Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas!
Dave, in your post to which I responded, you use reason and the theoretical to completely change the reality pictured in the biblical scriptures. Here is what you wrote: It seems to me the main difference is that you believe it necessary for the pain to be inflicted on Jesus from a 3rd party to make the atonement work. From my perspective, Jesus took our sins upon himself and suffered because of them without needing a 3rd party.No matter what one THINKS about the circumstance, the fact remains that He did suffer and die at the hands of a 3rd party. The spear you mentioned, probably drew little blood. But the beating he experienced left its stains on the cross as did the blood from the nail pierced hands and feet. There is no blood in the garden except for Peter's assault on the Roman guard. i am not sure why the others on this forum are not making the point -- but the statement is "drops as if blood." Blaine's picture of blood on the saddle, blood on the ground, blood all around is simply not accurate if one speaks from scripture. Not even close. Christ'sdeath on the cross was the sacrifice that ended all sacrifice for sin ... a once and for all time thing. The sacrifice He fulfilled (and , thus brought to an end) was one done by a third part y- the butcher of something pure. Mormon doctrine from what I can see, does not teach the association obvious in biblical scripture between the old testament sacrifices for sin and that of Christ. The Mormon church simply misses this point -- teaching a very different gosple. Why this is done, is beyond me, but it is not of God -- or the biblical scriptures have been superceded by the Mormon scriptures. On this specific point, there are not two valid postions - only one. The ideas are mutally exclusive. p; -- Original message -- From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] The(biblical)fact is this: He died on the cross at the hands of others.DAVEH: I agree, John. What do you think caused Jesus to suffer so much in the Garden of Gethsemane?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] some differences in our views.DAVEH: To boil it down, Terry..It seems to me the main difference is that you believe it necessary for the pain to be inflicted on Jesus from a 3rd party to make the atonement work. From my perspective, Jesus took our sins upon himself and suffered because of them without needing a 3rd party. you contrast the theoretical with the (biblical) reality. The(biblical)fact is this: He died on the cross at the hands of others.Converting thetheoretical into a "fact" puts you (or anyone) at the center of your faith. As I mentioned before, his death was a necessary element of the atonement, because IF he had not died, the atonement would have been unable to have any effect due to our physical death preventing us from return ing from the grave. So, in effect his death on the cross sealed the dealwhich is admittedly a poor choice of words. The atonement was a series of events that needed to transpire before it could take effect, which why the Lord uttered the words, It is finished.I see Jesus sweating out the coming event in the gardenDAVEH: I understand your perspective on this, but for Jesus to literally sweat blood worrying about what is to come seems a bit oddeffectively, it would seem the anticipation is worse than the dreaded event. Do you really believe Jesus was so weak as that he would succumb in such a way to that mental distress? I don't. Why do many Christians perceive Jesus as God, who is all powerful and then think he would be mentally weak when facing death by torture? If on the other hand one would think (as you d id below) that he suffered such in anticipation of taking on the sins of the world, then why could he not have taken upon himself our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane?He suffered mentally there, possibly as much as He suffered physically later, but that was not what paid the price for our sin.DAVEH: In effect, you are saying his physical death paid the price of sin. And, since our physical death is a result of Adam's sin, Jesus had to die to atone for our sins, notwithstanding Adam's sin. Yet I perceive that many Christians fail to differentiate the double nature of salvation. Do you recognize that Jesus' resurrection is a separate issue from his atonement for our sins, Terry?until that time, the Father had been with Him, but when Christ took on the sins of the world, God could not bear to look on sin, and at that point, Jesus was guilty of every evil thing I have ever done. DAVEH: I find that interesting. It had not occurred to me t hat you would feel that way. Do you know if that is perceived that way by most Christians?Terry Clifton wrote: I appreciate your comments, Dave. This helps me to better understand what you have either been taught or come to believe. If I may, I would like to take the liberty of pointing out some differences in our views.I see Jesus sweating out the coming event in the garden
[TruthTalk] Fw: over Christmas
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 27, 2005 17:40 Subject: over Christmas I'll never say these thingsso I'm writingthem. It was fun goingdown to QV in the darkness and rain with all the streetsalight on Sunday evening.We invited the kids along but they were engrossed innew books and CDs and other gift-related activities, so we went by ourselves. Jan hadgot me a double CD by Kate Bush (whom I have never really listened to before),so we didn't talk but listened to her as we drove--quite lovely, and the melody and instruments and the sound of her voice fit the mood exactly: so intensely calm as if backing up a movie scene in which the characters areon the brink of some huge event of which they are completely oblivious. The city, especially at night with all the lights,has always seemed that way to me,like someone acting confident but not knowing what is really going on. At Christmas that feeling is even stronger.After getting coffee we followed Bloor out of the city and drove in a straight line seemingly forever in this calm and through this forest of lights, their gleam reflected in the wet streets.There was a bigtiger on Bloor Street composed entirely oftiny lights. At one point I drifted into almost-sleep but I could still hear the music. I like the city, but I also like the unlit countryside going up 9th Line north of Steeles. Yesterday when I came home after spending the day in the store, Jan had bought groceries--he does this whenever he gets a hankering for the stuff I don't buy--and was starting to make supper. He shooed us all downstairs and when he called us up, there was a candlelit dinner laid attractively on plates like the ones you see on a menu: lamb chops (I never buy lamb) with garlic and lemon, asparagus, potatoes roasted with sweet peppers, and wine. Just because, apparently. Afterwards Aaron and I played crokinole, that quintessentially Canadian game that for me is part of the season because it always surfaced at the Martin family reunion held at Christmastime; my uncles were masters.I was winning at first,but Aaron pulled ahead and beat me and was proud and exultant and magnanimous at the same time. On Christmas Eve whenmy sister-in-law Christine and her family were over, I sawat once that our 14-year-old niece Carly was already "past" the gifts we hadchosen for her.Kids change so quickly and suddenly at that age, or at least girls seem to, as she is different every time we see her.Not being a mother of girls and never having been one myself, I mean a regular one,I never know quite what to expect. She is heavily into grunge dressing now, with some eclectic touchessuch as a large floppy pink bow on the side of her head andcolourfully striped socks on her forearms and wrists with the feet cut out of them and a hole cut into the side for her thumb. The effectis sort of like a cast only not plaster. She had sewn little bows on these socks. A few gothic touches completed the outfit--fingernails painted black, and a black journal she carries around in which she writes grim teenage-girl emo poetry and vampire stories, and on whose cover shehad writtendark quotes in silver ink. Jan is her godfatherand is a little worried aboutthe vampire stories. But she is still sweet and not sour.I watched her hang around Luke who is the same age. It is a bit surprising, as he is quite old-fashioned.You'd think she'd prefer Cas, the bohemian. But he is not as romantic as Luke and has moved beyond theByronictwilightof early teendom. Luke's conservatism and romanticismincludes his taste for classical music. He has developed an unusualcustom lately to ensure he brushes his teeth the requisite three minutes every night (as per the orthodontist, with whom Jan barters services). He puts on a piece of music of approximately that duration and walks about the living room brushing his teeth until it is over.It is usually some epic classical piece, played good and loud. It fills our little house. On Christmas night in honour of the season it was a chorus from the Messiah. Before Easter I must introduce him to Bach's St Matthew's Passion. Meanwhile our nephew Ryan, not quite 8, bounces around like a wolf cub, seeking attention and making noise while the Big Kids exchange patient glances. It is fascinating and challenging watching these people grow, and trying to wake in them a desire for the City that continues (Heb 13:14). We are still trying to learn its culture ourselves... D
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
I'll forward this to al jazeera just for you. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 27, 2005 15:22 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people I was truly hoping my son would drop a big J-dam right on Osama's nose. In fact, I'd be proud to kill him myself. (Think Jael!) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:36 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Has your husband killed anyone? How 'bout your relative, the pilot? Sounds like merit badge of manhood for ya. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2005 13:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Gary, your statement seems to imply that you believe that killing in combat is murder. Is that you belief? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:03:27 -0700 real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away? -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New long-distance record set! (The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.) OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers pose with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the men, whose names the military withheld for security reasons, were nominated for Bronze Stars by the U.S. for their prowess in fighting near Gardez. The sixth joined the unit later in the war. Wait due to 'Canadian protocol' A kill from 2,430 metres By Michael Smith and Chris Wattie National Post The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the Bronze Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence officials put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned. The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout platoon of the United States Army's 187th Rakkasan brigade last month, clearing out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they recommended them for medals after the battle. Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already signed the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams, drawn from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last month. Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces in Afghanistan, had recommended three Canadians for a Bronze Star and two for a Bronze Star with distinction. The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about three weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the decorations on hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan. The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before awarding the medals for reasons of Canadian protocol. Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment on the award last night, but a source within the department said the medals are on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men a similar Canadian decoration. However, Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real reason for the delay was likely official squeamishness. Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem, he said. I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ... that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people. Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian snipers were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the medal for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers serving alongside its troops. The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names not be printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their peers in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. Dr. Bercuson said there should be no objection to Canadians receiving a U.S. decoration: As recently as the Gulf War, two Canadian CF-18 pilots were given the Bronze Star. He said the medals would be a badly needed boost to the morale of the almost 900 Canadian
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry
On covering one blanket with another, Blaine?? You were asked. I ask again. WHAT IS THE MORMON CHURCH'S POSITION ON FREEMASONRY? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2005 23:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry In a message dated 12/26/2005 5:14:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..are one and the same 'spirit'. The 'degrees' in Mormonism correspond to the 'degrees' in freemasonry. DANGEROUS STUFF! There is no provable relationship. If there was, you would do more than make a blanket statement. Blainerb
[TruthTalk] The ATONEMENT TOOK PLACE IN THE FARDEN OF GETHSEMANE?..
IYO? or, in the opinion of the Mormon church? - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 27, 2005 03:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas! the Mormon doctrine (official church doctrine) Christ's atonement for the sins of the world.DAVEH: As I understand it, the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, and was finalized (sealed, so to speak) by Jesus' death on the cross. I'm certainly not an authority on this topic, nor am I probably able to explain the atonement in the authoritative detail you are requesting. As I see it, Jesus suffered greatly in the Garden of Gethsemane. Why? I believe it was because he was bearing the burden of our sins at that timein effect, taking upon himself our sins. Such suffering caused him to bleed from his pores. At the Last Supper, he explained to his Disciples that his blood would be shed..[Mk 14:23] And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.[24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many...and this was fulfilled in the Garden of Gethsemane shortly after the Last Supper. The crucification itself brought him much pain and suffering as well, but interestingly the Bible makes no mention of him shedding blood on the cross until after his death, when his body was lanced with a spear. I believe the pain he suffered on the cross was caused by the physical torture to which he was subjected by being nailed to that cross, and then hung there in a manner designed to bring great suffering and pain, in contrast to the pain he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane which was caused by what I believe was the effect of taking our sins upon himself. What do you believe brought enough pain to Jesus that it caused him to bleed from every pore in the Garden, John? In order for the atonement to be functional..yikes, that is probably not the best word to describe it, but I cannot think of a more appropriate term at the moment.. for each of us, Jesus had to provide a way for us to be resurrected. Without the resurrection, no atoning sacrifice would benefit those who are bound by (physical) death. Jesus was the only person who could accomplish the resurrection, and for that to happen, he had to die. The pain he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane was not sufficient to bring death, but that which he experienced on the cross was more than adequate. Nobody could kill Jesus had he not been willing to die. Jesus had the power to call angels to his side to prevent his death there, but in lieu of that..the cross provided the means to bring about his physical death. So, the cross was the tool used by Jesus' enemies to kill him. He rose from the tomb on the 3rd day, which then made it possible for all to be resurrected. This gift of grace was freely given to all mortals, who had inherited physical death from Adam. Just as all who are born on this earth have no control (or option) as to whether or not they will die, Jesus overcame that obstacle for us. Had we not been able to overcome physical death, the need for the atonement would have been a non-issue. Since by virtue of the Lord's resurrection all will be resurrected, it then became possible for the atonement to be available for those who desire it. And as I've mentioned before, those who desire to overcome spiritual death need only to accept and love the Lord by keeping his commandments. Now the question becomes why do we need the atonement at all? If all are to be resurrected, what advantage is there for an atonement? That is where we need to consider the effect spiritual death has upon us. As I've defined it before, spiritual death happens when we are separated from God. Effectively, the further we are from the love of the Lord, the deeper in hell we reside, so to speak. In order to overcome that form of hell (and there are several), those who love the Lord seek to become one with him. To do that, we need to become perfect as God is perfect. Since God is without sin, and we are sinnersthat seems like an impossibility. However, by virtue of the atonement of our Redeemer, those who accept Jesus as their Savior can have their sins remitted, and hence become perfect (complete) as God is perfect.and become closer to and one with our Heavenly Father and Jesus. As I suggested before, without the possibility of a resurrection, the atonement would be of little effect, as physical death would confine us to hell. This explanation may be a bit brief, if not a little awkward..but I hope it answers your question, John. have I stumbled onto something of a difficulty for our Mormon friends? DAVEH: I don't see why you would think such, John.
[TruthTalk] David Miller's 'logic' for granting permission to the 'spirit' of freemasonry on TT?
IFF the 'spirit' of freemasonry and Mormonism are one and the same 'spirit' then, one can't but wonder at the open invitation?
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Apollo wrote Hebrews with the help of Phred. I have never read Mrak. Is he one of them minor 'postles? :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The job of the apostles was not to write the Bible,Matthew, Mrak (probably under the supervision of the Apostle Peter), John's gospel and letters, Paul's authorship including Hebrews, James, and (perhaps) Titus author all of the NT books except three(Luke/Acts andJude) and the apostles did not suddenly disappear once theBible was "complete."The recording of "scripture" ended with the death of John. Coincidence? I think not.Most of the apostles left us no Scripture at all, including the chief apostle, Jesus Christ himself.true. And I am not saying that they all did. But, if we were to delete Luke/Acts and Jude, we would still have all of NT teaching - and all of it done by or under the tutelage of the apostles. Most authors of the Bible were not apostles.We have Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and James writing 23 books and three writers authoring 4 books.It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostleand yet, 21 lines from now (not counting salutations and headings) you argue for the apostleship of James !! and Jude the Lord's brother probably was not either. The author below did not comment on Markthat author thought DM was aware of the opinion of many that Peter supervised the writing of Mark and gave Mark most of his information - since Mark was not around Christ as far we any of us knowor this other JudeJude was , indeed, an oversight but my point remains as restated above when he says, "with this group of men, we have the writings of all the NT scripture..."n bsp;Then the author here casts modern day theologians intoprophets?Such could not be further from the truth. The theologians of today are more analogous to the scribes of Jesus day. Think about it. "Prophet" as in apostles and prophets, the foundation of the household of God (Eph 2:20) can have one of [at least] two meanings. The first, a prophet as one who predicts the future and the second, as one who reveals or explains the revelation of God. I think the later notion gives us a better fit, the apostles loose and bind, present revelation and the prophet (for all ages) continues to illuminate this revelation. I can't insist on this idea as excathedra, but I can certainly teach it. The effect of this teaching is important. If one is a prophet, has the ability to present and explain and excite the mind of the student and he/she does not --- what does that mean for them personally? If Bill Taylor, for example, is gifted with the ability to tie Chruch history and the Revelation of the written word and the reality of the Living Christ together into something that is a t least understood by the evangelist, the pastor, the teacher and he decides to do something else -- well, how should he view his stewardship of the gift given? And then there is the false assertion that all the miracles of the NT were performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. Let's look at what John actually said, shall we: The apostles were chargedwith world mission, binding and loosing and the performace of miracles as an extension (in the Spirit) of who they were. All the recorded miracles of the NT scripture are performed by Jesus or one of the apostles.The phrase "as an extension of who they were" is very important to me. All of what was promised in Mark 16: applies to the apostles. Peter could walk by and people were healed. Paul could be hung on the wall of ajail cell, knowing all the while that God had placed his opponents into his hands - that he would be the victor. Stephen is an exceptional case. He is singled out in scripture as being full o f faith and the Spirit and power. I certainly do not beleive that miracles ended with the passing of the apostles !! God continues to use men and women to this day to accomplish even the miraculous - it is a gift, one of many. But I do not believe in "faith healers." And why? Because I believe that only the apostles could do such things by way ofministry assignment , as a result of who they were andnot just how they were gifted. The apostles were the complete package. There is no reason to believe that they continued beyond the first century (except, perhaps, John). Consider Ananais who brought sight back to Sauland imparted to him theBaptism of the Holy Spirit, and Stephen who did many miracles among the people, as did the evangelistPhilip, preaching in Samaria. Following is something I wrote about apostles and prophets back in 1992. Although dated, perhaps it will help you in your thinking about apostles and prophets. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ;
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD? And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty? On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often. Here are some words added to my post -- ".most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do youknow of one cute little rich girl celebrity whois a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is ot a description of Linda." You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans." You have added your bias to my post in this case. And,again,you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words --"Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ." You do the same with scripture. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however your words are not in the same category JD. I just can't figure why you would send such a comment as this. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post. If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no point in continuing the discussion. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as something other than a compliment along with the fact that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is not a description of Linda. jt. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy. You have fashioned an argument for no good reason. I do not need lessons on wealth and happiness. The contrast between her young life in Oregon and the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be remarkable. And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present circumstance. You made too much of my second paragraph below. jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff? Haven't you read what Linda has been writing all these years. She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life. Anyway money does not make anyone happy. Our daughter is married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally desolate. Ask her if "rich is where it is at?" She is cute and so are our three grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. judytOn Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything concerning the condition of the heart. You will disagree, of course, but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree with you, who are not of the same poltitical party, who do not share the same social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) . Still, at other g t; times, you almost seem human. Your account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you enjoy, so much, being a cute little rich girl. jd-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You and your ilk cant tell the difference between war heroes and murderers. Your loss. What a pitiful state of mind. What an empty heart. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New long-di stance record set!(The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
I also was RAISED IN POVERTY but, what's that got to do with the price of tea in Virginia? As to the 'cute' thingy...well...she's somewhat older now is she not? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 28, 2005 02:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD? And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty? On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often. Here are some words added to my post -- ".most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do youknow of one cute little rich girl celebrity whois a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is ot a description of Linda." You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans." You have added your bias to my post in this case. And,again,you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words --"Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ." You do the same with scripture. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however your words are not in the same category JD. I just can't figure why you would send such a comment as this. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post. If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no point in continuing the discussion. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as something other than a compliment along with the fact that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is not a description of Linda. jt. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy. You have fashioned an argument for no good reason. I do not need lessons on wealth and happiness. The contrast between her young life in Oregon and the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be remarkable. And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present circumstance. You made too much of my second paragraph below. jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff? Haven't you read what Linda has been writing all these years. She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life. Anyway money does not make anyone happy. Our daughter is married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally desolate. Ask her if "rich is where it is at?" She is cute and so are our three grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. judytOn Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything concerning the condition of the heart. You will disagree, of course, but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree with you, who are not of the same poltitical party, who do not share the same social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) . Still, at other g t; times, you almost seem human. Your account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you enjoy, so much, being a cute little rich girl. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You and your ilk cant tell the difference between war heroes and murderers. Your loss. What a pitiful state of mind. What an empty heart. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away?--
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
What bis with this CE nonsense? It is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord..If you have a Lord. CE is for Lost sinners, not saved ones. Terry Dave wrote: There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the cross The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today. ** According to author Graydon F. Snyder: "[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." ..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims.. In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave. ...which seems to contrast what you are claiming. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: over Christmas
It is fascinating and challenging watching these people grow, and trying to wake in them a desire for the City that continues (Heb 13:14). We are still trying to learn its culture ourselves... -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 27, 2005 17:40 Subject: over Christmas I'll never say these thingsso I'm writingthem. It was fun goingdown to QV in the darkness and rain with all the streetsalight on Sunday evening.We invited the kids along but they were engrossed innew books and CDs and other gift-related activities, so we went by ourselves. Jan hadgot me a double CD by Kate Bush (whom I have never really listened to before),so we didn't talk but listened to her as we drove--quite lovely, and the melody and instruments and the sound of her voice fit the mood exactly: so intensely calm as if backing up a movie scene in which the characters areon the brink of some huge event of which they are completely oblivious. The city, especially at night with all the lights,has always seemed that way to me,like someone acting confident but not knowing what is really going on. At Christmas that feeling is even stronger.After getting coffee we followed Bloor out of the city and drove in a straight line seemingly forever in this calm and through this forest of lights, their gleam reflected in the wet streets.There was a bigtiger on Bloor Street composed entirely oftiny lights. At one point I drifted into almost-sleep but I could still hear the music. I like the city, but I also like the unlit countryside going up 9th Line north of Steeles. Yesterday when I came home after spending the day in the store, Jan had bought groceries--he does this whenever he gets a hankering for the stuff I don't buy--and was starting to make supper. He shooed us all downstairs and when he called us up, there was a candlelit dinner laid attractively on plates like the ones you see on a menu: lamb chops (I never buy lamb) with garlic and lemon, asparagus, potatoes roasted with sweet peppers, and wine. Just because, apparently. Afterwards Aaron and I played crokinole, that quintessentially Canadian game that for me is part of the season because it always surfaced at the Martin family reunion held at Christmastime; my uncles were masters.I was winning at first,but Aaron pulled ahead and beat me and was proud and exultant and magnanimous at the same time. On Christmas Eve whenmy sister-in-law Christine and her family were over, I sawat once that our 14-year-old niece Carly was already "past" the gifts we hadchosen for her.Kids change so quickly and suddenly at that age, or at least girls seem to, as she is different every time we see her.Not being a mother of girls and never having been one myself, I mean a regular one,I never know quite what to expect. She is heavily into grunge dressing now, with some eclectic touchessuch as a large floppy pink bow on the side of her head andcolourfully striped socks on her forearms and wrists with the feet cut out of them and a hole cut into the side for her thumb. The effectis sort of like a cast only not plaster. She had sewn little bows on these socks. A few gothic touches completed the outfit--fingernails painted black, and a black journal she carries around in which she writes grim teenage-girl emo poetry and vampire stories, and on whose cover shehad wr ittendark quotes in silver ink. Jan is her godfatherand is a little worried aboutthe vampire stories. But she is still sweet and not sour.I watched her hang around Luke who is the same age. It is a bit surprising, as he is quite old-fashioned.You'd think she'd prefer Cas, the bohemian. But he is not as romantic as Luke and has moved beyond theByronictwilightof early teendom. Luke's conservatism and romanticismincludes his taste for classical music. He has developed an unusualcustom lately to ensure he brushes his teeth the requisite three minutes every night (as per the orthodontist, with whom Jan barters services). He puts on a piece of music of approximately that duration and walks about the living room brushing his teeth until it is over.It is usually some epic classical piece, played good and loud. It fills our little house. On Christmas night in honour of the season it was a chorus from the Messiah. Before Easter I must introduce him to Bach's St Matthew's Passion. Meanwhile our nephew Ryan, not quite 8, bounces around like a wolf cub, seeking attention and making noise while the Big Kids exchange patient glances. It is fascinating and challenging watching these people grow, and trying to wake in them a desire for the City that continues (Heb 13:14). We are still trying to learn its culture ourselves... D
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
Judy, you have now so confused what was written by me that we dare not go any further with this discussion or you will have me saying something of which only the Lord knows. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD? And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty? On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often. Here are some words added to my post -- ".most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do youknow of one cute little rich girl celebrity whois a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is ot a description of Linda." You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans." You have added your bias to my post in this case. And,again,you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words --"Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ." You do the same with scripture. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however your words are not in the same category JD. I just can't figure why you would send such a comment as this. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post. If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no point in continuing the discussion. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as something other than a compliment along with the fact that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is not a description of Linda. jt. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy. You have fashioned an argument for no good reason. I do not need lessons on wealth and happiness. The contrast between her young life in Oregon and the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be remarkable. And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present circumstance. You made too much of my second paragraph below. jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff? Haven't you read what Linda has been writing all these years. She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life. Anyway money doe s not make anyone happy. Our daughter is married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally desolate. Ask her if "rich is where it is at?" She is cute and so are our three grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. judytOn Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything concerning the condition of the heart. You will disagree, of course, but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree with you, who are not of the same poltitical party, who do not share the same social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) . Still, at other & amp;g t; times, you almost seem human. Your account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you enjoy, so much, being a cute little rich girl. jd-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You and your ilk cant tell the difference between war heroes and murderers. Your loss. What a pitiful state of mind. What an empty heart. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill peoplereal women marry murderers??On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away?-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New l ong-di stance record set!(The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.) OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers pose with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the men, whose
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
Just trying to make a point with JD that he quite adamantly refuses to see. What's wrong with looking for the best in ppl rather than for their warts? I don't mind disagreeing about doctrine but I hate the personal character assasination stuff. Nothing wrong with poverty Lance, God can use that also. Paul said he had learned how to be abased and he had learned how to abound Christ is where it is at. On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:23:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also was RAISED IN POVERTY but, what's that got to do with the price of tea in Virginia? As to the 'cute' thingy...well...she's somewhat older now is she not? From: Judy Taylor How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD? And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty? On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often. Here are some words added to my post -- ".most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do youknow of one cute little rich girl celebrity whois a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is ot a description of Linda." You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans." You have added your bias to my post in this case. And,again,you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words --"Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ." You do the same with scripture. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however your words are not in the same category JD. I just can't figure why you would send such a comment as this. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post. If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no point in continuing the discussion. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as something other than a compliment along with the fact that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is not a description of Linda. jt. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy. You have fashioned an argument for no good reason. I do not need lessons on wealth and happiness. The contrast between her young life in Oregon and the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be remarkable. And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present circumstance. You made too much of my second paragraph below. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff? Haven't you read what Linda has been writing all these years. She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life. Anyway money does not make anyone happy. Our daughter is married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally desolate. Ask her if "rich is where it is at?" She is cute and so are our three grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. judytOn Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything concerning the condition of the heart. You will disagree, of course, but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree with you, who are not of the same poltitical party, who do not share the same social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) . Still, at other g t; times, you almost seem human. Your account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you enjoy, so much, being a cute little rich girl. jd-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You and your ilk cant tell the difference between war heroes and
Re: [TruthTalk] The ATONEMENT TOOK PLACE IN THE FARDEN OF GETHSEMANE?..
DAVEH: I don't recall the LDS Church making an official comment about it, but many LDS people have expressed the same sentiments about it that I have mentioned below. Lance Muir wrote: IYO? or, in the opinion of the Mormon church? - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 27, 2005 03:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas! the Mormon doctrine (official church doctrine) Christ's atonement for the sins of the world. DAVEH: As I understand it, the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, and was finalized (sealed, so to speak) by Jesus' death on the cross. I'm certainly not an authority on this topic, nor am I probably able to explain the atonement in the authoritative detail you are requesting. As I see it, Jesus suffered greatly in the Garden of Gethsemane. Why? I believe it was because he was bearing the burden of our sins at that timein effect, taking upon himself our sins. Such suffering caused him to bleed from his pores. At the Last Supper, he explained to his Disciples that his blood would be shed.. [Mk 14:23] And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. [24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. ..and this was fulfilled in the Garden of Gethsemane shortly after the Last Supper. The crucification itself brought him much pain and suffering as well, but interestingly the Bible makes no mention of him shedding blood on the cross until after his death, when his body was lanced with a spear. I believe the pain he suffered on the cross was caused by the physical torture to which he was subjected by being nailed to that cross, and then hung there in a manner designed to bring great suffering and pain, in contrast to the pain he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane which was caused by what I believe was the effect of taking our sins upon himself. What do you believe brought enough pain to Jesus that it caused him to bleed from every pore in the Garden, John? In order for the atonement to be functional..yikes, that is probably not the best word to describe it, but I cannot think of a more appropriate term at the moment.. for each of us, Jesus had to provide a way for us to be resurrected. Without the resurrection, no atoning sacrifice would benefit those who are bound by (physical) death. Jesus was the only person who could accomplish the resurrection, and for that to happen, he had to die. The pain he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane was not sufficient to bring death, but that which he experienced on the cross was more than adequate. Nobody could kill Jesus had he not been willing to die. Jesus had the power to call angels to his side to prevent his death there, but in lieu of that..the cross provided the means to bring about his physical death. So, the cross was the tool used by Jesus' enemies to kill him. He rose from the tomb on the 3rd day, which then made it possible for all to be resurrected. This gift of grace was freely given to all mortals, who had inherited physical death from Adam. Just as all who are born on this earth have no control (or option) as to whether or not they will die, Jesus overcame that obstacle for us. Had we not been able to overcome physical death, the need for the atonement would have been a non-issue. Since by virtue of the Lord's resurrection all will be resurrected, it then became possible for the atonement to be available for those who desire it. And as I've mentioned before, those who desire to overcome spiritual death need only to accept and love the Lord by keeping his commandments. Now the question becomes why do we need the atonement at all? If all are to be resurrected, what advantage is there for an atonement? That is where we need to consider the effect spiritual death has upon us. As I've defined it before, spiritual death happens when we are separated from God. Effectively, the further we are from the love of the Lord, the deeper in hell we reside, so to speak. In order to overcome that form of hell (and there are several), those who love the Lord seek to become one with him. To do that, we need to become perfect as God is perfect. Since God is without sin, and we are sinnersthat seems like an impossibility. However, by virtue of the atonement of our Redeemer, those who accept Jesus as their Savior can have their sins remitted, and hence become perfect (complete) as God is perfect.and become closer to and one with our Heavenly Father and Jesus. As I suggested before, without the possibility of a resurrection, the atonement would be of little effect, as physical death would confine us to hell. This explanation may be a bit brief, if not a little awkward..but I hope it answers your question, John. have I stumbled onto
[TruthTalk] Atonement
DAVEH: NoteI've changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the nature of this thread. No matter what one THINKS about the circumstance, the fact remains that He did suffer and die at the hands of a 3rd party. DAVEH: Do you understand why I specifically pointed out that difference, John? Let me try explaining it in a different way. I believe Jesus was (as God) immortal, inasmuch as he would not die a normal mortal death as the rest of us experience. However, in order for the resurrection to happen, he needed to first die. There are two options available to accomplish that.he could either commit suicide, or he could die at a 3rd parties hands. Personally, I believe suicide is a transgression, and Jesus being perfect would not be a party to such. Hence, the need to die at a 3rd party's hands. Atoning for our sins however, is something he willingly did on his own and shouldn't be mitigated by the pain and suffering caused by a 3rd party. That pain which he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane was more than he suffered on the cross, IMHO.and it was a burden he willingly took upon himself without being forced to suffer by a 3rd party. the statement is "drops as if blood." DAVEH: Do you not believe he bled from his pores in the Garden due to his suffering? I thought that was commonly believed even by non-LDS Christians. Mormon doctrine from what I can see, does not teach the association obvious in biblical scripture between the old testament sacrifices for sin and that of Christ. The Mormon church simply misses this point DAVEH: I don't agree with you on either point, John. We believe the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane and ended on the cross. Had Jesus not died on the cross, that which we believe happened in the GofG would have been of no consequence. For the atonement to have effect, Jesus had to die.and the cross was the means by which that was accomplished. Without his death, there would have been no sacrifice.and hence, the atonement would not have been effectual. On this specific point, there are not two valid postions -n bsp; only one. DAVEH: John, do you attribute any significance of the GofG experience to the atonement process? FWIW: Related LDS material. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/atonement/gethsemane_eom.htm .and http://mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1557-1,00.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, in your post to which I responded, you use reason and the theoretical to completely change the reality pictured in the biblical scriptures. Here is what you wrote: It seems to me the main difference is that you believe it necessary for the pain to be inflicted on Jesus from a 3rd party to make the atonement work. From my perspective, Jesus took our sins upon himself and suffered because of them without needing a 3rd party.No matter what one THINKS about the circumstance, the fact remains that He did suffer and die at the hands of a 3rd party. The spear you mentioned, probably drew little blood. But the beating he experienced left its stains on the cross as did the blood from the nail pierced hands and feet. There is no blood in the garden except for Peter's assault on the Roman guard. i am not sure why the others on this forum are not making the pointnbs p; -- but the statement is "drops as if blood." Blaine's picture of blood on the saddle, blood on the ground, blood all around is simply not accurate if one speaks from scripture. Not even close. Christ'sdeath on the cross was the sacrifice that ended all sacrifice for sin ... a once and for all time thing. The sacrifice He fulfilled (and , thus brought to an end) was one done by a third part y- the butcher of something pure. Mormon doctrine from what I can see, does not teach the association obvious in biblical scripture between the old testament sacrifices for sin and that of Christ. The Mormon church simply misses this point -- teaching a very different gosple. Why this is done, is beyond me, but it is not of God -- or the biblical scriptures have been superceded by the Mormon scriptures. On this specific point, there are not two valid postions -n bsp; only one. The ideas are mutally exclusive.nbs p; -- Original message -- From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] The(biblical)fact is this: He died on the cross at the hands of others. DAVEH: I agree, John. What do you think caused Jesus to suffer so much in the Garden of Gethsemane? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] some differences in our views. DAVEH: To boil it down, Terry..It seems to me the main difference is that you believe it necessary for the pain to be inflicted on Jesus from a 3rd party to make the atonement work. From my perspective, Jesus took our sins upon himself and suffered because of them without needing a 3rd party. you contrast the theoretical with the (biblical) reality. The(biblical)fact
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
Judy, when it comes to a choice , a real choice, between discussing character judgments or doctrine, you choose the character issues nearly all the time. Secondly, you cannot make a point with me by altering my posts and introducing words and meaning that were not a part of my original post. I do not need a mother figure, Judy. Third, there is nothing wrong with looking for the best in ppl, Judy. when you get around to doing such, perhaps I will follow your lead !!! But more than that -- my comment to Linda was not an insult.She is a little rich girl and her explanation regarding the house in Oregon presents quite a contrast. You have made much too much out of this, preferring to cause trouble rather than simply accept my explanation and movingon. Move on !!! -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just trying to make a point with JD that he quite adamantly refuses to see. What's wrong with looking for the best in ppl rather than for their warts? I don't mind disagreeing about doctrine but I hate the personal character assasination stuff. Nothing wrong with poverty Lance, God can use that also. Paul said he had learned how to be abased and he had learned how to abound Christ is where it is at. On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:23:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also was RAISED IN POVERTY but, what's that got to do with the price of tea in Virginia? As to the 'cute' thingy...well...she's somewhat older now is she not? From: Judy Taylor How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD? And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty? On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often. Here are some words added to my post -- ".most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do youknow of one cute little rich girl celebrity whois a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is ot a description of Linda." You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans." You have added your bias to my post in this case. And,again,you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words --"Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ." You do the same with scripture. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however your words are not in the same category JD. I just can't figure why you would send such a comment as this. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post. If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no point in continuing the discussion. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as something other than a compliment along with the fact that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then this is not a description of Linda. jt. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy. You have fashioned an argument for no good reason. I do not need lessons on wealth and happiness. The contrast between her young life in Oregon and the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be remarkable. And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present circumstance. You made too much of my second paragraph below. jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff? Haven't you read what Linda has been writing all these years. She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life. Anyway money doe s not make anyone happy. Our daughter is married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally desolate. Ask her if "rich is where it is at?" She is cute and so are our three grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. judytOn Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything concerning the condition of the heart. You will disagree, of course, but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree with you, who are not of the same poltitical party, who do not share the same social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) . Still, at other & amp;g t; times, you almost seem human. Your account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you enjoy, so much, being a cute little rich girl. jd-- Original message
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: Early Show Jane Clayson]
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
Re: [TruthTalk] and the morning and evening were one day, and it was good
It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostle Dm in the morning In fact, the Bible mentions several apostles which were not of the twelve. For example, Paul (Gal. 1:1, 2:8), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the Lord's brother Dm in the evening -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The job of the apostles was not to write the Bible,Matthew, Mrak (probably under the supervision of the Apostle Peter), John's gospel and letters, Paul's authorship including Hebrews, James, and (perhaps) Titus author all of the NT books except three(Luke/Acts andJude) and the apostles did not suddenly disappear once theBible was "complete."The recording of "scripture" ended with the death of John. Coincidence? I think not.Most of the apostles left us no Scripture at all, including the chief apostle, Jesus Christ himself.true. And I am not saying that they all did. But, if we were to delete Luke/Acts and Jude, we would still have all of NT teaching - and all of it done by or under the tutelage of the apostles. Most authors of the Bible were not apostles.We have Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and James writing 23 books and three writers authoring 4 books.It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostleand yet, 21 lines from now (not counting salutations and headings) you argue for the apostleship of James !! and Jude the Lord's brother probably was not either. The author below did not comment on Markthat author thought DM was aware of the opinion of many that Peter supervised the writing of Mark and gave Mark most of his information - since Mark was not around Christ as far we any of us knowor this other JudeJude was , indeed, an oversight but my point remains as restated above when he says, "with this group of men, we have the writings of all the NT scripture..." mp;a mp;n bsp;Then the author here casts modern day theologians intoprophets?Such could not be further from the truth. The theologians of today are more analogous to the scribes of Jesus day. Think about it. "Prophet" as in apostles and prophets, the foundation of the household of God (Eph 2:20) can have one of [at least] two meanings. The first, a prophet as one who predicts the future and the second, as one who reveals or explains the revelation of God. I think the later notion gives us a better fit, the apostles loose and bind, present revelation and the prophet (for all ages) continues to illuminate this revelation. I can't insist on this idea as excathedra, but I can certainly teach it. The effect of this teaching is important. If one is a prophet, has the ability to present and explain and excite the mind of the student and he/she does not --- what does that mean for them personally? If Bill Taylor, for example, is gifted with the ability to tie Chruch history and the Revelation of the written word and the reality of the Living Christ together into something that is a t least understood by the evangelist, the pastor, the teacher and he decides to do something else -- well, how should he view his stewardship of the gift given? And then there is the false assertion that all the miracles of the NT were performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. Let's look at what John actually said, shall we: The apostles were chargedwith world mission, binding and loosing and the performace of miracles as an extension (in the Spirit) of who they were. All the recorded miracles of the NT scripture are performed by Jesus or one of the apostles.The phrase "as an extension of who they were" is very important to me. All of what was promised in Mark 16: applies to the apostles. Peter could walk by and people were healed. Paul could be hung on the wall of ajail cell, knowing all the while that God had placed his opponents into his hands - that he would be the victor. Stephen is an exceptional case. He is singled out in scripture as being full o f faith and the Spirit and power. I certainly do not beleive that miracles ended with the passing of the apostles !! God continues to use men and women to this day to accomplish even the miraculous - it is a gift, one of many. But I do not believe in "faith healers." And why? Because I believe that only the apostles could do such things by way ofministry assignment , as a result of who they were andnot just how they were gifted. The apostles were the complete package. There is no reason to believe that they continued beyond the first century (except, perhaps, John). Consider Ananais who brought sight back to Sauland imparted to him theBaptism of the Holy Spirit, and Stephen who did many miracles among the people, as did the evangelistPhilip, preaching in Samaria. Following is something I wrote about apostles and prophets back in 1992. Although dated, perhaps it will help you in your thinking about
