that those who have been termed 'liberals' on this forum are the only ones who hold to orthodox Christianity, that which the church catholic has decreed for millennia. The more we discuss the more we see how the 'non-liberals' spurn the faith of apostles. From a doctrinal standpoint you guys are really out there. Jonathan === You were doing well there for a short time Jonathan. Try not to lose it. 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] Deceiving and Being Deceived was Judy's Plagiarism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you might have missed it John . A saved person yoked to a lost person is an unequal coupling. They cannot be a team. That is what the Bible is telling us. Saved and lost do not pull together. They pull in different directions, no matter how compatable they may seem.. One has an eye on the world. The other has an eye on Christ. Hope that makes sense to you. Terry For what partnership has light with darkness? (None.) Izzy Guys - I couln't agree more. Hopefully you are not seeing something different in what I am writing. If so, point it out, and I will figure out some way of saying it different. John == Glad that I misunderstood you John. The way you worded your post, I got the idea that you felt it was okay for a Christian to marry a lost person as long as they were not unequal. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/3/2005 7:25:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You feel some compulsion to think that way Jonathan. I do not. The Godhead is three persons. The second person has always been God just as certainly as the first and third person, but there was no reason to refer to Him as the Son until He was born of a virgin some two thousand plus years ago. One who is eternal with no beginning could hardy be a son until that part of the plan (being born of a woman) was put into effect. Terry Does this reasoning work for the Father? I honestly do not know. I suppose that you could say He became a father when He created angels, and there is some justification for that in scripture. You could also say He became a father when He created Adam and Eve. The only certainty I see is that He became the Father of Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
God is one, Scripture says so. God has many different aspects or manifestations I still haven't found any reference to trinity in Scripture. What I truly think is that some dude tried to make God more understandable to our very limited minds and taught us about the three in one. Makes sense to me to make a midrash out of something hard to understand. I'd like to know when the trinity concept actually came into being with Christians. I know Judaism has an aspect of it somewhere way back in time Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 18.22To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic MovementIn a message dated 1/3/2005 1:26:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Denouncing trinity? I didn't know there was such a Biblical term in thefirst place.I think David has a problem here. If you are not denying God in Trinity by refusing to consider Christ as the Eternal Son, how can we say that Messianics deny God the Reality by asserting the oneness of God? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
The Bentile Legalist? What's that mean? Bent people? Kay :) -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 18.18To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic MovementIn a message dated 1/3/2005 12:37:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The dangerous aspects are those within the movement who emphasize shadows over reality. For example, those who think that keeping Torah commandmentsthat deal with shadows is the only way to be pleasing to God. the Gentile brethren often stress commandment keeping as the avenue to righteousness and salvation -- a very popular opinion This would include the practice of killing a lamb in addition to faith in Yeshua, of observing the moedim in addition to remembering that to which they point, of sabbath observance in addition to entering the kingdom of God, of circumcision of the flesh in addition to circumcision of the heart, etc. Also, those who insist upon using Hebrew names, of denouncing the Trinity, etc. the Gentile church will often press modern day lingo as well -- sinners prayer, Trinity, Spirit baptism with evidence of speaking in tongues, rapture, accepting Christ as your personal Savior, and the like. Generally, the Judaizing elements are causes of concern. As is their counterparts - The Bentile Legalist. The letter kills but the spirit gives lifeI am not challenging David, here, but it is interesting that nearly exact parallels can be seen in the Gentile Church. Note the bold print wording above.JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
I think I'll join you, if you don't mind consorting with a dangerous oneHehehehehe... Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 18.31To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scriptureIn a message dated 1/3/2005 3:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: None of the ideas in that post appear ill founded to me, but I realize that such may not be the case with those that do not have the background of knowledge that I have.I'm going to go have a beer.JD
[TruthTalk] Doctrine of Creation
Hi David, When I was younger there were a few arguments that one used to determine where one stood on the evangelical spectrum. Ten to fifteen years ago it was evolution versus creation, the end-times, and the use of the 'sign' gifts. Nowadays the litmus tests seem to be either abortion or your favourite: homosexuality. (Since the Bible rarely refers to homosexuality [less than 10 references and none by Jesus] I have always wondered why you seem to mention homosexuality in almost every other post of yours? I have even wondered if you yourself struggle with homosexual tendencies. The saying is, "You doth protest too much.") I used to be a literal 6 day young earth creationist. I read a lot on it. When I was at Bible school Ken Ham showed up for some talks. It was all very fascinating and certain. It wasn't until I got a bit older and began to follow up on some of 6 day young earth creationist's claims that I began to realize how much 'bad' science was involved. I then switched camps to the intelligent design camp. I am not sure where you would place me now. I will give a few comments on what I think is important when discussing creation. Some of my thoughts here are from Colin Gunton's 'The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Theology' (pg 3-10). I believe that the book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted theologically and not scientifically. I believe that very important theological concepts are set up in Genesis (God's sovereignty, rejections of deism, pantheism, panentheism, relations including marriage and the list goes on and on. I am sure you would agree with me that Genesis is a very rich book). I believe that it illustrates that a transcendent 'wholly other' God created a contingent cosmos. I believe that God was active in creating the cosmos while allowing the cosmos to contribute to the process. For example, look at Genesis 1:24 and 25. Verse 24 is God saying 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures. Juxtapose this with verse 25 which states that 'God made the beasts...'. Here we see that God, being sovereign, calls creation into being but at the same time allows for the earth to be part of the process. This is the beginning of a contingent world: one which finds its ground in God and is dependent upon Him. This is also the beginning of science: that which allows us to study and understand the basic structures and components of creation. And of course it is also the beginning of theological science: God giving us the tools and furniture to begin to turn our minds (repentance) towards Himself. Thankfully, God is patient in this regard. In the use of 7 days I believe that the author was illustrating God's patience in this cooperation between Him and the cosmos. I believe this patience continues to this day. Karl Barth writes, "God's patience [is] his will ... to allow one another ... space and time for the development of its own existence, thus conceding to its existence a reality side by side with His own " Much more could be said about Genesis 1-3. I am very conscious of a need to develop a doctrine of creation that is aligned with who God has revealed Himself to be. I note that my thought as it presently stands is deficient in this aspect (and yes, in many others too!). What needs to be worked out for me is the inclusion of the Spirit and Son in creation. There are many other scriptures that speak of creation that I need to be looking at. Until then I hope these basic thoughts suffice. Jonathan Jonathan wrote: > For the record there is nothing in Lance's post > that even comes close to suggesting evolutionary > theory. It was just a little reading between the lines, and Lance has acknowledged now that he is an evolutionist, I guess. He wasn't real clear about it, but I think it is perhaps safe to assume that he is. What about you, Jonathan? Do you believe in the Genesis creation account or are you an evolutionist? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:17 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me The term Father as applied to God that we are referring to is the classical definition of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit. This is not the Father you are referring to. I believe you are thinking that God must have created offspring to be a Father. Jesus Christ and the Spirit were not created; they are eternally begotten. That Father is eternally the Father of the Son. No one is arguing that creation always existed. That is another heresy that Athanasius put dealt with. Once again, when we speak of the Triune God we are speaking of one God who has revealed Himself in three Persons. He is who He is eternally. The fatherhood you are referencing below has nothing to do with who God is; rather, you are talking about a role. God is who He is before the creation of the cosmos. I am continually astounded that those who have been termed 'liberals' on this forum are the only ones who hold to orthodox Christianity, that which the church catholic has decreed for millennia. The more we discuss the more we see how the 'non-liberals' spurn the faith of apostles. >From a doctrinal standpoint you guys are really out there. Jonathan Jonathan, You continue to ignore my repeated requests to know how/why your belief in the "eternal sonship" matters one whit in living a godly life. Please explain if you are able so that I do not have to conclude that you have logical answer or that you are being evasive, as I have had to do with others on TT.) If you never noticed, Protestants left the RCC a very long time ago. We don't rely on the RCC for our beliefs, as the RCC has a very wicked and non-biblical history in our opinion. Therefore it is NOT the definer of “orthodox”. This is perhaps one reason why we value God's word enough to believe what it says, just as it says it. We have not been taught to allow someone else to (mis)interpret it for us. Please explain the essential doctrines which you believe that we hold in error. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
John, can you give us the definition of "father"? Why is Yahweh called "father"? Why does Jesus teach us to address him as, "our heavenly father"? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Jonathan wrote: > I am continually astounded that those who have > been termed 'liberals' on this forum are the only > ones who hold to orthodox Christianity, that which > the church catholic has decreed for millennia. > The more we discuss the more we see how the > 'non-liberals' spurn the faith of apostles. Faith of the apostles? Reconsider your history a little, please. Your doctrine of the Godhead is not the doctrine of the apostles. You are arguing from fourth century wrangles of men. Even when the Nicean creed was first adopted, the churches did not follow it. Athanasius was exiled again and again and again because of his extreme view of the Godhead. Following the council of Nicea, the church was primarily Arian for the rest of Athanasius's life with only a few years of reprieve for him here and there. The part of the creed that you want to emphasize did not even exist in it until a decade after Athanasius had died. The doctrine I hold is the doctrine of the apostles of Christ. I challenge you to find any apostle anywhere that contradicts my teaching on anything. The doctrine of the apostles does not focus upon the nature of the Godhead. That is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The doctrine of the apostles is that which declares who Jesus is, the Messiah, and its emphasis is on men turning away from sin to believe upon Christ and keep his commandments. No apostle ever uttered: "believe in the eternal Father and eternal Sonship doctrine or be damned." Let me reiterate again. I have not taken a position on the eternal sonship doctrine one way or the other. I'm exploring the viewpoint. I believe that there is liberty to ask questions about the nature of the Godhead and to seek to understand it through discussion. You seem to want to resort to declarations of dogma and hit anyone who does not conform with cries of "foul... unorthodox... departing from the faith of the apostles... etc." Would you consider allowing us to think and discuss instead of insisting that we conform to questionable fourth century dogma? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:33:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy gave us the passage: Heb. 12:9. The case is much more than surmise and conjecture. It is an absolute proof given the accepted premises. If we define the word "father" to mean someone who is the originator of something, and we call Yahweh the father because he is the originator of all things, then Yahweh becomes the father at the point in time when he begins to originate (create). Yeah, sure -- given your premises, EVERTHING you claim to be true is true !!! Works for me, too. Paleeese. "Proof" you say. Do you remember a recent tisk we had, you and I, about my use of the word "proof" and your correction/preference for the word evidence. But, of course, you cannot use "evidence" above because there is no such thing as "there, I am right !!" in the words "absolute evidence." And where in Heb 12:9 does it speak of angels? The side bar for this verse is "our spirits." Not written in stone, I know, but much more likely than the other understanding. None of it is absolute. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
John Smithson wrote: > What was your scripture on this conclusion Judy gave us the passage: Heb. 12:9. The case is much more than surmise and conjecture. It is an absolute proof given the accepted premises. If we define the word "father" to mean someone who is the originator of something, and we call Yahweh the father because he is the originator of all things, then Yahweh becomes the father at the point in time when he begins to originate (create). Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: None of the ideas in that post appear ill founded to me, but I realize that such may not be the case with those that do not have the background of knowledge that I have. I'm going to go have a beer. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 3:04:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The term "father" denotes a function of being a parent over offspring. Are you going to try to argue that the creation always existed? If the creation did not always exist, then there was some point in time when the term "father" applied to Yahweh. If there was a point in time when the term first applied, then there was a point in time when the term did not apply. Therefore, Yahweh became a father at some point in time. Why do you have a problem with this word "became"? Who's your Mamma? The FACT that there is no "Mamma" is evidence that "Father " is a term not used in the way very spiritual and honored Triad of David, Judy and Izzy along with poor old Terry Clifton want to use and define that word. Perhaps the reverent revelations of the Liberal Triad (B,L & J) along with poor old John Smithson might be more to the point. Can't be a father without a son ??? Yeah. Can't be a father without a mamma? Oh, you betcha !!! John
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 1:26:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Denouncing trinity? I didn't know there was such a Biblical term in the first place. I think David has a problem here. If you are not denying God in Trinity by refusing to consider Christ as the Eternal Son, how can we say that Messianics deny God the Reality by asserting the oneness of God? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/3/2005 12:37:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The dangerous aspects are those within the movement who emphasize shadows over reality. For example, those who think that keeping Torah commandments that deal with shadows is the only way to be pleasing to God. the Gentile brethren often stress commandment keeping as the avenue to righteousness and salvation -- a very popular opinion This would include the practice of killing a lamb in addition to faith in Yeshua, of observing the moedim in addition to remembering that to which they point, of sabbath observance in addition to entering the kingdom of God, of circumcision of the flesh in addition to circumcision of the heart, etc. Also, those who insist upon using Hebrew names, of denouncing the Trinity, etc. the Gentile church will often press modern day lingo as well -- sinners prayer, Trinity, Spirit baptism with evidence of speaking in tongues, rapture, accepting Christ as your personal Savior, and the like. Generally, the Judaizing elements are causes of concern. As is their counterparts - The Bentile Legalist. The letter kills but the spirit gives life I am not challenging David, here, but it is interesting that nearly exact parallels can be seen in the Gentile Church. Note the bold print wording above. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
The term Father as applied to God that we are referring to is the classical definition of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit. This is not the Father you are referring to. I believe you are thinking that God must have created offspring to be a Father. Jesus Christ and the Spirit were not created; they are eternally begotten. That Father is eternally the Father of the Son. No one is arguing that creation always existed. That is another heresy that Athanasius put dealt with. Once again, when we speak of the Triune God we are speaking of one God who has revealed Himself in three Persons. He is who He is eternally. The fatherhood you are referencing below has nothing to do with who God is; rather, you are talking about a role. God is who He is before the creation of the cosmos. I am continually astounded that those who have been termed 'liberals' on this forum are the only ones who hold to orthodox Christianity, that which the church catholic has decreed for millennia. The more we discuss the more we see how the 'non-liberals' spurn the faith of apostles. From a doctrinal standpoint you guys are really out there. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me David Miller wrote: >> The father became the father when Elohim >> first created life, such as an angel. Lance wrote: > There's that 'became' again. The term "father" denotes a function of being a parent over offspring. Are you going to try to argue that the creation always existed? If the creation did not always exist, then there was some point in time when the term "father" applied to Yahweh. If there was a point in time when the term first applied, then there was a point in time when the term did not apply. Therefore, Yahweh became a father at some point in time. Why do you have a problem with this word "became"? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Believing scripture
Lance wrote: > The ill-founded ones, of course. None of the ideas in that post appear ill founded to me, but I realize that such may not be the case with those that do not have the background of knowledge that I have. To a mathematician, I would not need to establish that y = mx +b, but to someone who does not have a background in geometry, that declaration might appear to be ill founded. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 12:21:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We already talked about this. This question falsely assumes that the father is the father of only Jesus the Son. Only in this circumstance would you be led to conclude that without the Son Jesus, there would be no father. Because the father is father not just to the Son Jesus, this question has no relevance. The father became the father when Elohim first created life, such as an angel. And when was this? I wasn't asking to see if you could come up with an answer, David. What was your scripture on this conclusion You will pardon me for referring to previously covered material. There are times when I do not follow a particular thread closely. Sometimes, I only follow the response of one of my favorite posters. I am through with the thread on this subject with Judy. My conclusion? Surmise and conjecture is all she really has on this subject -- not that surmise and conjecture are wrong, mind you. Just was curious for your take. Your answer above is no different from Judy's approach, evidentially. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
David Miller wrote: >> The father became the father when Elohim >> first created life, such as an angel. Lance wrote: > There's that 'became' again. The term "father" denotes a function of being a parent over offspring. Are you going to try to argue that the creation always existed? If the creation did not always exist, then there was some point in time when the term "father" applied to Yahweh. If there was a point in time when the term first applied, then there was a point in time when the term did not apply. Therefore, Yahweh became a father at some point in time. Why do you have a problem with this word "became"? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:48:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think this too is an overstatement. A lot of statistical noise does not mean that "nobody really knows." If you have one thousand people saying one thousand different things, that does not mean that they are all wrong. One of them might be right. One of them might really know. And who will know this but that one person? Certainly not the others. K still has a good point. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Deceiving and Being Deceived was Judy's Plagiarism
In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you might have missed it John . A saved person yoked to a lost person is an unequal coupling. They cannot be a team. That is what the Bible is telling us. Saved and lost do not pull together. They pull in different directions, no matter how compatable they may seem.. One has an eye on the world. The other has an eye on Christ. Hope that makes sense to you. Terry For what partnership has light with darkness? (None.) Izzy Guys - I couln't agree more. Hopefully you are not seeing something different in what I am writing. If so, point it out, and I will figure out some way of saying it different. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
In a message dated 1/3/2005 8:10:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some >other kind of Trinity? And to be quite honest, I was not the first to separate some from the others. Not a bad thing -- there is a separation on TT. I personally resisted this for months -- a number of posts were written by me emphasizing our oneness as brethren. Events and posts of the recent past have made it clear that this is not the thinking of some. I have simply accepted this thinking. No more "Hey, were are one" posts from me. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/3/2005 7:25:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You feel some compulsion to think that way Jonathan. I do not. The Godhead is three persons. The second person has always been God just as certainly as the first and third person, but there was no reason to refer to Him as the Son until He was born of a virgin some two thousand plus years ago. One who is eternal with no beginning could hardy be a son until that part of the plan (being born of a woman) was put into effect. Terry Does this reasoning work for the Father?
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
There's that 'became' again. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 15:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me > John Smithson wrote: > > when did The Father become the Father > > We already talked about this. This question falsely assumes that the father > is the father of only Jesus the Son. Only in this circumstance would you be > led to conclude that without the Son Jesus, there would be no father. > Because the father is father not just to the Son Jesus, this question has no > relevance. The father became the father when Elohim first created life, > such as an angel. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "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] Believing scripture
The ill-founded ones, of course. No time so, just a declaration (perhaps itself ill-founded?) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 15:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > Lance wrote: > > You 'string together' several ill-founded > > ideas in this post. > > Which ideas are you having trouble understanding? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > -- > "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] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
I don't know of anyone who emphasizes the shadows over reality. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean. Killing a lamb as in sacrificing a lamb?? I know of no Messianic Believer who does this. Observing the moadim...please elaborate. Observance of the Holy days are commanded, Sabbath observance is a command, as well as circumcision. Those who insist on using Hebrew names are called Sacred Name people. (We are not) Denouncing trinity? I didn't know there was such a Biblical term in the first place. The Spirit gives life, true. Outward actions of a Believer will show by obeying the commands of God, to please Him, honor Him, and obey Him. There are blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience. I choose to receive the blessing rather than the curse. It does please God, He says so when He says...Be holy, because I'm Holy...this is how you be holy. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 15.35 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement Kay wrote: > I'm also waiting for your answer as to what > aspects of the Messianic Movement you feel > may be dangerous are, David. The dangerous aspects are those within the movement who emphasize shadows over reality. For example, those who think that keeping Torah commandments that deal with shadows is the only way to be pleasing to God. This would include the practice of killing a lamb in addition to faith in Yeshua, of observing the moedim in addition to remembering that to which they point, of sabbath observance in addition to entering the kingdom of God, of circumcision of the flesh in addition to circumcision of the heart, etc. Also, those who insist upon using Hebrew names, of denouncing the Trinity, etc. Generally, the Judaizing elements are causes of concern. The letter kills but the spirit gives life. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Believing scripture
Lance wrote: > You 'string together' several ill-founded > ideas in this post. Which ideas are you having trouble understanding? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
Kay wrote: > I'm also waiting for your answer as to what > aspects of the Messianic Movement you feel > may be dangerous are, David. The dangerous aspects are those within the movement who emphasize shadows over reality. For example, those who think that keeping Torah commandments that deal with shadows is the only way to be pleasing to God. This would include the practice of killing a lamb in addition to faith in Yeshua, of observing the moedim in addition to remembering that to which they point, of sabbath observance in addition to entering the kingdom of God, of circumcision of the flesh in addition to circumcision of the heart, etc. Also, those who insist upon using Hebrew names, of denouncing the Trinity, etc. Generally, the Judaizing elements are causes of concern. The letter kills but the spirit gives life. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
John Smithson wrote: > when did The Father become the Father We already talked about this. This question falsely assumes that the father is the father of only Jesus the Son. Only in this circumstance would you be led to conclude that without the Son Jesus, there would be no father. Because the father is father not just to the Son Jesus, this question has no relevance. The father became the father when Elohim first created life, such as an angel. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Believing scripture
You 'string together' several ill-founded ideas in this post. You really ought to employ more rigour in your assertions. Perhaps your posts ought not be so brief. Seriously, David, I for one do not engage you more extensively for the same reason that others occasionally back off. Slade came up with an expression to describe it. (SLADE: Do you remember what it was?) You have a way of 'rabbit trailing' discussions to the point of exhaustion. Though Linda and Judy just can't get enough of it, I can. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 11:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > Kay wrote: > > All other topics (or arguments) are subject > > to opinion and don't really matter. > > If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially > > a non-issue, but can be fun to kick around ideas > > and opinions. > > I think non-salvation issues do matter. What we believe influences our > decisions and our embrace of some non-salvation teachings might be harmful > to us and others. Remember the parable of the sower, even those who are > saved might have be choked from being able to bear a lot of fruit. > > So I think what you should say is that non-salvation issues are not as > important, but to say they are a "non-issue" is an overstatement. > > Kay wrote: > > Same with prophecy...nobody really knows and > > all are wrong in one way or another... > > I think this too is an overstatement. A lot of statistical noise does not > mean that "nobody really knows." If you have one thousand people saying one > thousand different things, that does not mean that they are all wrong. One > of them might be right. One of them might really know. > > I have noticed time and time again that people make themselves feel good > about not studying diligently by using statistical noise to claim that > nobody knows. We really should recognize that this is a non sequitur and > therefore it should not be used as an excuse to claim that the truth is > unknown to everybody. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "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] Please Ignore Previous E-mail
Michael, many blessings to you. I miss hearing from you. Please keep us updated on your walk with the Lord. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael douglas Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:54 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Please Ignore Previous E-mail TTers I sent an email intended for David Miller to TT by error. Please ignore. I apologise for any embarrassment caused to David or any one else on TT. As I am at it I wish God's perfect will for everyone on TT in this year ahead, and may we all come to know Him who is true, as He requires us to know Him. Michael D. ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
RE: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
I guess I should clarify. Nobody has the whole kit-n-kaboodle on anything. If someone is "saved" they generally will act as such. I don't think what you believe regarding...pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, what you eat or don't eat, where you live, your education, what day of the week you worship, what you call your Savior, whether He has three, four, seven or 42 different aspects or manifestations, etc. are salvation issues. I'm also waiting for your answer as to what aspects of the Messianic Movement you feel may be dangerous are, David. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture Kay wrote: > All other topics (or arguments) are subject > to opinion and don't really matter. > If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially > a non-issue, but can be fun to kick around ideas > and opinions. I think non-salvation issues do matter. What we believe influences our decisions and our embrace of some non-salvation teachings might be harmful to us and others. Remember the parable of the sower, even those who are saved might have be choked from being able to bear a lot of fruit. So I think what you should say is that non-salvation issues are not as important, but to say they are a "non-issue" is an overstatement. Kay wrote: > Same with prophecy...nobody really knows and > all are wrong in one way or another... I think this too is an overstatement. A lot of statistical noise does not mean that "nobody really knows." If you have one thousand people saying one thousand different things, that does not mean that they are all wrong. One of them might be right. One of them might really know. I have noticed time and time again that people make themselves feel good about not studying diligently by using statistical noise to claim that nobody knows. We really should recognize that this is a non sequitur and therefore it should not be used as an excuse to claim that the truth is unknown to everybody. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Please Ignore Previous E-mail
TTers I sent an email intended for David Miller to TT by error. Please ignore. I apologise for any embarrassment caused to David or any one else on TT. As I am at it I wish God's perfect will for everyone on TT in this year ahead, and may we all come to know Him who is true, as He requires us to know Him. Michael D. ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hail David Greetings and many blessings in the name of the Lord Jesus For this new year, Both to you and your blessed family! Please give a special blessing to The Terry's for me as well. How is it going? I hope that the new year started with bright hope and great expectations for you all. I also trust that the business thrust that is upon you will find increasing space in your heart and faith for His glory in this new year. How did your faith sales project turn out in the end? I am curious to find out. I see great victories for you in this new year in that arena. The thought that strikes me now is '...Go get it...'. I'm sure that the Lord will help you overcome the mindset and get things in good balance. Hey, How did Christine do with the "As the Deer..." verse I gave her at Paul and Nancy's place that night? I know she wanted to play it at her group. I wonder if she practised it? I am looking foward to this new year for new things from the Lord, and to stop sitting down so much. It's time to get up and get busy. I am looking to tha Lord also regarding school etc. I've not heard anything from USF yet. I'm still waiting. Well, I have to run now. Stay strong and look for good things around every corner, in every valley and wherever God's will takes you. You are a champion! Say hello to all of the ladies for me. God bless Michael. ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
Kay wrote: > All other topics (or arguments) are subject > to opinion and don't really matter. > If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially > a non-issue, but can be fun to kick around ideas > and opinions. I think non-salvation issues do matter. What we believe influences our decisions and our embrace of some non-salvation teachings might be harmful to us and others. Remember the parable of the sower, even those who are saved might have be choked from being able to bear a lot of fruit. So I think what you should say is that non-salvation issues are not as important, but to say they are a "non-issue" is an overstatement. Kay wrote: > Same with prophecy...nobody really knows and > all are wrong in one way or another... I think this too is an overstatement. A lot of statistical noise does not mean that "nobody really knows." If you have one thousand people saying one thousand different things, that does not mean that they are all wrong. One of them might be right. One of them might really know. I have noticed time and time again that people make themselves feel good about not studying diligently by using statistical noise to claim that nobody knows. We really should recognize that this is a non sequitur and therefore it should not be used as an excuse to claim that the truth is unknown to everybody. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Terry, you always speak absolute sense. Thanks and keep it up. Izzy You feel some compulsion to think that way Jonathan. I do not. The Godhead is three persons. The second person has always been God just as certainly as the first and third person, but there was no reason to refer to Him as the Son until He was born of a virgin some two thousand plus years ago. One who is eternal with no beginning could hardy be a son until that part of the plan (being born of a woman) was put into effect. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hi Jonathan. I really enjoyed reading this post. We are truly having a civil conversation. Thanks. I hope we both have the patience to discuss our difference in approaching truth, and that we both gain some appreciation for the difference in emphasis that we both have. Jonathan wrote: > You are correct in recognizing that I have illustrated > a major difference in our hermeneutic. I begin with > Christ, you begin with syntax. I naturally approach all problems through reductionism first. That is not the same thing as beginning with syntax, but I do see how some people might mistakenly think that. Approaching through syntax first, in my opinion, is not the best approach. Nevertheless, I think ignoring syntax also would be a big mistake. Jesus often focused on syntax in his discussions with the Jews. For example, when he said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34), this was a direction to the Jews to consider specific syntax in the Holy Scriptures. Likewise, the following passage did the same thing: Mark 12:26-27 (26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (27) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Jonathan wrote: > I have an overarching guide to interpretation (it must be > consistent with who God is as He reveals Himself in the > Person of Jesus Christ). What I see here is that you have an overarching guide to align any new knowledge with what your highly respected scholars highlight in their theology. In other words, you begin with your own interpretation of who Jesus is, and then you proceed to ignore syntax of Scripture and any arguments that might not appear to mesh easily with your own interpretation and working paradigm of truth. This causes you to become intolerant of other systems of belief and to exclude them as having much value toward our apprehension of God. Jonathan wrote: > You have texts to compare one with another. > Whoever makes the best argument wins. Considering that a working paradigm of mine is that truth is always logical and rational, there is some truth to what you say here. Nevertheless, there have been many times when I have sided with the intellectually inferior. In other words, I recognize that the intellectually superior and the most educated often get it wrong, and some uneducated hick from the back woods, or even some child in the midst of the congregation, gets it right. Sometimes we have to look past the arguments to the heart of matters, and I think we both agree on this point. However, I suspect that I do this more often than you might realize. Jonathan wrote: > The message of Christ is detached from > the Person of Christ. I do not believe that I am guilty of that, and I would respond to any clear example of this. I do not believe that the message of Christ should be detached from the Person of Christ. At the same time, we should not use the principle to cause us to ignore the message of Christ because we think it does not align with our prior understanding of the Person of Christ. Our understanding of Christ is not static, but continually growing, and I don't think any one person has the full comprehension of Him. Jonathan wrote: > God did not first give us the law. God first > gave His Son who was slain before the foundation > of the world. Do you take this syntax literally, as in the idea that he already had died before the foundation of the world, or do you take this as a figurative statement to mean that in the mind of God, it was an established fact? My thoughts were long the lines expressed in Hebrews 1. Hebrews 1:1-2 (1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Notice how it is IN THESE LAST DAYS that God has spoken unto us by his Son. Jonathan wrote: > According to the first chapter of Ephesians it was > always His plan. I agree that it was always his plan, but I would say that the transgression of Adam was just as clear in his mind. We cannot deduce that because it was his plan, it would have been done even if there was no need for it to be done (that is, we should not use this viewpoint to think that he would have been slain if nobody had ever sinned). Jonathan wrote: > God demonstrated His grace prior to the law. > Read the first few verses of Exodus 20. I agree that grace was demonstrated prior to the law. This does not mean that God's communication with us was first to establish grace, then to work on sin. It seems pretty clear to me that God's method of communication was first to convince us that we were sinners in need of a Savior, then to call us to repe
RE: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
People are to work out their own salvation. They are responsible for themselves and no one else. I think Scripture is pretty clear on the "born-again" aspect. HoweverI do find one part interesting...(paraphrase) believe on the Name of the Lord and you SHALL BE saved. Interesting to me, at least. I don't think we need to make a determination on whether someone is saved or not. That's for God. I can't read someone's heart. I can read their actions, which can give me a glimpse into their hearts, but I certainly may not "read" it correctly. There is always room for doubt and three sides to every story... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 10.39 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture So then Kay, just how is one to make such a determination? - Original Message - From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 10:36 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > Which I would think would boil down to one issue: salvation. > All other topics (or arguments) are subject to opinion and don't really > matter. If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially a non-issue, > but can be fun to kick around ideas and opinions. Same with > prophecy...nobody really knows and all are wrong in one way or another... > > K. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 10.24 > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > > > Amen Terry! What needs be determined is that which falls under the rubric > 'non-negotiable'. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: January 03, 2005 08:01 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > > > > David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > >Sorry if you feel that my comments facilitate an us v. them mentality. I > > >guess it does, but it seems to me that we already have that here. > Perhaps I > > >should not facilitate that, so I will consider your kind corrective here. > > > > > >John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some > > >other kind of Trinity? Anyway... we do have some polarizing here between > > >groups and it is hard to read about the Triad and the theologians who > have > > >it all figured out and not see a *them* out there. In a church setting, > I > > >would be entirely on your side here and say that we would not want that > kind > > >of division, but on a list like this where pagans and Mormons and > > >Protestants and Roman Catholics and Jews and Muslims might discuss > matters, > > >I'm not sure we should try and pretend that there is not going to be some > > >polarizing between parties, resulting in a them and we in discussions. > It > > >might even be healthy, kind of like preaching on a street corner. :-) > > > > > >I sure would like to hear what Terry thinks about this. That man helps > keep > > >my feet on the ground. > > > > > > > > = > > To be quite honest David, I think it is unrealistic to think that you > > are not going to have an us and them mentality. > > > > When people come up with conflicting systems of belief and both are > > firmly convinced that what they belive is correct, there is no way you > > can honestly believe that the other person is making sense. More than > > one of us has become frustrated when we explain the truth and the other > > person rejects it. That is natural, I think, when you have > > 1.strong convictions and > > 2.do not want to see anyone deceived by false teaching. > > > > It is much easier to ridicle "them" than it is to pray for them. Unless > > you believe that everyone is saved, it is perfectly normal to wonder if > > "Them" are saved, since "them" are in such blatant error. > > > > Will we ever all agree? Maybe when Hell freezes over. > > Terry > > > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer ev
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
So then Kay, just how is one to make such a determination? - Original Message - From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 10:36 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > Which I would think would boil down to one issue: salvation. > All other topics (or arguments) are subject to opinion and don't really > matter. If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially a non-issue, > but can be fun to kick around ideas and opinions. Same with > prophecy...nobody really knows and all are wrong in one way or another... > > K. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 10.24 > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > > > Amen Terry! What needs be determined is that which falls under the rubric > 'non-negotiable'. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: January 03, 2005 08:01 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > > > > David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > >Sorry if you feel that my comments facilitate an us v. them mentality. I > > >guess it does, but it seems to me that we already have that here. > Perhaps I > > >should not facilitate that, so I will consider your kind corrective here. > > > > > >John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some > > >other kind of Trinity? Anyway... we do have some polarizing here between > > >groups and it is hard to read about the Triad and the theologians who > have > > >it all figured out and not see a *them* out there. In a church setting, > I > > >would be entirely on your side here and say that we would not want that > kind > > >of division, but on a list like this where pagans and Mormons and > > >Protestants and Roman Catholics and Jews and Muslims might discuss > matters, > > >I'm not sure we should try and pretend that there is not going to be some > > >polarizing between parties, resulting in a them and we in discussions. > It > > >might even be healthy, kind of like preaching on a street corner. :-) > > > > > >I sure would like to hear what Terry thinks about this. That man helps > keep > > >my feet on the ground. > > > > > > > > = > > To be quite honest David, I think it is unrealistic to think that you > > are not going to have an us and them mentality. > > > > When people come up with conflicting systems of belief and both are > > firmly convinced that what they belive is correct, there is no way you > > can honestly believe that the other person is making sense. More than > > one of us has become frustrated when we explain the truth and the other > > person rejects it. That is natural, I think, when you have > > 1.strong convictions and > > 2.do not want to see anyone deceived by false teaching. > > > > It is much easier to ridicle "them" than it is to pray for them. Unless > > you believe that everyone is saved, it is perfectly normal to wonder if > > "Them" are saved, since "them" are in such blatant error. > > > > Will we ever all agree? Maybe when Hell freezes over. > > Terry > > > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > -- > "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] Believing scripture
Which I would think would boil down to one issue: salvation. All other topics (or arguments) are subject to opinion and don't really matter. If it's not a salvation issue, then it's essentially a non-issue, but can be fun to kick around ideas and opinions. Same with prophecy...nobody really knows and all are wrong in one way or another... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2005 10.24 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture Amen Terry! What needs be determined is that which falls under the rubric 'non-negotiable'. - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 08:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > David Miller wrote: > > > > >Sorry if you feel that my comments facilitate an us v. them mentality. I > >guess it does, but it seems to me that we already have that here. Perhaps I > >should not facilitate that, so I will consider your kind corrective here. > > > >John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some > >other kind of Trinity? Anyway... we do have some polarizing here between > >groups and it is hard to read about the Triad and the theologians who have > >it all figured out and not see a *them* out there. In a church setting, I > >would be entirely on your side here and say that we would not want that kind > >of division, but on a list like this where pagans and Mormons and > >Protestants and Roman Catholics and Jews and Muslims might discuss matters, > >I'm not sure we should try and pretend that there is not going to be some > >polarizing between parties, resulting in a them and we in discussions. It > >might even be healthy, kind of like preaching on a street corner. :-) > > > >I sure would like to hear what Terry thinks about this. That man helps keep > >my feet on the ground. > > > > > = > To be quite honest David, I think it is unrealistic to think that you > are not going to have an us and them mentality. > > When people come up with conflicting systems of belief and both are > firmly convinced that what they belive is correct, there is no way you > can honestly believe that the other person is making sense. More than > one of us has become frustrated when we explain the truth and the other > person rejects it. That is natural, I think, when you have > 1.strong convictions and > 2.do not want to see anyone deceived by false teaching. > > It is much easier to ridicle "them" than it is to pray for them. Unless > you believe that everyone is saved, it is perfectly normal to wonder if > "Them" are saved, since "them" are in such blatant error. > > Will we ever all agree? Maybe when Hell freezes over. > Terry > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "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] Believing scripture
Amen Terry! What needs be determined is that which falls under the rubric 'non-negotiable'. - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 03, 2005 08:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture > David Miller wrote: > > > > >Sorry if you feel that my comments facilitate an us v. them mentality. I > >guess it does, but it seems to me that we already have that here. Perhaps I > >should not facilitate that, so I will consider your kind corrective here. > > > >John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some > >other kind of Trinity? Anyway... we do have some polarizing here between > >groups and it is hard to read about the Triad and the theologians who have > >it all figured out and not see a *them* out there. In a church setting, I > >would be entirely on your side here and say that we would not want that kind > >of division, but on a list like this where pagans and Mormons and > >Protestants and Roman Catholics and Jews and Muslims might discuss matters, > >I'm not sure we should try and pretend that there is not going to be some > >polarizing between parties, resulting in a them and we in discussions. It > >might even be healthy, kind of like preaching on a street corner. :-) > > > >I sure would like to hear what Terry thinks about this. That man helps keep > >my feet on the ground. > > > > > = > To be quite honest David, I think it is unrealistic to think that you > are not going to have an us and them mentality. > > When people come up with conflicting systems of belief and both are > firmly convinced that what they belive is correct, there is no way you > can honestly believe that the other person is making sense. More than > one of us has become frustrated when we explain the truth and the other > person rejects it. That is natural, I think, when you have > 1.strong convictions and > 2.do not want to see anyone deceived by false teaching. > > It is much easier to ridicle "them" than it is to pray for them. Unless > you believe that everyone is saved, it is perfectly normal to wonder if > "Them" are saved, since "them" are in such blatant error. > > Will we ever all agree? Maybe when Hell freezes over. > Terry > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Jonathan writes: The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. jt: God calls Himself by many titles in scripture, Elohim is only one of them. JBH: I would suggest moving away from titles to who God is inherently in His own Being. Titles are important but only as one understands the Person behind the title. For example, I work as a business analyst. My title is Supervisor of Application Support. Does this describe who I am inherently in my being? No, it describes a role that I play. It is the same thing with God. Begin with who He has declared Himself to be: Father, Son and Spirit. Then move onto titles that are grounded in His Being. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. jt: It doesn't mean that at all Jonathan and where would one get the idea that the Holy Spirit mediates between Father and Son? Mediation is only necessary where there is a breach. The Godhead is One. Remember Tertullian didn't come up with this trinity idea until the 3rd century and the "eternal Sonship" thing began with Athanasius at Nicaea in the 4th Century so I guess the apostles were without this Trinity, Father, Son .. revelation though they turned the whole world upside down by their teaching. From what I can gather by the time these theologians took the reins things had degenerated so far into politics and infighting that I personally would not receive their words on the same level as scripture and when there is a conflict [which there is constinually I choose to stick with God's Word rather than the words of men] . JBH: You are understanding mediation in a very limited form. I am using it to describe the One who comes alongside, the ‘in’ the Spirit. The early Church Fathers didn’t come up with the Trinity idea. It was forced upon them as they read the scriptures. It was God revealing Himself to them in order that they may apprehend Him more fully. It became the identity of the Church catholic. It is the one aspect of the Christian faith that separates it from all others. Lots of faith’s have God becoming man and dying (some even rising again!). Only Christianity has the Trinity. I would suggest that you begin to read more than one source on the Church Fathers. To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. jt: When Historic, orthodox Christianity changes or contradicts the clear teaching of God's Word it becomes sinking sand. The Godhead described in scripture is not always Father, Son, and Spirit. Sometimes it is Father, Logos, and Spirit or Father, Word, and Spirit. JBH: The historic orthodox view of the Trinity is Father, Son and Spirit. Now just because you lump three words together (whether they be Father, Word, Spirit or Mother, Logos, Sophia etc.) does not make it the orthodox view of the Trinity. It does make it a conflicting view. The Godhead affirmed by the Church catholic is Father, Son and Spirit. This is fact. You may disagree with it but it is fact nonetheless. You are outside of what the Church as proclaimed as the deposit of faith from the apostles. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan jt: My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ Jonathan and the words I follow are His. His sheep hear His Voice and another voice they do not follow. I don't hear his voice through Tertullian or through Athanasius. They were from another generation entirely and they will stand or fall before the Lord. JBH: Your faith may be in the Lord Jesus Christ but it appears that you really don’t know who He is as God. You have never read Tertullian of Athanasius to any degree that would allow you to say that you don’t hear the Shepherd’s voice through them. All you have read is secondary source material. Try Athanasius’ ‘On the Incarnation’. Small book introduced with a wonderful essay by C.S. Lewis. Your entire Christian faith is based upon what these godly men hammered out in the first few centuries. There is nothing new under the sun. Please give me the phone number to the church you attend. I would like to get a copy of their statement of faith. If they have a website that would make it easier but I don’t mind calling them. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.81
RE: [TruthTalk] Deceiving and Being Deceived
Just had to completely change the subject line. It was annoying to me. Continue on with your conversation Kay
Re: [TruthTalk] Believing scripture
David Miller wrote: Sorry if you feel that my comments facilitate an us v. them mentality. I guess it does, but it seems to me that we already have that here. Perhaps I should not facilitate that, so I will consider your kind corrective here. John has repeatedly refered to *THEM* as the Triad. I guess that is some other kind of Trinity? Anyway... we do have some polarizing here between groups and it is hard to read about the Triad and the theologians who have it all figured out and not see a *them* out there. In a church setting, I would be entirely on your side here and say that we would not want that kind of division, but on a list like this where pagans and Mormons and Protestants and Roman Catholics and Jews and Muslims might discuss matters, I'm not sure we should try and pretend that there is not going to be some polarizing between parties, resulting in a them and we in discussions. It might even be healthy, kind of like preaching on a street corner. :-) I sure would like to hear what Terry thinks about this. That man helps keep my feet on the ground. = To be quite honest David, I think it is unrealistic to think that you are not going to have an us and them mentality. When people come up with conflicting systems of belief and both are firmly convinced that what they belive is correct, there is no way you can honestly believe that the other person is making sense. More than one of us has become frustrated when we explain the truth and the other person rejects it. That is natural, I think, when you have 1.strong convictions and 2.do not want to see anyone deceived by false teaching. It is much easier to ridicle "them" than it is to pray for them. Unless you believe that everyone is saved, it is perfectly normal to wonder if "Them" are saved, since "them" are in such blatant error. Will we ever all agree? Maybe when Hell freezes over. 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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Jonathan writes: The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. jt: God calls Himself by many titles in scripture, Elohim is only one of them. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. jt: It doesn't mean that at all Jonathan and where would one get the idea that the Holy Spirit mediates between Father and Son? Mediation is only necessary where there is a breach. The Godhead is One. Remember Tertullian didn't come up with this trinity idea until the 3rd century and the "eternal Sonship" thing began with Athanasius at Nicaea in the 4th Century so I guess the apostles were without this Trinity, Father, Son .. revelation though they turned the whole world upside down by their teaching. From what I can gather by the time these theologians took the reins things had degenerated so far into politics and infighting that I personally would not receive their words on the same level as scripture and when there is a conflict [which there is constinually I choose to stick with God's Word rather than the words of men] . To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. jt: When Historic, orthodox Christianity changes or contradicts the clear teaching of God's Word it becomes sinking sand. The Godhead described in scripture is not always Father, Son, and Spirit. Sometimes it is Father, Logos, and Spirit or Father, Word, and Spirit. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan jt: My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ Jonathan and the words I follow are His. His sheep hear His Voice and another voice they do not follow. I don't hear his voice through Tertullian or through Athanasius. They were from another generation entirely and they will stand or fall before the Lord.
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Terry, The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan = You feel some compulsion to think that way Jonathan. I do not. The Godhead is three persons. The second person has always been God just as certainly as the first and third person, but there was no reason to refer to Him as the Son until He was born of a virgin some two thousand plus years ago. One who is eternal with no beginning could hardy be a son until that part of the plan (being born of a woman) was put into effect. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Terry, The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan Jonathan, how has “knowing” this information improved your life? How has it helped you enter into the Kingdom? What personal, real relevance does it have for you? How does it affect your everyday choices? How has it made you a better person? (I can’t imagine.) Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Deceiving and Being Deceived was Judy's Plagiarism
In marriage counseling, compatibility testing for couples, pre-marital, postulates the notion that there are well defined borders to a personality. "Change" is only a positioning within those borders. If this were not true, compatibility testing would not be helpful - its basis (compatibility testing) has biblical support in the admonition "be not unequally yoked ..." What is expressed in that piece of Holy Writ is a principle tied to a specific allication "be not unequally yoked with an unbeliever." This is all an IMO moment, but if the Lord were simply giving a command statement, He would have simply said "be not yoked to an unbeliever." This single word assumes a standard or measure that adds the feeling of practicality to the advice. There is a reason for the Lord's advice -- "unequal" smacks of disagreement, division, a prophet tone of bad things to come. John == I think you might have missed it John . A saved person yoked to a lost person is an unequal coupling. They cannot be a team. That is what the Bible is telling us. Saved and lost do not pull together. They pull in different directions, no matter how compatable they may seem.. One has an eye on the world. The other has an eye on Christ. Hope that makes sense to you. Terry For what partnership has light with darkness? (None.) Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth
I noticed a couple of books in our church bookstore about movies: How Movies Helped Save My Soul—Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significan Films by Tony Campolo, and HP The Hollywood Project—A Look into the Minds of the Makers of Spiritually Relevant Films by Alex Field. Our church services occasionally use movie clips to get attention and make a point. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 9:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth jt: I saw it but don't remember the details, for some reason they didn't stick with me but I vaguely remember being disappointed that there was no repentance in the Sean Penn character or am I remembering something unrelated? On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:33:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Did you watch this one? I thought the message of grace was adequately conveyed through sister Prejean. From: Judy Taylor jt: That's just there to tweak you Lance since I know you are such a movie buff On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:22:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hold on a minute, mate! Did I detect a literary reference in the Judster? Granted it's not fiction but, we all know of that 'slippery slope' thingy. From: Judy Taylor On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:19:18 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: After the fall they were no longer reflecting God's image. Please give me the biblical address for this statement (Genesis 9:6). -- slade jt: They were made in God's image [elohim] and given dominion [as recorded in Genesis 1:26]; can we agree that God is life? God's commandment to Adam [Genesis 2:17] was that in the day Adam ate from a certain tree 'he would surely die'. The adversary came along with his truth telling the woman [Genesis 3:4] 'you shall not surely die' Whose word did they believe and obey? Did A&E die like God said they would or didn't he really mean what He said? So Adam is now a 'dead man walking' do you believe that in spiritual death Adam still retained the image of God who is Life? We see in Genesis 5:3 that Adam in his fallen state fathered a son after his own image and in his [Adam's] likeness and called his name Seth.
RE: [TruthTalk] Tsunami Disaster Relief
Our pastor recommended using either Compassion International (www.compassion.com), or Samaritan’s Purse (www.samaritanspurse.com). Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:36 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tsunami Disaster Relief I used www.amazon.com. It was extremely simple but I already had an account set up there. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 9:02 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Tsunami Disaster Relief Has anyone decided what is the best venue for sending a donation to the Tsunami Disaster? I prefer online. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
