Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
who will rise to the level of his thinking? On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:02:08 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Don’t be so hard on JD—he tries hard. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:10 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior ftr, a near perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o learning' style of intepretation: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:55:42 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Oh—I thought maybe you meant “udder waist”. Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool. JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote > Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former s
Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?
(ftr, one current source of 'the summary with a link' concept--this is a good approach to citing info perhaps a few people, not everybody, may require) On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:12:11 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || Click the links for scans of the documents.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
that the term 'sodomites', below, includes purveyors of perversions such as gossip and gluttony reinforces a biblical learning curve, Terry 'sodomite' actually reads as a reference to those who dwelt in Sodom, where, acc to Scripture, there were numerous/various injustices E.g., Sodom's description by the Prophets suggests a meaning for 'sodomite' which involves an array of exclusive cosmopolitan activities, a general corruption way beyond disfunctional and antisocial behaviors involving sexual disorder, deviance, etc. IOW, the term below has been emptied of its biblical meaning and made to be extremely pejorative by design--notice to whom it is subtly applied on TT (including its archives) ..the SP 'world view' incorporates and intensifies certain cultural stereotypes partic for shotgun homiletical effect/s, a characteristic of 'knowing minus learning' style hermeneutics.. G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:04:29 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kevin Deegan wrote: So sodomites it is then! ||==How about perverts? That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Anyone who believes that Unity in the Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and thinking the same thing" (as extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist. JD Don’t you mean to say “same thang”? Iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
How’s that for a way with words! J Izzy == How about perverts? That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch. Terry __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos
I tried but the link wouldn’t work. Next time. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:20 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos Moderator's Note: Since people have plenty of private access to these stories in myriad internet sources, please briefly summarize such 'news' and post it with a reference link included--that will be sufficient to communicate your interest to us. Thank you. G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:54 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From WorldNetDaily.com: ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Don’t be so hard on JD—he tries hard. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:10 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior ftr, a near perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o learning' style of intepretation: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:55:42 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Oh—I thought maybe you meant “udder waist”. Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' JT > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' JT > In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. JT > The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' JT > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. JT > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." JT > When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote > Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you g
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/11/2005 8:06:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about perverts? That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch. Terry Depends on whether you are trying to help them or not. The behavior is very disgusting. By "help them" I am talking about doing the work of an evangelist. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Biil never tire of offering your opinion on these matters. A very beneficial post. Your lexical aides are interesting. When we get together, I will bring my 1935 A.T, Robertson Greek grammar --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles and hum or something !! Cool. JD In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote > Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word: Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these? If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood. What does your source say? Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9). Anyway, I'll talk to you later, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:28:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So sodomites it is then! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You fail to comprehend that Kevin is criticizing HYPOCRISY not intolerance. He criticizes those who holler real loud that everyone needs to be tolerant, but then they manifest the most intolerant behavior toward those who think differently from them. If they were intolerant and also said that intolerance was acceptable, I suppose Kevin would not have a problem with that. I understood perfectly what Kevin had to say. But thanks anyway. John wrote: >And they are homosexuals, not sodomites. Why? What's wrong with using Biblical terms? Well, for one thing, it does not include the lesbian side of the circumstance nor does it apply to a hugh population of gay types. Many do not practice sodomy. Jd Also, many heterosexuals "enjoy" this sexual positioning. The point being that the word does not begin to describe the gay population. It is only used by those who are either mean or green. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:06:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is readily available [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you miss it? What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules? You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it. You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow? Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist. John Back in the day when I, too, was a legalist, Kevin, I could have given you a list. No problem. I was raised in a legalistic faith by folks who were doing the best that they could do they were just legalists. Anyone who believes that Unity in the Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and thinking the same thing" (as extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist. You are not the first person to whom I have asked this question. I have had a number of battles with my own brethren (Church of Christ) over this very issue. When asked for the list, they too, balked, as you have. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/11/2005 3:56:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OhâI thought maybe you meant âudder waistâ. Iz My humor often rises to the level of a thoughtful listener. The fact that you see "udder" in "utter" proves, to me, that you are one of the thoughtful. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Kevin Deegan wrote: So sodomites it is then! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You fail to comprehend that Kevin is criticizing HYPOCRISY not intolerance. He criticizes those who holler real loud that everyone needs to be tolerant, but then they manifest the most intolerant behavior toward those who think differently from them. If they were intolerant and also said that intolerance was acceptable, I suppose Kevin would not have a problem with that. I understood perfectly what Kevin had to say. But thanks anyway. John wrote: And they are homosexuals, not sodomites. Why? What's wrong with using Biblical terms? Well, for one thing, it does not include the lesbian side of the circumstance nor does it apply to a hugh population of gay types. Many do not practice sodomy. Jd == How about perverts? That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch. Terry __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote > Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word: Friberg Lexicon: metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: metecho -- to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon: metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon: metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon: metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker & Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these? If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood. What does your source say? Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Cor 8.9). Anyway, I'll talk to you later, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?
Joseph was responsible for these news articles so he must have got mixed up"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BLAINE: Thank you for taking time to look these up. But I see no problem here. The names Nephi and Moroni both sound a lot alike--it is likely people got the two confused when writing down what they heard Joseph say. Also, the first vision and the angelic visit are separate events: the first vision took place in the wooded area near the Smith home, now referred to as the "Sacred Grove," when Joseph was if his fifteenth year--about 1820. All accounts of this event mention two individuals, and that they were identical in appearance.The visit from the angel took place later, on September 21, 1823, in the Smith home, after Joseph Smith had prayed to find out his standing before God--by that time, he had related the story of the first vision to many people, and persecution, reviling and all manner of evil speaking against him had immediately arisen, mostly from ministers of the various religions, but apparently from many others as well. He states in his 1838 history that "I was led to say in my heart: why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God? . . . " Click the links for scans of the documents BalaineKevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851) Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842)Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi.John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi.BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (:Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHIIs that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version?Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?
All accounts DO NOT include two individuals!
Most accounts do not for instance the 1832 handwritten acct of Joe
http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml
I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life [behold] the world lieth in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of
the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BLAINE: Thank you for taking time to look these up. But I see no problem here. The names Nephi and Moroni both sound a lot alike--it is likely people got the two confused when writing down what they heard Joseph say. Also, the first vision and the angelic visit are separate events: the first vision took place in the wooded area near the Smith home, now referred to as the "Sacred Grove," when Joseph was if his fifteenth year--about 1820. All accounts of this event mention two individuals, and that they were identical in appearance.The visit from the angel took place later, on September 21, 1823, in the Smith home, after Joseph Smith had prayed to find out his standing before God--by that time, he had related the story of the first vision to many people, and persecution, reviling and all manner of evil speaking against him had immediately arisen, mostly from ministers of the
various religions, but apparently from many others as well. He states in his 1838 history that "I was led to say in my heart: why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God? . . . " Click the links for scans of the documents BalaineKevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851)
Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842)Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi.John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi.BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (:Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHIIs that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version?Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some
revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2
Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?
Try it with your wife Thats what happened with all those other details also. Some of the most unusual excuses since I caught the kids in the cookie jar"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BLAINE: Thank you for taking time to look these up. But I see no problem here. The names Nephi and Moroni both sound a lot alike--it is likely people got the two confused when writing down what they heard Joseph say. Also, the first vision and the angelic visit are separate events: the first vision took place in the wooded area near the Smith home, now referred to as the "Sacred Grove," when Joseph was if his fifteenth year--about 1820. All accounts of this event mention two individuals, and that they were identical in appearance.The visit from the angel took place later, on September 21, 1823, in the Smith home, after Joseph Smith had prayed to find out his standing before God--by that time, he had related the story of the first vision to many people, and persecution, reviling and all manner of evil speaking against him had immediately arisen, mostly from ministers of the various religions, but apparently from many others as well. He states in his 1838 history that "I was led to say in my heart: why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God? . . . " Click the links for scans of the documents BalaineKevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851) Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842)Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi.John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi.BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (:Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHIIs that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version?Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
So sodomites it is then![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You fail to comprehend that Kevin is criticizing HYPOCRISY not intolerance. He criticizes those who holler real loud that everyone needs to be tolerant, but then they manifest the most intolerant behavior toward those who think differently from them. If they were intolerant and also said that intolerance was acceptable, I suppose Kevin would not have a problem with that.I understood perfectly what Kevin had to say. But thanks anyway. John wrote:>And they are homosexuals, not sodomites.Why? What's wrong with using Biblical terms?Well, for one thing, it does not include the lesbian side of the circumstance nor does it apply to a hugh population of gay types. Many do not practice sodomy. Jd__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
It is readily available[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you miss it?What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules?You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it.You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow?Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist.John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos
ShieldsFamily wrote: From WorldNetDaily.com: EUROPE Friday, February 11, 2005 . Last updated 9:55 a.m. PT Swedish pastor is acquitted on appeal By MATTIAS KAREN ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER photo Swedish pastor Aake Green poses in his church in Borgholm, Sweden Friday Feb. 11, 2005. A Swedish appeals court Friday ruled that Green was protected by the free speech laws and tossed out a hate crimes conviction against him for a 2003 inflammatory sermon branding homosexuals a cancer. (AP Photo/Maths Bogren) STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- An appeals court Friday overturned the hate crimes conviction of a Swedish pastor who in a sermon had branded homosexuals a "cancer." The Goeta Appeals Court said that while Aake Green's views of gays can be "strongly questioned," it was not illegal to offer a personal interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it. "The purpose of making agitation against gays punishable is not to prevent arguments or discussions about homosexuality, not in churches or in other parts of society," the court said. Green, 63, was the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's tough hate crimes laws, which make it a crime to make inflammatory remarks against racial, religious or national groups. The laws were ratified in 2003 to include homosexuals. Green said he was pleased with the verdict, but called it a "partial victory," saying he expects the case to move on to the Supreme Court. "We'll see how far this gets me," Green told The Associated Press. "But right now I'm very happy." Green gave his sermon the same year, telling a congregation on the small southeastern island of Oeland that homosexuals were "a deep cancer tumor on all of society." He warned congregants that Sweden risked a natural disaster because of its leniency toward gays. "Homosexuality is something sick," Green said. He compared it with pedophilia and bestiality, saying gays were more likely to rape children and animals. He was convicted in June and sentenced to 30 days in jail but the sentence was suspended pending the appeal. In an interview with the AP, Green said it was not the month in jail that worried him, but "the freedom to preach God's word." The appeals court shared that concern, saying statements during sermons rarely qualify as racial agitation. Green's acquittal brought a sigh of relief from some ministers who saw the case as a challenge to freedom of religion and expression. "This indicates that the justice system works, and that it gives a certain amount of protection to us who preach God's word," said Ralph Toerner, a priest from the Swedish branch of the British-based Holy Catholic Church. "But at the same time, I think this should be a warning signal to preachers overall, that they shouldn't use such coarse language when talking about something sensitive. The Christian faith is not about judging people," he said. Green said he was being bombarded by phone calls from supporters Friday. "They're calling from the United States and from Sweden," he said. "They're calling on every phone they can. I'm feeling massive support over this." Others were angry over the acquittal, saying it was an invitation to attack gays and other groups. "Would we have seen this verdict if his sermon had been about Jews or some other group? I hope not," said Katarina Lindahl, secretary-general of the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education. Lindahl said Green's sermon was a call to action against all homosexuals, by saying that Sweden risked God's wrath by being tolerant toward gays. "If that's not agitation, I don't know what is," Lindahl said. Hans Ytterberg, the government-appointed ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, said he also disagreed with the verdict, and criticized the court for saying that Green's rhetoric wasn't harsh enough to be criminal. "I think that's pretty hard to believe, because it can't get much harsher," Ytterberg said. "This means you can say just about anything." === God bless Mr.Green. 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] Original Sin
hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too It helped me :>) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin this is crucial--all posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, she maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' in the background, like 'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in play is that unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical dynamic to account simultaneously for (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those who know by or through learning together--requires some intelligence how could one cut through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play? this is a high magnitude moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: And I still don't understand, for that matter, why [jt] would say such things,
RE: [TruthTalk] Another Bad day in Utah
I think it would be more likely the two lesbians taught each other--no parents involved--as they got "engaged." And it was so much fun they decided to try it again--and again--ad infintum. LOL -- "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: According to that premise, all Lesbians were the children of two Lesbians parents who taught them by example how to be Lesbians. (NOT likely!) Izzy BTW, I said MOST, not ALL. I've never know a lesbian who didn't have a parent who was VERY controlling/overbearing--usually the mother (of the few that I've been familiar with both the lesbian and parents at all.) Of course most in the situation don't become lesbians or we'd have a whole lot more of them. -Original Message- However, being a product of University training in modern psychological reinforcement theory, I'd say any deviant behavior accrued from it being first engaged in, then repeated because it was pleasurable and therefore reinforcing. I speak English while the Hispanic speaks Spanish for the same reason. When I engaged in making sounds, only the English ones that were approved of (pleasure principle) by adults and other significant others were repeated. Does this make sense? -- "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] Nephi or Moroni?
BLAINE: Thank you for taking time to look these up. But I see no problem here. The names Nephi and Moroni both sound a lot alike--it is likely people got the two confused when writing down what they heard Joseph say. Also, the first vision and the angelic visit are separate events: the first vision took place in the wooded area near the Smith home, now referred to as the "Sacred Grove," when Joseph was if his fifteenth year--about 1820. All accounts of this event mention two individuals, and that they were identical in appearance. The visit from the angel took place later, on September 21, 1823, in the Smith home, after Joseph Smith had prayed to find out his standing before God--by that time, he had related the story of the first vision to many people, and persecution, reviling and all manner of evil speaking against him had immediately arisen, mostly from ministers of the various religions, but apparently from many others as well. He states in his 1838 history that "I was led to say in my heart: why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God? . . . " Click the links for scans of the documents Balaine Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851) Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842) Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi. John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi. BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (: Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHI Is that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version? Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: Kevin wrote: The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versions BLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book. -- "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] pastor acquitted re: homos
Moderator's Note: Since people have plenty of private access to these stories in myriad internet sources, please briefly summarize such 'news' and post it with a reference link included--that will be sufficient to communicate your interest to us. Thank you. G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:54 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From WorldNetDaily.com: ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
ftr, a near perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o learning' style of intepretation: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:55:42 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Oh—I thought maybe you meant “udder waist”. Iz
[TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos
From WorldNetDaily.com: Friday, February 11, 2005 · Last updated 9:55 a.m. PT Swedish pastor is acquitted on appeal By MATTIAS KAREN ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER Swedish pastor Aake Green poses in his church in Borgholm, Sweden Friday Feb. 11, 2005. A Swedish appeals court Friday ruled that Green was protected by the free speech laws and tossed out a hate crimes conviction against him for a 2003 inflammatory sermon branding homosexuals a cancer. (AP Photo/Maths Bogren) STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- An appeals court Friday overturned the hate crimes conviction of a Swedish pastor who in a sermon had branded homosexuals a "cancer." The Goeta Appeals Court said that while Aake Green's views of gays can be "strongly questioned," it was not illegal to offer a personal interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it. "The purpose of making agitation against gays punishable is not to prevent arguments or discussions about homosexuality, not in churches or in other parts of society," the court said. Green, 63, was the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's tough hate crimes laws, which make it a crime to make inflammatory remarks against racial, religious or national groups. The laws were ratified in 2003 to include homosexuals. Green said he was pleased with the verdict, but called it a "partial victory," saying he expects the case to move on to the Supreme Court. "We'll see how far this gets me," Green told The Associated Press. "But right now I'm very happy." Green gave his sermon the same year, telling a congregation on the small southeastern island of Oeland that homosexuals were "a deep cancer tumor on all of society." He warned congregants that Sweden risked a natural disaster because of its leniency toward gays. "Homosexuality is something sick," Green said. He compared it with pedophilia and bestiality, saying gays were more likely to rape children and animals. He was convicted in June and sentenced to 30 days in jail but the sentence was suspended pending the appeal. In an interview with the AP, Green said it was not the month in jail that worried him, but "the freedom to preach God's word." The appeals court shared that concern, saying statements during sermons rarely qualify as racial agitation. Green's acquittal brought a sigh of relief from some ministers who saw the case as a challenge to freedom of religion and _expression_. "This indicates that the justice system works, and that it gives a certain amount of protection to us who preach God's word," said Ralph Toerner, a priest from the Swedish branch of the British-based Holy Catholic Church. "But at the same time, I think this should be a warning signal to preachers overall, that they shouldn't use such coarse language when talking about something sensitive. The Christian faith is not about judging people," he said. Green said he was being bombarded by phone calls from supporters Friday. "They're calling from the United States and from Sweden," he said. "They're calling on every phone they can. I'm feeling massive support over this." Others were angry over the acquittal, saying it was an invitation to attack gays and other groups. "Would we have seen this verdict if his sermon had been about Jews or some other group? I hope not," said Katarina Lindahl, secretary-general of the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education. Lindahl said Green's sermon was a call to action against all homosexuals, by saying that Sweden risked God's wrath by being tolerant toward gays. "If that's not agitation, I don't know what is," Lindahl said. Hans Ytterberg, the government-appointed ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, said he also disagreed with the verdict, and criticized the court for saying that Green's rhetoric wasn't harsh enough to be criminal. "I think that's pretty hard to believe, because it can't get much harsher," Ytterberg said. "This means you can say just about anything." <><>
[TruthTalk] Should Charles & Camilla marry?
Evangelicals say Charles and Camilla should have opportunity to repent -10/02/05 As Church denominations and groups issued statements of congratulations today on the news of the Prince of Wales’s engagement to Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles, the body representing one million Evangelicals in the UK suggested that the royal couple should have the opportunity in their implending service of blessing to express repentance and remorse. Pointing to "their documented adultery" the Evangelical Alliance welcomed the 'formalising' of Prince Charles' and Mrs Parker Bowles' relationship and suggested that the impending marriage represented "a serious move to put their relationship on a more moral footing." Joel Edwards, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance also suggested that the blessing service should "offer clear opportunities for expressing remorse for past wrongs and repentance for hurts caused in both their previous marriages." The Alliance said that the couple's previous divorces and adultery as well as "the nature of their extra-marital relationship up to this point" presented difficulties for many Christians, with respect to Charles' suitability to govern the Church of England should he become king. The organisation said it hoped Charles and Camilla would "take their church commitments and responsibilities seriously" in their married life. From WorldNetDaily.com: The Evangelical statement was a marked contrast to those put out by other church bodies. In a statement from Lambeth Palace, The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said; "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles have decided to take this important step. I hope and pray that it will prove a source of comfort and strength to them and to those who are closest to them." In a similar two line comment, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said; “The Royal Family, with their unique role in our national life, are always assured of the goodwill and prayers of the Catholic community. I know that Catholics will join with me at this time in praying for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles and in wishing them every happiness.” The Revd Sheila Maxey, Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church was similarly brief, and focused on forgiveness, love and hope. "In the midst of lives which often have more than their share of tragedy and failure, God continues to offer us the possibility of forgiveness, love and renewed hope" she said. "That applies as much to princes as to the many thousands of divorced people who remarry in our churches every year. We pray God’s blessing on the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles as they enter upon this new chapter in their lives." The Free Churches Group also welcomed the announcement offering its "good wishes" to the couple. The Revd David Coffey, Moderator of the Free Churches Group and General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain said; "Our prayer is that in this step of making marriage promises Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles will be able to deepen their love and commitment to one another and find the opportunity for a new beginning. We have valued the charitable work that the Prince has undertaken in the past, particularly through the Princes' Trust, and we hope that the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles will continue to find such opportunities to serve the public together."
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:17 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior In a message dated 2/11/2005 2:12:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist. John waist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wst) n. The part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis. The narrow part of the abdomen of an insect. You are right, my dear. But there is a reason for the misspelling, however. "The narrow part of the abdomen" is something that does not exist, in my case. But I will use the alternate spelling (waste) in the future. JD :-) Oh—I thought maybe you meant “udder waist”. Iz <><>
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
this is crucial--all posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, she maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' in the background, like 'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in play is that unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical dynamic to account simultaneously for (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual comments--parallel bias against those who know by or through learning together--requires some intelligence how could one cut through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play? this is a high magnitude moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, too G On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: And I still don't understand, for that matter, why [jt] would say such things,
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/11/2005 2:12:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist. John waist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wst) n. The part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis. The narrow part of the abdomen of an insect. You are right, my dear. But there is a reason for the misspelling, however. "The narrow part of the abdomen" is something that does not exist, in my case. But I will use the alternate spelling (waste) in the future. JD :-) <><>
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:47 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you miss it? What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules? You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it. You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow? Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist. John waist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wst) n. The part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis. The narrow part of the abdomen of an insect. <><>
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill had asked (for the second time): Was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel? jt answered: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion. Jesus came here as the Son of God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He first saw the Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in and of Himself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel? Why is this a big deal? In His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 10:4) What's the problem?? BT: I was just trying to understand why you would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a problem. Hm: Where are the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his head.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that you guys are talking about two different things. John, aren't you creating a straw man argument here, trying to make Kevin argue that unity is based upon full agreement with Biblical doctrine, when really he is saying that when people insult God, we should not tolerate it? David, you need to review Kevin's post before injecting yourself into the discussion. But a search is not necessary, David. Don't you find it curious that Kev does not deny my charge'challenge. Rather, he asserts that the list "is right there" in the biblical message. I believe he said that sometime this morning or yesterday. Kevin, do you believe that unity is based upon agreeing completely with Biblical doctrine? Good question... but I think asked and answered. We shall see. Personally, I believe that unity comes first and that doctrinal agreement is the fruit of that unity. Ditto. Therefore, any call for a list of doctrines that would bring unity is faulty. The call for a list is an effort on my part to demonstrate the impracticality in the claim that fellowship among believers is a doctrinally based issue -- that we must speak and think the same things (doctrine) before Unity of the Faith is considered a reality. The fact that absolutely no one on this list, or elsewhere, can do this is proof of my point. So a "call for a list" is not "faulty" if it happens to be the single strongest argument against "unity based upon agreement." JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin > Judy wrote: > > The Brethren qualify because they are called > > out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those > > who are in Christ are; and they now have power > > to overcome any and all innate inclinations > > and/or tendencies. > > Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because > of his ability not to follow them, he was holy. The flesh only defiles us > if we follow it. Same with Jesus. He was holy even though his flesh was > genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > Hey, David, would you tell me how you interpret Jesus' words in the following verses (feel free to draw from a larger context if you like)? John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." Thanks, Bill -- "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] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You fail to comprehend that Kevin is criticizing HYPOCRISY not intolerance. He criticizes those who holler real loud that everyone needs to be tolerant, but then they manifest the most intolerant behavior toward those who think differently from them. If they were intolerant and also said that intolerance was acceptable, I suppose Kevin would not have a problem with that. I understood perfectly what Kevin had to say. But thanks anyway. John wrote: >And they are homosexuals, not sodomites. Why? What's wrong with using Biblical terms? Well, for one thing, it does not include the lesbian side of the circumstance nor does it apply to a hugh population of gay types. Many do not practice sodomy. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you miss it? What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules? You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it. You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow? Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
you have some for sale? On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:36:52 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: BUY TRUTH ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:53:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion. Coming from our friend, Judy Taylor (no kidding), this is a rather amazing observation. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours &Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. I might be wrong (but probably not) but maybe the "violation" of which you speak has something to do with our (Bill and me) taking our next breath !!! That seems to cause Judy the most pain. Just another good guy trying to share his wisdom, Johd David Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stop with "heresy" Judy. It means absolutely nothing coming from you. And I could care less about such nonsensical statements. jt: Here we go with the personal "ad hominems" again John, you just can't seem to help yourself, sigh! You have lost me on this. What in the world is "ad hominem" about my complaining of your use of the word "heresy"? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/11/2005 7:12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. So what? jt: So - that gospel is false and it is heresy. There is not a whole lot of difference between yours and theirs you are both making God totally responsible for everyone's choices and claiming that Adam's fall was appointed and predestined all along. The Mormons go so far as to say it was a good thing This is a little bit funny, actually. My doctrine is similar to the Mormon doctrine, you say. I ask, "So what?" And you respond by making the connection between what I believe and the Mormon teaching -- the similarity is that both are heretical and false. You do not seem to understand that your opinion of my belief structure is of no consequence on this forum. It has nothing to do with anything your might place into consideration in support of your point verses mine. You want to discuss issues, Judy, fine - and I will read your posted responses. But I will simply ignore any post that contains conclusions concerning my teachings that put me into the ranks of the truly heretical - and hence "the lost." Try to be nice and if thay is not to be, try to be silent. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Classification
Click the links for scans of the documents BalaineKevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851) Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842) Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi. John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi.BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (:Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHIIs that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version?Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: Call to Heaven]
Subject: Call to Heaven A man in Topeka, Kansas, decided to write a book about churches around the country. He started by flying to San Francisco, and started working east from there. Going to a very large church, he began taking photographs and making notes. He spotted a golden telephone on the vestibule wall, and was intrigued with a sign which read, "$10,000 per minute." Seeking out the pastor, he asked about the phone and the sign. The pastor answered that the golden phone was, in fact, a direct line to Heaven, and if he paid the price, he could talk directly to God. The man thanked the pastor and continued on his way. As he continued to visit churches in Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, Chicago, Milwaukee, and around the United States, he found more such phones, with the same sign, and the same explanation from each pastor. Finally, the man arrived in the lovely state of South Carolina. Upon entering a church, behold: he saw the usual golden telephone. But THIS time, the sign read: "Calls: 25 cents!" Fascinated, the man asked to speak with the pastor. "Reverend, I have been in cities all across the country and in each church I have found this golden telephone, and have been told it is a direct line to Heaven, and that I could use it to talk to God. But in 20 other churches, the cost was $10,000 per minute. Your sign says 25 cents per call. Why is that? (I just love this part!) The pastor, smiling benignly, replied: "Son, you're in the South now, and it's a local call."
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
BUY TRUTH - DON'T RENT ! Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *'we'*, meaning clearly that a bilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below ..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation? ..in certain wars the DMZ for the North was also the DMZ for the South ..for now i think the 'bilateral' notion applies, depending on developments in the dialog/s how's Prudence? (hopefully thriving even in her rented quarters:) cordially, G -- cc. David Miller On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: Here *we* go with the.."ad hominems"..__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Classification
"He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 53 (1842) "Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 71 (1842) Joseph Smith - "When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." 1851 Pearl of Great Price, p. 41 (1851) Joseph Smith - "He called me by name, and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 753 (1842) Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79). Thomas Bullock Journal - In a journal entry Thomas Bullock claims that the name of the messenger was Nephi. John Whitmer Statement - This statement as recorded in Reorganized Church History acknowledges the messenger to have been Nephi.BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (:Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHIIs that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version?Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote: > The Brethren qualify because they are called > out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those > who are in Christ are; and they now have power > to overcome any and all innate inclinations > and/or tendencies. Jesus also had innate inclinations and tendencies similar to us, but because of his ability not to follow them, he was holy. The flesh only defiles us if we follow it. Same with Jesus. He was holy even though his flesh was genetically related to David, Abraham and Adam. 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] Original Sin
some feedback: no 'RoE', below, implies an eerie isolationism, perhaps like a mental handicap (to learning 'Truth') further, maybe your approach to hermeneutics is becoming clearer which is good; is summed up in the notion that true Christians know 'Truth' before it is learned while true this insight could assist our readers; what do you think? On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:37:28 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Don't know anything about "rules of engagement".. || ir[/]relevance to Truth. jt
[TruthTalk] Original Sin
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote:> So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate> inclination or tendency toward sin?" If this is> so then the wise men who came to worship> Him were fooled, and the angels along with> Simeon and Anna were false prophets because> they all called Him Holy. An innate inclination toward sin does not make a person unholy. The Scriptures call the brethren holy (Heb. 3:1, 1 Thess. 5:27), but this does not mean that their flesh was now without any innate inclination toward sin. jt: The Brethren qualify because they are called out, set apart, and sanctified - at least those who are in Christ are; and they now have power to overcome any and all innate inclinations and/or tendencies. Grace and Peace, Judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote: > So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate > inclination or tendency toward sin?" If this is > so then the wise men who came to worship > Him were fooled, and the angels along with > Simeon and Anna were false prophets because > they all called Him Holy. An innate inclination toward sin does not make a person unholy. The Scriptures call the brethren holy (Heb. 3:1, 1 Thess. 5:27), but this does not mean that their flesh was now without any innate inclination toward sin. 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] Original Sin
Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you are living in the world of Lance. Attached is a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might be interested. The reviewer points out the obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just all love and dancing with no responsibility. Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth. jt On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill: IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. jt: Their gospels are sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match. Repenting of Religion 2--10-05.wps Description: Binary data
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
*'we'*, meaning clearly that a bilateral relationship exists with Pastor Smithson, below ..perhaps that unity is essential to your ongoing conversation? ..in certain wars the DMZ for the North was also the DMZ for the South ..for now i think the 'bilateral' notion applies, depending on developments in the dialog/s how's Prudence? (hopefully thriving even in her rented quarters:) cordially, G -- cc. David Miller On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:20 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: Here *we* go with the.."ad hominems"..
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Classification
DAVEH: FWIW.No one on the other forum responded to my question. David Miller wrote: Perry wrote: I am afraid running the question of whether JS was baptised a Baptist through a LDS forum will only get you the answer you want instead of the truth. Perhaps, but I would be very interested to hear what response he gets. :-) 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. -- ~~~ 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] Cult behavior
Well, I am definitely going to save this. Your comments at the conclusion or worth concern. Amen to the post. JD In a message dated 2/10/2005 7:10:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:36:14 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking about Your Toleration not the criminal act So you would tolerate someone disgracing your wifes name &reputation? JD: Like I said before -- you are not going to leap frog your failure at a practical application of your position that unity is based upon full agreement with biblical doctrine. THAT is what we have been talking about. Cough up the list, Kev or forever hold your peace. JD Mind if I add my two cents.. I don't see unity as based on a list of theologically acceptable Bible doctrines either, this is legalism and ritual. God desires truth in the inward parts; we need to take God's Word to heart and do what He says; there is a unity in "obedience to the truth" even among those who are at different places in it. Here's some food for thought I came across yesterday: Architects paint over their mistakes Doctors bury their mistakes under the sod Theologians cover up their mistakes with ritual JT
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel? jt: Have you ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill? One can force scripture to validate anything when they come with a strong preconceived notion. Jesus came here as the Son of God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He first saw the Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in and of Himself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel? Why is this a big deal? In His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 10:4) What's the problem??
[TruthTalk] Original Sin
JD: So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were. jt: Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. So what? jt: So - that gospel is false and it is heresy. There is not a whole lot of difference between yours and theirs you are both making God totally responsible for everyone's choices and claiming that Adam's fall was appointed and predestined all along. The Mormons go so far as to say it was a good thing. JD: Well, I suppose, in some ways, one could say this. Life in Christ is a predetermined concept in the mind of God. But Judy, if God is in control of the world, I guess we could blame Him for all that occurs. I use different words to picture what I believe. jt: A predetermined concept? So God predetermined that his ONLY begotten Son (who was pure and holy, separate from sinners) would die a horrible and cruel death on a Roman cross? What makes you think you know what is going on in the mind of God? Being Sovereign is different from being a control freak. God gave Adam dominion and he in turn handed that dominion over to Satan who became god of this world. In John 14:30 where Jesus says "the ruler of this world is coming and he has nothing in me" he was not referring to God the Father. JD: When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve. This is heresy John. Adam and Eve were complete. They were innocent, holy and pure, naked and unashamed. And where did I say otherwise? When God plopped them down onto this earth as man and woman, they were without sin. But they had a sin nature. That is clear from the biblical text of the their actions immediately prior to the sin event. jt: They weren't plopped from anywhere. God made them here from the dust of the earth and breathed into them the breath of life (His breath); and since there was/is no sin nature in Him where did that part of your theology come from (along with your concept of their actions immediately prior to the "sin event"). They fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing; their job was to be good stewards over what God had entrusted to them. The saying "Be patient with me God is not finished with me yet" is an excuse for our offences toward Him and others because of our own sin, selfishness, and unbelief which is our problem, and our responsibility, not God's. This is so anti biblical, I scarsely know where to begin. It can be an excuse. But, in fact, it is also very true. Our sin, selfishness and unbelief are not our problem any longer. All of this has been covered by the flow of the blood. I will leave it at that. jt: It may be anti JD but it is not anti biblical. God didn't leave Adam and Eve half baked in the garden. Do you think he would give someone who is only half finished dominion over His creation and tell them to "be fruitful and multiply?" Why replicate something unfinished? Makes no sense. And sin, selfishness, and unbelief ARE our problem when they are not repented of and turned from. Yes God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Christ so we have no excuse. The blood of Christ will not "cover" sin; it cleanses the conscience from dead works/ritual when applied the right way. At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected Christ. The creation event, for man, is not completed outside the reception of the Christ, jt: The above is a doctrine of men because at the moment of their creation there was nothing to redeem since all that was in them was the "breath of God" and as yet there had been no fall. I do see now why you and others who accept this or a similar doctrine must cling so tenaciously to the idea of this "Eternal Sonship" which most definitely comes from the RCC. Stop with "heresy" Judy. It means absolutely nothing coming from you. And I could care less about such nonsensical statements. jt: Here we go with the personal "ad hominems" again John, you just can't seem to help yourself, sigh! They needed nothing before the fall John, Christ included because they were already in complete and full fellowship with Him since in His preincarnate state He is God the Word who spoke them into existence and who they fellowshipped with them every day in the garden. The reason we need Christ today is because there is a breach between us and God which we have no ability in and of ourselves to mend, we are being transformed from death to life. JD: Certainly. No one den
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Bill:IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so. - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 11, 2005 08:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a sacrifice for our sin. Judy, I've never seen such slippery language in my life. Please excuse me, but I still do not understand your answer to my question. And so if you don't mind I'll ask it again. The question is, was Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
Re: [TruthTalk] evidence of BoM
Christians accept questions they search out Truth Christians do not resist doubts, they search out the Truth Christians do not have Authorities who try to limit the effects of NON Faith Promoting works Christians seek out Truth Any good works on Cumorah from a non mormon? "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Still waiting for the Addresses Blaine, did you forget?BLAINE: A good book o read is IN SEARCH OF CUMORAH, available at Deseret Book. It pretty much proves the validity of the BoM--very scholarly, however, do you read stuff like that, Kevin? (:>)I recently examined the finds at the Oriental Institute in ChicagoI viewed a number of artifacts that collaborate the stories of the Assyrian people as spoken of in the Holy Bible.I even saw artifacts that proved the existance of a number of Kings of that nation and of the nation of Israel, who also are written in that Old Black Book (Sargon, Sennacherib)In fact I viewed Sennacherib's Prism which mentions King Hezekiah of Judah!It includes independent evidence (The Assyrian account) for the record in 2 Kings 19 6-7 "And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land." IS 37 33-38 "Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed..."http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.htmlAwesome stuff!Undeniable proof that the Bible is Historically accurate.Knowing that you have an interest in Archaeology, Blaine, I was wondering if you can tell me where I might see some evidence for the Book O Mormon and it's accuracy.Please provide Museum name and Location.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church throws curves
In America any Church can have it's views and try to advance them in the public square but not in the back offices of Government or directly in the legislature as in the peoples republic of Utah "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BLAINE: Kevin, what do you expect? You SPs do the powerplay thing to the hilt!!! You play every card you can, and then some. Do you think the LDS Church should just roll over and play Mr. Nice Guy? First you guys criticize the Church for not using its strength to get involved in public issues--that came out last time I was on TT. Now, you complain when they do get involved. Which way do you want it?Rocky Anderson, by the way, is a former attorney for that oh-so-wonderful American organization called the Civil Liberties Union. Does that tell you anything? BLAINE: The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this game, huh? LOL They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin. No according to the mayor & many others it is a Theocracy not a democracy in UtahRocky Anderson on the LDS Church: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials." The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2551464 bills yanked after church speaks up Rocky ruffled: "Everyone knows that's the way it is" On Wednesday, Anderson held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is "crucial" to move away public officials allowing the church to "control" public policy.Anderson adds that he would "like to see a council that's going to do the right things by the city rather than jump to the tune of whoever might call from the LDS Church." During Anderson's mayoral tenure, LDS leaders have weighed in on two high-profile policy debates: the Main Street Plaza furor and the fight over Nordstrom's downtown location.http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2556099The percentage of active Mormons in the Legislature is far higher than that of the statewide population. perception of private agreements between the church and the so-called secular elective body has at times caused apoplexy among those who believe their voices are ignored because of the church-state relationship.two officials in the LDS Church's public relations department phoned two senators while they were on the floor and told them privately the church did not want the bill to pass. The session ended and the bill died without a vote.http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600110544,00.htmlAnderson maintains there are some LDS council members who will never vote against the LDS Church's wishes."I know some people are offended that I say this, but at the same time everybody knows it's true," he said.Such "blind" following of the LDS Church's wishes builds resentment in non-LDS residents, Anderson says, so he wants more religious diversity to lessen non-LDS disenchantment."I was informed that it was basically dead on arrival after a council member spoke with a representative of the LDS Church," Anderson said.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:43:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John in bold print - we will have to clean this up next time around, I think. n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing. He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion - not capable of sinning. jt: His image did not make them Creators also. His image is being primarily spirit with His nature and character. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. If Eve were in the image of God as according to you, she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait." jt: Sure she could and she did. She was deceived; see above for His image. They were still His creation, He didn't make them Gods. They were in His image just like Jesus came to earth and took our likeness upon Himself. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choice God does not. Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do; God is not capable of such activity. Not capable. jt: Adam justified himself by blaming the woman "AFTER THE ACT" Also Adam was not God. Being made in God's "image and likeness" does not make him divine any more than Jesus being made in our "image and likeness" makes Him a sinner. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. jt: His nature was NOT the same as ours. Being made in the likeness of something is not exactly cloning/replicating the original. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ? of course not "propensity" you say - then I must agree jt: So you claim Jesus was born with "an innate inclination or tendency toward sin?" If this is so then the wise men who came to worship Him were fooled, and the angels along with Simeon and Anna were false prophets because they all called Him Holy. According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Sure He did and I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man. Man was created a free moral agent something God is not. Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin. jt: No my argument is taken from the Bible John. Where do you get the idea God is not free to do whatever He wants? When you are God who is there to tell you NO? He does exactly what He wants.Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring up And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you? jt: Self fulfilling prophecy John? and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs. Does not happen. jt: Now you are, in effect (sarcasm), calling me a liar. I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. jt: No John, it's the wisdom of God and if you are not able to receive it you don't understand, righteousness, sin, and/or many other issues in God's Word. I don't care how long you've been in the ministry. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. Do that, Judy. I always want scripture. God's creation was good
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:21:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that calls Him Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? jt: God is a Spirit and yes Jesus did represent (complete and total obedience to) God the Father while he was here (He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and saying) and of course they were/are One since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, He was never known as Jesus the Christ before the incarnation and during the time of His earthly ministry He had layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon Himself our likeness and he was here on earth as Christ Jesus, Messiah, Prince of Peace and Lamb of God for the sole purpose of being slain as a sacrifice for our sin. jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. Are you saying that you have never argued that the word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it means this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :>) Please forgive me. jt: Not that I can recall, No. I regularly make a conscious effort not to add to or take away from what is written because I want to understand what God is saying rather than what someone else thinks He said. No problem, thank you for sharing your thoughts Bill, Grace and Peace, Judy
