Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:04:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodnes < SPAN class=correction id="">JD - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I beleive the Bible says." And that is precisely why we need the graciuous invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:11:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Lances doctrine of the incarnation conflicts with the clear teaching of God's Word and other than that he appears to ignore it. Your problem is as stated belowin your own words ie that your confidence is in what you believe concerning the Word rather than in the Word itself... and yes I believe disciples with a relationship with Christ do something other than study and memorize; they become "doers" of the Word rather than self deceived hearers only. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:55:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does it concern you that that you characterization of either Lance or myself is mistaken regarding the notion that we are confused about His Word. I cannot speak for Lance -- although I have in the past -- but I do not see any confusion on his part in this regard. As for me, I have confidence in what I believe concerning the Word. Do you believe that disciples have a relationship with Christ that is something other than memorizing or studing the Bible? JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha How so JD? Since there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word? The Truth Himself says: "If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come into him and make our abode with him" - Since you and Lance can't be sure what His Word is then how can you keep it? jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:34:40 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally believe that we change because of our relationship with The Truth more than because of conceptual correctness. From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comYou had implied in the past that you yours are the only ones capable of inteligent discussion. Was that the OLD JD?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are saying that we are to be like Him, conformed to His image -- I say "duh !" It appears, howeer that we have regressed into monologue. Jd I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His works were done before the foundation of the world and it is written that we are predestined to be conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at all and this has everything to do with relationship with Christ = jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your point completely. Jd Interesting JD, I've been attending an introductory class at the church we have been attending which is PCA. They identify with the Reformation and they like the Shorter Catechism. I can't figure out why the first point in the Catechism does not say that the chief end of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ - after all this is what we have been predestined for and they believe in predestination. (Romans 8:29) jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:12:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not too bad of a question. Quite often growth may appear to bevacillation.If we define new birth as a putting on of Christ, emphasis ona relationship, then we might suppose that the resulting validation marking the difference between vacillation and growthis the benefit can see in the occurring changes. If I am a better person, growth has occurred. If I have become more distasteful, something is wrong with the relationship. After all, that is the way relationships work. S, "truth" can be said to exist IN THE BELIEVER if that believer becomes more and more like Christ. JD From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com JD are you Growing or Vacillating? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:44:04 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
The codex were scriptures, and the Bible is scriptures. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:49:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
We can crucify the son of God afresh if or when we continue to sin wilfully after receiving knowledge of the truth JD. Looks like you still have not taken the time to read Hebrews 10:26,27. I don't know about "mainstream Christianity" whatever that is but I don't believe Christine has any problem discerning what sin is or when she misses it. She has described it on TT - where were you JD?? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:03:17 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodness - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Ofcourse -- but I am not talking about rebellion. I am talking about every day run of the mill SIN. The kind you and I possess (If we say we are haing no sin, the truth is not in us, Judy). Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:35:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners We can crucify the son of God afresh if or when we continue to sin wilfully after receiving knowledge of the truth JD. Looks like you still have not taken the time to read Hebrews 10:26,27. I don't know about "mainstream Christianity" whatever that is but I don't believe Christine has any problem discerning what sin is or when she misses it. She has described it on TT - where were you JD?? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:03:17 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodness - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
I give up. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
You believe that there is no relationship with CHrist that is apart from the bible itself. My point is this: there have been thousands, if not millions, who have no bible from the first century on. They could not curl up by the fire and read ANY scripture -- it was kept in the synagogue orwhereever -- what about them and your theology. I still say that Christ HIMSELF is the issue as He manifests Himself in dreams, visions, fellowship, prayer, fellowship bible study and the like. Do I still sound like I do not know what I believe ?? Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:25:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha The codex were scriptures, and the Bible is scriptures. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:49:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
If we say we have not sinned when we have sinned the truth is not in us. Yes we are stuck with this body that is prone to sin and our old man who we are to "reckon dead". However,consistently walking after the Spirit and refusing to respond tothe lust of the flesh is the normal Christian walk and for someone who is walking there to say they have sin would make them a liar. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:31:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ofcourse -- but I am not talking about rebellion. I am talking about every day run of the mill SIN. The kind you and I possess (If we say we are haing no sin, the truth is not in us, Judy). JdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] We can crucify the son of God afresh if or when we continue to sin wilfully after receiving knowledge of the truth JD. Looks like you still have not taken the time to read Hebrews 10:26,27. I don't know about "mainstream Christianity" whatever that is but I don't believe Christine has any problem discerning what sin is or when she misses it. She has described it on TT - where were you JD?? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:03:17 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodness - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Good for you JD - I gave up a long time ago :) jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:31:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I give up. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
No JD; my belief is that there is no relationship with Christ apart from acknowledgement of and obedience to His Word. It makes no difference how it is received or whether or not one is in possession of their own personal Bible. (In our generation we have no excuse). The Synogogue came out of the Babylonian captivity and the original purpose for this was to teach the WofG to the children who were born in captivity. I'm glad you include Bible study in your list below because without it there is no plumbline. Anyone who is off following dreams, visions, and fellowship could wind up following the angel of light and they wouldn't know the difference. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:29:02 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You believe that there is no relationship with CHrist that is apart from the bible itself. My point is this: there have been thousands, if not millions, who have no bible from the first century on. They could not curl up by the fire and read ANY scripture -- it was kept in the synagogue orwhereever -- what about them and your theology. I still say that Christ HIMSELF is the issue as He manifests Himself in dreams, visions, fellowship, prayer, fellowship bible study and the like. Do I still sound like I do not know what I believe ?? JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com The codex were scriptures, and the Bible is scriptures. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:49:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So was the codex called the "Bible."From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Gary wrote:myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) Actually, I have not called JD a sinner, if that is what your are implying: "So I (and you, as a son of God) am no longer a sinner." I can really only speak for myself with any assurance, which is what I have been doing in my posts. But I take JD's word for it that he loves Jesus. Since he says this, he should not say he is a sinner, because he's not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have a conscience problem with calling myself a sinner. Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Interloper speaks on this 'sinner' thingy:Obviously, it's to do with your understanding of some presence of 'sin/flesh/humanity prior to the eschaton. I count myself among that number who find themselves still this side of 'that eschaton'. - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: June 10, 2005 08:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Gary wrote:myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) Actually, I have not called JD a sinner, if that is what your are implying: "So I (and you, as a son of God) am no longer a sinner." I can really only speak for myself with any assurance, which is what I have been doing in my posts. But I take JD's word for it that he loves Jesus. Since he says this, he should not say he is a sinner, because he's not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have a conscience problem with calling myself a sinner. Discover Yahoo!Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Taking God's Name in vain
See ministry article below fyi, not good to treat God's Name lightly: On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] MINISTRY ARTICLE: THE THIRD COMMANDMENT By Kiri Christina Hyatt (c)"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)It amazes me how many church going Christians throw Gods name around without thought or respect. They use it so casually. They would never use a friends name so casually. Our name is precious to us. It is our identity. Why do we abuse Gods name when we would be insulted if our name was treated that way?I have a hunch that many people are using the Lords name in vain without even realizing it. People who would never say Jesus as a cuss word do not think twice in saying God in a similar way.Most Christians would not say God d___ you, but a few do. Such profanity should not even cross our minds, let alone come out of our mouths.Many believers do say, God! in a less then holy way. Something bad (or even good) happens and out of our mouth comes, Oh my God! To throw the name of our Holy God around like that is very disrespectful. That phrase is nothing more then using Gods name in a vain way.Someone sneezes and we respond with God bless you. The origin of that custom comes from the dark ages. People believed that when a person sneezed there was a possibility his spirit might escape out his nose allowing a demon to sneak up the nose. The way to prevent that from happening was to say God bless you. Now I am not suggesting we should stop saying God bless you when people sneeze, but we often say it with no thought or meaning. It is so automatic. We say it in an irrelevant irreverent way. We need to learn to say it with meaning.It may be helpful to look at the definition of the word vain. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word vain comes from the Latin word empty. It means having no real value, idle, worthless, and useless. It also means to use Gods name in an irreverent or blasphemous manner. Take a moment and think about how you often use Gods name. Do you use it in an irreverent way? Do you use it as if it has no value. Do you use it without thinking? If so, you are guilty of using the Lords name in vain.The sad truth is we Christians simply do not honor and worship Gods name as we should. Attend a Synagogue or Messianic church and you will notice they will not even spell Gods name. Instead they spell it without the vowels (G_d). The reason for this is they do not want to be guilty of taking Gods name in vain. They do not even want to risk it. In the ancient Hebrew Scriptures the name of God we translate as Yahweh or Jehovah, is the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Fear of violating this commandment and angering God, the scribes abbreviated His name to YHWH. Today no one really knows how Gods name is actually supposed to be pronounced. We do not know what the missing vowels are. The scribes did not want to be guilty of using Gods name in vain, so they left out the vowels. His name would only be uttered once a year, and then only in the Holy of Holies. The priests simply viewed Gods name to be to holy to be uttered.Prayer:Dear Heavenly Father, I repent of every instance of my life that I have used Your name in an unholy way. Please forgive me. If I am guilty of using Your name in any manner that is not holy during the past year, please reveal my sin to me so that I can change. Help me to become so conscience of any bad habits in how I use Your name or say Your name, that I will catch myself before it comes out of my mouth. I thank You in advance for revealing Your truth to me in this area of my life. I ask all this in the name of Jesus, my Lord and Savior, AMEN. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
My fear is that by the time you learn that the "eschaton" you cling to will not save you because it isjust a theological construct - a doctrine of men - it will be too late. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:11:17 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interloper speaks on this 'sinner' thingy:Obviously, it's to do with your understanding of some presence of 'sin/flesh/humanity prior to the eschaton. I count myself among that number who find themselves still this side of 'that eschaton'. From: Christine Miller Gary wrote:myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) Actually, I have not called JD a sinner, if that is what your are implying: "So I (and you, as a son of God) am no longer a sinner." I can really only speak for myself with any assurance, which is what I have been doing in my posts. But I take JD's word for it that he loves Jesus. Since he says this, he should not say he is a sinner, because he's not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have a conscience problem with calling myself a sinner. Discover Yahoo!Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Which one?? No.3? Eschaton From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Eschaton can refer to: the subject of eschatology a political weblog written by "Atrios" a transhuman entity in the Charlie Stross novel Singularity Sky a game in the novel Infinite Jest in which tennis balls represent Nuclear arms. On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:11:17 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interloper speaks on this 'sinner' thingy:Obviously, it's to do with your understanding of some presence of 'sin/flesh/humanity prior to the eschaton. I count myself among that number who find themselves still this side of 'that eschaton'. From: Christine Miller Gary wrote:myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) Actually, I have not called JD a sinner, if that is what your are implying: "So I (and you, as a son of God) am no longer a sinner." I can really only speak for myself with any assurance, which is what I have been doing in my posts. But I take JD's word for it that he loves Jesus. Since he says this, he should not say he is a sinner, because he's not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (while you'd have no problem calling other ppl 'sinners', you must not be human) On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have a conscience problem with calling myself a sinner. Discover Yahoo!Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
JD wrote: I really need you present a scriptural argument for this. My ""conviction" is not to be confused with the Spirits feelings.When we speak corrupt communication, that is, "mis-speaking" in your words, the Spirit is grieved: Eph. 4:29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.And as far as your sinning by not helping your neighbor, Hebrews 10 addreses the subject: Heb. 10:26"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."In fact, I would just like to ask, JD, how you respond to all of Hebrews 10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; 33Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. 34For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 35Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. 36For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37For yet a little while, and he that shall come will
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Where do you get this stuff? LUKE 4 Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
He wants us to go back to those days and he can be the BISHOP of your soul.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
It is INCREDIBLE, to those that have NO VICTORY over SIN just ask our LDS friends or JD. ROMANS 4 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodnes JD - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Luke refers to
the'book' in ch4, but never said itwas read that day--the custom was
for someoneto read from it--apparentlyJC didn't do that; instead he
merely'opened the book' looking for something in particular; he 'found'
it,then gave a brief sermon about it:Isaiah's writing (which
ultimately nearly got him killed as a result); he closed'the
book',handed itback to someone, then 'sat
down'.
FTR, it's hip to
keep a Bible around,a bookyou, jt, Izzyalways stand up on--why
not considerdevoting your time to inquiring, e.g., learning its
contentS, as above?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
{JC} was delivered[handed]..the book of the prophet
Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place
where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the
acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed
the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat
down.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Was it called the Revised Standard Version?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Starw man alert: Whenever JD starts describing what others believe WATCH OUT. Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:04:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodnes SPAN class=correction id=""JD - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
He makes us correct IN HIS MIND When is He going to START on you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I beleive the Bible says." And that is precisely why we need the graciuous invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:11:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Lances doctrine of the incarnation conflicts with the clear teaching of God's Word and other than that he appears to ignore it. Your problem is as stated belowin your own words ie that your confidence is in what you believe concerning the Word rather than in the Word itself... and yes I believe disciples with a relationship with Christ do something other than study and memorize; they become "doers" of the Word rather than self deceived hearers only. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:55:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does it concern you that that you characterization of either Lance or myself is mistaken regarding the notion that we are confused about His Word. I cannot speak for Lance -- although I have in the past -- but I do not see any confusion on his part in this regard. As for me, I have confidence in what I believe concerning the Word. Do you believe that disciples have a relationship with Christ that is something other than memorizing or studing the Bible? JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha How so JD? Since there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word? The Truth Himself says: "If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come into him and make our abode with him" - Since you and Lance can't be sure what His Word is then how can you keep it? jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:34:40 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally believe that we change because of our relationship with The Truth more than because of conceptual correctness. From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comYou had implied in the past that you yours are the only ones capable of inteligent discussion. Was that the OLD JD?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are saying that we are to be like Him, conformed to His image -- I say "duh !" It appears, howeer that we have regressed into monologue. Jd I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His works were done before the foundation of the world and it is written that we are predestined to be conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at all and this has everything to do with relationship with Christ = jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your point completely. Jd Interesting JD, I've been attending an introductory class at the church we have been attending which is PCA. They identify with the Reformation and they like the Shorter Catechism. I can't figure out why the first point in the Catechism does not say that the chief end of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ - after all this is what we have been predestined for and they believe in predestination. (Romans 8:29) jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:12:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not too bad of a question. Quite often growth may appear to bevacillation.If we define new birth as a putting on of Christ, emphasis ona relationship, then we might suppose that the resulting validation marking the difference between vacillation and growthis the benefit can see in the occurring changes. If I am a better person, growth has occurred. If I have become more distasteful, something is wrong with the relationship. After all, that is the way relationships work. S, "truth" can be said to exist IN THE BELIEVER if that believer becomes more and more like Christ. JD From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com JD are you Growing or Vacillating? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
HEAR YE HEAR YE, Bible Pervert speaks on perversion![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:44:04 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
What makes you think we haven't? Have you?
Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:17
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Apocrypha
Luke refers to
the'book' in ch4, but never said itwas read that day--the custom was
for someoneto read from it--apparentlyJC didn't do that; instead he
merely'opened the book' looking for something in particular; he 'found'
it,then gave a brief sermon about it:Isaiah's writing (which
ultimately nearly got him killed as a result); he closed'the
book',handed itback to someone, then 'sat
down'.
FTR, it's hip to
keep a Bible around,a bookyou, jt, Izzyalways stand up on--why
not considerdevoting your time to inquiring, e.g., learning its
contentS, as above?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
{JC} was delivered[handed]..the book of the prophet
Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place
where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the
acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed
the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat
down.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
YesBUT, inquiring minds want to know. What wasit called?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The codex were scriptures, and the Bible is scriptures. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:49:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Now maybe God can start working?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good for you JD - I gave up a long time ago :) jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:31:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I give up. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
I give up. PTL![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I give up. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
The correct Interpretation lies in KNOWING and BELIEVING the AUTHOR! LU 24:45; 2PT 1:20; 1 JN 2:27Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No JD; my belief is that there is no relationship with Christ apart from acknowledgement of and obedience to His Word. It makes no difference how it is received or whether or not one is in possession of their own personal Bible. (In our generation we have no excuse). The Synogogue came out of the Babylonian captivity and the original purpose for this was to teach the WofG to the children who were born in captivity. I'm glad you include Bible study in your list below because without it there is no plumbline. Anyone who is off following dreams, visions, and fellowship could wind up following the angel of light and they wouldn't know the difference. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:29:02 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You believe that there is no relationship with CHrist that is apart from the bible itself. My point is this: there have been thousands, if not millions, who have no bible from the first century on. They could not curl up by the fire and read ANY scripture -- it was kept in the synagogue orwhereever -- what about them and your theology. I still say that Christ HIMSELF is the issue as He manifests Himself in dreams, visions, fellowship, prayer, fellowship bible study and the like. Do I still sound like I do not know what I believe ?? JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com The codex were scriptures, and the Bible is scriptures. jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:49:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So was the codex called the "Bible."From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? He has duel SECRET DECODER Rings! This is NOT a MYTH!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Luke refers to the'book' in ch4, but never said itwas read that daydelivered[handed]..the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written
It was handed to him
He opened the BOOK
He found where it was written
Everything needs to be spelt out for you BIBLE "AUTHORITIES"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke refers to the'book' in ch4, but never said itwas read that day--the custom was for someoneto read from it--apparentlyJC didn't do that; instead he merely'opened the book' looking for something in particular; he 'found' it,then gave a brief sermon about it:Isaiah's writing (which ultimately nearly got him killed as a result); he closed'the book',handed itback to someone, then 'sat down'.
FTR, it's hip to keep a Bible around,a bookyou, jt, Izzyalways stand up on--why not considerdevoting your time to inquiring, e.g., learning its contentS, as above?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
{JC} was delivered[handed]..the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Clowning Around
I agree--I especially like the green eyes and the red mustache--sort of reminds me of Christmas. :) Blaine In a message dated 6/7/2005 6:34:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I do have to admit a slight resemblance.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Clowning AroundDate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:33:54 EDTIn a message dated 6/7/2005 7:14:22 AM Mountain Standard Time,[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Oh, Blaine, if you took my response as serious, thinking the picture reallyis of me in a clown suit, then you did not catch the gist of my jest. Davejust forwarded some photo he got somehwere, most likely on the web, andposted it as though it was me. I was just playing along. But, still feelfree to call me a clown whenever you like!PerryPerryI finally saw the photo, and saved it to My Pictures. I will treasure italways, but please be aware that I do not believe it is not you. I think youare just clowning around again with thisfake denial. :)Blaine
**Moderator comment: was Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Kevin, you may disagree with the Bible versions others use, but please do
not call them Bible Perverts. One who uses a perverted translation might
better describe your position on other translations without casting
aspersions on the one that prefers, or references, other translations.
Perry the moderator
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
HEAR YE HEAR YE,
Bible Pervert speaks on perversion!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another
--- if you are speaking of Jesus Christ and that is Mr. G's point
(to me). The perverse part is not using this curse word to describe a
relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words.
Jd
-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:44:04 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
.AOLPlainTextBody {margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial,
Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px; color: #000; background-color:
#fff; }.AOLPlainTextBody pre {font-size: 9pt;}.AOLInlineAttachment {
margin: 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader {border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;
background: #F9F9F9;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;color: #66;background: #E9EAEB;
padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {font: 11px
Tahoma; font-weight: bold;color: #66;padding: 1px 10px 1px
9px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {font: 11px Tahoma; color:
#33;}There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse
word with a relationship. jt
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth [the biblical Word created and sustains the world--'the earth..and
they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)
'relationship' (with him) is both positive and negative, e.g., as when a
non-Chrisitian mutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him
like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider this Word as a
subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessness of the dualistic mind
set in its absolutism and 'correct'-ness--a Humility]
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word..
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
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] Apocrypha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I beleive the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. And that is precisely why we need the graciuous invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jtFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lances doctrine of the incarnation conflicts with the clear teaching of God's Word and other than that he appears to ignore it. Your problem is as stated belowin your own words ie that your confidence is in what you believe concerning the Word rather than in the Word itself... and yes I believe disciples with a relationship with Christ do something other than study and memorize; they become "doers" of the Word rather than self deceived hearers only. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:55:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does it concern you that that you characterization of either Lance or myself is mistaken regarding the notion that we are confused about His Word. I cannot speak for Lance -- although I have in the past -- but I do not see any confusion on his part in this regard. As for me, I have confidence in what I believe concerning the Word. Do you believe that disciples have a relationship with Christ that is something other than memorizing or studing the Bible? JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha How so JD? Since there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word? The Truth Himself says: "If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come into him and make our abode with him" - Since you and Lance can't be sure what His Word is then how can you keep it? jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:34:40 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally believe that we change because of our relationship with The Truth more than because of conceptual correctness. From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comYou had implied in the past that you yours are the only ones capable of inteligent discussion. Was that the OLD JD?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are saying that we are to be like Him, conformed to His image -- I say "duh !" It appears, howeer that we have regressed into monologue. Jd I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His works were done before the foundation of the world and it is written that we are predestined to be conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at all and this has everything to do with relationship with Christ = jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your point completely. Jd Interesting JD, I've been attending an introductory class at the church we have been attending which is PCA. They identify with the Reformation and they like the Shorter
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Kevin -- I gave "my understanding" of her view. I believe she confirmed this in one of her responses. She can correct my thinking of her thinking anytime --- now, goback to the chalk board and finish writing "I will domonstrate my Godly affection for brother John by actually giving him the benefit of the doubt -- 300 times by sunset. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Starw man alert: Whenever JD starts describing what others believe WATCH OUT. Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:04:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodnes SPAN class=correction id=""JD - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt Discover Yahoo!Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
I think I am before you, but I am not sure on that one. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha He makes us correct IN HIS MIND When is He going to START on you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I beleive the Bible says." And that is precisely why we need the graciuous invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:11:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Lances doctrine of the incarnation conflicts with the clear teaching of God's Word and other than that he appears to ignore it. Your problem is as stated belowin your own words ie that your confidence is in what you believe concerning the Word rather than in the Word itself... and yes I believe disciples with a relationship with Christ do something other than study and memorize; they become "doers" of the Word rather than self deceived hearers only. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:55:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does it concern you that that you characterization of either Lance or myself is mistaken regarding the notion that we are confused about His Word. I cannot speak for Lance -- although I have in the past -- but I do not see any confusion on his part in this regard. As for me, I have confidence in what I believe concerning the Word. Do you believe that disciples have a relationship with Christ that is something other than memorizing or studing the Bible? JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha How so JD? Since there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word? The Truth Himself says: "If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come into him and make our abode with him" - Since you and Lance can't be sure what His Word is then how can you keep it? jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:34:40 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally believe that we change because of our relationship with The Truth more than because of conceptual correctness. From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comYou had implied in the past that you yours are the only ones capable of inteligent discussion. Was that the OLD JD?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are saying that we are to be like Him, conformed to His image -- I say "duh !" It appears, howeer that we have regressed into monologue. Jd I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His works were done before the foundation of the world and it is written that we are predestined to be conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at all and this has everything to do with relationship with Christ = jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your point completely. Jd Interesting JD, I've been attending an introductory class at the church we have been attending which is PCA. They identify with the Reformation and they like the Shorter Catechism. I can't figure out why the first point in the Catechism does not say that the chief end of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ - after all this is what we have been predestined for and they believe in predestination. (Romans 8:29) jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:12:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not too bad of a question. Quite often growth may appear to bevacillation.If we define new birth as a putting on of Christ, emphasis ona relationship, then we might suppose that the resulting validation marking the difference between vacillation and growthis the benefit can see in the occurring changes. If I am a better person, growth has occurred. If I have become more distasteful, something is wrong with the relationship. After all, that is the way relationships work. S, "truth" can be said to exist IN THE BELIEVER if that believer becomes more and more like Christ. JD From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com JD are you Growing or Vacillating? Do you
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
By reading with a view to understanding. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? He has duel SECRET DECODER Rings! This is NOT a MYTH!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not only perversion but convoluted thinking also. Relationships do not happen by osmosis, they require love, trust, most of all communication andconsistency. How do you get anything other than a mere mutter of words out of any of Garys posts? jt On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:16:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What What is a curse word to one is a relationship to another --- if you are speaking of "Jesus Christ " and that is Mr. G's point (to me). The perverse part is not using this "curse word" to describe a relationship[ but relegating this relationship to a mere mutter of words. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com There is most definitely something perverse about equating a curse word with a relationship. jt On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:19:28 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [the biblicalWord created and sustains the world--'the earth..and they that dwell therein' belong to Him, as always, therefore, (our)'relationship'(with him) isboth positive and negative, e.g., as when anon-Chrisitianmutters 'Jesus Christ' and as when someone who loves him like JD says in his own words, 'Jesus Christ'--consider thisWordasa subtlety foriegn to the egocentrism and sinlessnessof the dualistic mind set in its absolutism and'correct'-ness--a Humility] On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Yes, by jove, I believe you are correct. It even quotes the Old Testament as written in the RSV in the New Testament ! Can you believe it -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Was it called the Revised Standard Version?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:22:28 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. jt: No I don't look for "command statements" but there are some, nor do I view scripture as a law book although it does contain God's Law. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. jt: How sad that you refuse to allow ppl to say what they are saying JD. Could be the reason why you never seem to understand what it is they just said. I don't struggle with scripture, what I am extremely careful about are the doctrines of men that pop up constantly and try to explain it away. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. jt: ONLY if our faith is the "saving" kind, the kind withcorresponding actions - the kind that causes us to hate sin and remove it from our lives.
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
LOL I thot it was the Mytho SEPTUAGINT?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, by jove, I believe you are correct. It even quotes the Old Testament as written in the RSV in the New Testament ! Can you believe it -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha Was it called the Revised Standard Version?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So was the codex called the "Bible."-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:48:12 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It does not play into anything; upon what grounds would you make such a statement? The dark ages where ppl were illiterate and the rcc kept the scriptures chained to the pulpit were much later. jt On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:40:39 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you accept that thousands of Christians of the first and second centuries never personally read nor studied the Bible? How does that play into your point below. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:02:20 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..there is no relationship with the Truth outside of His Word.. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
JD wrote: We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Whoa, so, God isdeceiving himself! JD,how does thatinterpretation tie intoHeb. 10:14? "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Blessings[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
it's v challenging! such authorityisdifficult to come by--when did you become hostile to our pursuit? On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everything needs to be spelt out for you BIBLE "AUTHORITIES" ||
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
JD wrote: I believe she confirmed this in one of her responses. Actually, I have never confirmed this. But I will now, according to howthe Biblesays it is done. AllI know iswhat the word of Godsays, confirmed by the Spirit in my life.And the word saysin Hebrews 10:17-18, that where the remission of sin is, there is no more offering for sin. I don't know how to cartwheel around that one, JD. I think it would be wrong to split the Word into loopholes. Paul goes on to say that we may now pass through the second veil boldly,drawing near with a "true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." We are washed once, not over and over again. The over and over again stuff happened before Christ's death. Hebrews 6:6 - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. I don't know the full meaning of all of this, but I can't ignore scripture. I would welcome wisdom here from other TT members, because I don't really know. But this is what the Bible says about it. I think one thing that makes this hard to swallow forJD Co. ismy language. I don't say "sinless" to mean infallible.I do believe Christians led by the Spirit will make mistakeswhile they are babes in Christ. Not sin. We are to know the father's mind, and as we learn we mature into higher levels of righteousness, and higher levels of responsibility to the Lord. So, did Jesus only die for our past sins? Well, it seems we can't sacrifice him again. So we leave our sin behind. Blessings[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin -- I gave "my understanding" of her view. I believe she confirmed this in one of her responses. She can correct my thinking of her thinking anytime --- now, goback to the chalk board and finish writing "I will domonstrate my Godly affection for brother John by actually giving him the benefit of the doubt -- 300 times by sunset. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Starw man alert: Whenever JD starts describing what others believe WATCH OUT. Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes no difference as to "truth," I know. But this point of view IS not mainstream Christianity. One of her (theological) problems is her concept of sin. A second issue is her thinking about the Sacrifice and her version of "limited atonement," where Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only (and how is that different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?),while others believe that the Sacrifice was for ALLSIN over the course of ALL TIME. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:04:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Christine writes: Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Him again for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holy children, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this. I still don't fully understand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh. JD responds:this is probably one of the most incredible statements from a Christian that I have seen in print. Help me out, here. You cannot posilby argue that you have committed no sin since accepting Jesus into your life. Why is that not in conflict with what you say above? Goodnes SPAN class=correction id=""JD - where have you been and what kind of Christians have you been around that believingscripture should be so "incredible"? Apparently Christine believes Hebrews 10:26,27 and Romans 8:1,2 which is not all that incredible because I believe them too. jt Discover Yahoo!Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM more. Check it out! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
JD wrote: The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is true. Paul encourages us, however,to accept that, and move onto perfection (maturity): Heb. 6:1-3 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3And this will we do, if God permit. God permitting, you will see my point. :-) Blessings! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:22:28 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. jt: No I don't look for "command statements" but there are some, nor do I view scripture as a law book although it does contain God's Law. I do not read the bible with a view to decide "what I will accept." I read it to understand: to understand what the immedicate text has to say; to understnd how that text aligns itself with other related passages; to understand how the text plays in our cultural circumstance, today -- if it does. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. jt: How sad that you refuse to allow ppl to say what they are saying JD. Could be the reason why you never seem to understand what it is they just said. I don't struggle with scripture, what I am extremely careful about are the doctrines of men that pop up constantly and try to explain it away. I "allow" you to say anything you want. But I will object to conclusions that cannot poosibly to true ... and the thinking on your part that your intellect is somehow not involved in your search for truth, that you do not DECIDE to believe what is said after evaluation is one of those impossible conclusions. . i.e. the bible speaks of salvation by faith apart from obedience to the Law. You have decided if that is what is said, it includes only the Levitical Law. You have evaluated and made a decision to believe thus and so. This is not a "liberal" theme." Rather, is one of common sense and nothing more. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. jt: ONLY if our faith is the "saving" kind, the kind withcorresponding actions - the kind that causes us to hate sin and remove it from our lives. So, we are not saved unless and until we visit the orphans and the fatherless, until we provide for the needs of the phsical life of those whom we offer a wish of prosperity (be thou warmed and filled)?
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
What the Brother from the North has to say, is avery important point. Our theologies (yours, mine, Mr. G and so on) are a combination of a number issues and scriptures.It is what Lance says that explains just why little change will take place here on TT. Our theologies are rather involved belief SYSTEMS. but enough. The Heb 10 passage presents the belief that in Christ's offering we have been perfected. I see this as saying exactly what I am saying.I am perfected -- even before growth -- by the offering. Someone else did it for me -- at the cross. And if it did occur before growth, at the cross, it is an occurrence IN THE MIND OF GOD. -Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:01:57 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha It (Hb 10) doesn't have to. Few singular texts, if any, are meant to explicate the entirety of Scripture vis a vis a particular topic. - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: June 10, 2005 16:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha JD wrote: We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Whoa, so, God isdeceiving himself! JD,how does thatinterpretation tie intoHeb. 10:14? "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Blessings[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Discover Yahoo!Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing more. Check it out!
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
:-)-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:10:17 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha it's v challenging! such authorityisdifficult to come by--when did you become hostile to our pursuit? On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everything needs to be spelt out for you BIBLE "AUTHORITIES" ||
Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
-Original Message-From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:28:23 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners JD wrote: I believe she confirmed this in one of her responses. Actually, I have never confirmed this. But I will now, according to howthe Biblesays it is done. Christine : here is what you said that led me to believe that you did confirm my understanding: JD wrote: When you write "cleansed," I uderstand you to be saying that you are pressing the view that we have been pardoned for past sins and empowered to live without transgression of any kind."Absolutely. Christ died once. We cannot crucify Himagain for our sins, so that means a single, thoroughwashing. If we were not clean and pure and holychildren, He would have to sacrifice Himself again.You see, I must beleive this.. I still don't fullyunderstand exactly how this works, but I must acceptit. The fact is, we cannot crucify the Son of Godafresh.I am curious how the above differes from the following .. !! AllI know iswhat the word of Godsays, confirmed by the Spirit in my life. The Spirit confirms in my life that NO ONE is without sin. And I have much scripture to support the viewpoint as much as you. Now what. And the word saysin Hebrews 10:17-18, that where the remission of sin is, there is no more offering for sin. I don't know how to cartwheel around that one, JD. I think it would be wrong to split the Word into loopholes. Why not take Heb 10:17-18, read the passage, and go elsewhere in the same letter to see if that writer explains why the sacrifce for sin is a one time occurence? We do not disagree with this passage, but there is more to this concept, expressed in 10:17-18, within this same letter. Why is the sacrifice a one itme occurence, contextually speaking Paul goes on to say that we may now pass through the second veil boldly,drawing near with a "true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." We are washed once, not over and over again. The over and over again stuff happened before Christ's death. Hebrews 6:6 - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Christine, I am not absolving those who "fall away." I do not even have them in mind. Why do you think this counters anything that I have said. With an answer, I may be able to correct that impression. I don't know the full meaning of all of this, but I can't ignore scripture. You don't know the full meaning but you cannot ignore scripture ?? !! Well, apparently you have joined the club. This is the plight of us all. I would welcome wisdom here from other TT members, because I don't really know. But this is what the Bible says about it. I think one thing that makes this hard to swallow forJD Co. ismy language. I don't say "sinless" to mean infallible.I do believe Christians led by the Spirit will make mistakeswhile they are babes in Christ. Not sin. We are to know the father's mind, and as we learn we mature into higher levels of righteousness, and higher levels of responsibility to the Lord. So, did Jesus only die for our past sins? Well, it seems we can't sacrifice him again. So we leave our sin behind. Explain to me how this works, in your opinion. You "get saved" and then -- what. I still have your original confirmation in mind. Should I put that behind me? Blessings[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin -- I gave "my understanding" of her view. I believe she confirmed this in one of her responses. She can correct my thinking of her thinking anytime --- now, goback to the chalk board and finish writing "I will domonstrate my Godly affection for brother John by actually giving him the benefit of the doubt -- 300 times by sunset. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners Starw man alert: Whenever JD starts describing what others believe WATCH OUT. Christine, and perhaps you, believe that Christ's Sacrifice was for past sins, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the context of her statement to be thus: Christ died for past sins way back when; and after she accepted Him in whatever way and received benefit from that sacrifice, God somehow empowered her to live a life, thereafter, without sin. The sacrifice no longer applies because of the double jeopardy rule she apparently has in regard to the Sacrifice "we cannot crucify the Son of God afresh." I do not know anyone who believe this."Numbers" of believers makes
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
Of course he does. HE MAKES US PERFECT BY CONSIDERATION -- after that, we work to improve our state of affairs in the relationship we we have with Him. We apparently are not that different. Jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:39:17 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha JD wrote: The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is true. Paul encourages us, however,to accept that, and move onto perfection (maturity): Heb. 6:1-3 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3And this will we do, if God permit. God permitting, you will see my point. :-) Blessings! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha
That is the effect of Romans 4, Chrsitine. If He accepts faith in the place of our personal righteousness - where do you think this exchange takes place if not in HIS MIND ? Our's is not a God who is self-deceived. Rather, He is a God of grace. JD -Original Message-From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha JD wrote: We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Whoa, so, God isdeceiving himself! JD,how does thatinterpretation tie intoHeb. 10:14? "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Blessings[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that we pick of the Bible, read it and believe it apart fromthe process of evaluation and acceptance is simple not possible. jt: Why not? This is what was expected of Israel under the Old Covenant. They were expected to hear and to obey - Not study it out and decide which parts they would accept. Is your only purpose in Bible study to search for command statements I do not see the book as a book of law -- commands. It is no longer a legal document. You can cast the project in whatever light you desire; YOU play a role in what you believe the message says. I have said it before and I say itagain: it is never "what the Bible says" -- rather, it is always "what I believe the Bible says." jt: For you and Lanceand those who think like you. For me it is "what the scripture says" and I work on renewing my mind accordingly. Actually, this is not true. You share what "you believe the bible says" exactly as I do. It like breathing or sweating -- you have no choice. You simply do not accept ANYTHING into your intellectual/spiritual life apart from the process of evaluation and acceptance. And that is precisely why we need the gracious invention of God .. He makes us correct IN HIS MIND while we DO the best that we can. None on this forum has another approach regardless of the rhetoric.JD jt: What do you mean "He makes us correct in his mind?" Kind of like if I don't acknowledge it, it's not there? I don't think so JD. God has perfect eyesight and He is not doubleminded, not in the least. jt Amazing -- anyway, "He makes us correct IN HIS MIND" has nothing to do with " ...if I don't acknowledge it, it's not true." The Bible tells us that "faith is reckoned as righteousness." That is an intellectual decision God makes on our behalf. He sees faith and HE DECIDES to view it as if it were righteousness. We are righteous IN HIS MIND. Discover Yahoo!Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing more. Check it out!
[TruthTalk] Being freed from sin
John wrote: If He accepts faith in the place of our personal righteousness - where do you think this exchange takes place if not in HIS MIND ? How about within us? After all, he said earlier in the letter: Romans 2:14-15 (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another Compare that with Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:33-34 (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. So the New Covenant includes an exchange of faith for personal righteousness within us and not just in the mind of God. This is why he continues saying in his Roman letter: Romans 6:1-2 (1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:6-7 (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. Romans 6:14 (14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:18 (18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:22-23 (22) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 8:3-5 (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 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] Being freed from sin
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:37:27 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Being freed from sin John wrote: If He accepts faith in the place of our personal righteousness - where do you think this exchange takes place if not in HIS MIND ? How about within us? After all, he said earlier in the letter:How about within us Romans 4:6 pronounces a " blessing upon the man to whomGod considers righteousness apart form obedience (works [of law]. In light of this verse, I believe your use of Romans 2:14-15 is inappropriate. This is probably why Paul does not use2:14-15 as an argument for his point in Romans 4. Romans 2:14-15 (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one anotherThe above (Romans 2) is not how we are saved !! In fact, only the POSSIBILITY of salvation is presented, based upon their good works. Ww know that reward to those who obey is a reward of obligation (Romans 4:4) Compare that with Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant:Jeremiah 31:33-34 (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. So the New Covenant includes an exchange of faith for personal righteousness within us and not just in the mind of God. This is why he continues saying in his Roman letter: Romans 6:1-2 (1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?You have stated in the past that Christ died for past sins. What is God's plan of salvationas you see it? Can you give a succinct review so that I do not misunderstand your faithon this point? Are you lost before you accept Christ? When do I benefit from event of the cross? If I sin after receiving the sacrifice, am I lost? God does His part and then, it is up to me? You do not need to answer these questions, per se. I just want to put my question (whatis the plan of salvation as you see it) in a thoughtful context. How we view the following < /PRE>scriptures has to do with how we view the "plan." At least this is true of me. Romans 6:6-7 (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. Romans 6:14 (14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:18 (18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:22-23 (22) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 8:3-5 (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 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.
