Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:14:29 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Bald faced lie JD; I do not characterize anyone on here including yourself. 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. I did not alter anything; I am dealing with your mischaracterization and trying to point out it's falsity as well as pointlessness. 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 !!! Turning it around and accusingthe other person appears to be your forte JD. 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 !!! Are we talking kingdom talk here JD or just plain old fleshly evaluations? I am not saying this is Linda, but the church at Laodicea had it all layed on and Jesus called them poor, naked, and wretched - so having an over abundance of wordly goods is not where it's at. Neither is sweeping problems under the rug and moving 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
And what might they be Mr. know it all? On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:46:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (e.g., evidence shows that you'verevise/d the meaning of the book of James toaccommodate your private doctrinal demands) On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:33:23 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, || judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:14:29 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Bald faced lie JD; I do not characterize anyone on here including yourself. the fact that you chose not to move on when given the choice is proof positive of my claim. 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. I did not alter anything; I am dealing with your mischaracterization and trying to point out it's falsity as well as pointlessness. I made a compairson observation , not an insult, and I was neither speaking of "pagans" or "celerities" as you implied. You are as wrong here as when you tried to argue that TT was not a discussion group. 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 !!! Turning it around and accusingthe other person appears to be your forte JD. The spirit of rebillion will do you no good. 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 !!! Are we talking kingdom talk here JD I am talking about what I wrote, Judy. Trying to change the subject AGAIN will not work !!! or just plain old fleshly evaluations? I am not saying this is Linda, but the church at Laodicea had it all layed on and Jesus called them poor, naked, and wretched - so having an over abundance of wordly goods is not where it's at. Neither is sweeping problems under the rug and moving on. And neither is the paractice of rebellion coupled with a refusal to move on TO ANOTHER SUBJECT. But, of course, that"new" subject will get just as personal as any that you have ever had here on TT. Just watch ! Yourfirst response to the next offered discussion will have an element of character assassination. You will accuse the other of being tied to the "Accuser," or you will call them a liar or you will do whatever to avoid the actual discussion at hand. Anyway -- I am moving on. You will get the last word and you will pay for your rebellion --- your life will [does}reflect this judgment. John -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Atonement
Dave, I am working on a response to some of what you have addressed to me. Trying to get some work done, spend some time with my visiting son, and getting some tests done (health related) complicates things a bit. This subject, from a biblical perspective, is as beneficail as anything I studied. I am hopefull that Bill will offer some comments -- or perhaps Debbie or Jonathan. I mention them by name not to exclude the others on this fiorum. IBut I assume that they (the others on this forum) will continue to contribute as they have in the past. Anyway -- I study, first, for myself. When God finishes His work in my personal study, I will be making some comments. God bless you all at this time of year. jd ---BeginMessage--- What bis with this CE nonsense? DAVEH: I'm just quoting from some who have a different perspective, Terry. Do you have a problem with viewing early Christianity from the other side of the fence? Note the third quote below In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, ...in which the author uses AD rather than CE. Does that make his comments acceptable from your perspective? Terry Clifton wrote: 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. ---End Message---
Re: [TruthTalk] Atonement
DAVEH: OK Bishop. I'll await your response. And, I'll certainly not assume your failure to address any of what I said implies your agreement. I realize that my beliefs on this are out in left field compared to yours. One thing I would appreciate you addressing though, is the two-fold nature (as I see it) of salvation. Do you understand it in a similar way? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, I am working on a response to some of what you have addressed to me. Trying to get some work done, spend some time with my visiting son, and getting some tests done (health related) complicates things a bit. This subject, from a biblical perspective, is as beneficail as anything I studied. I am hopefull that Bill will offer some comments -- or perhaps Debbie or Jonathan. I mention them by name not to exclude the others on this fiorum. IBut I assume that they (the others on this forum) will continue to contribute as they have in the past. Anyway -- I study, first, for myself. When God finishes His work in my personal study, I will be making some comments. God bless you all at this time of year. jd What bis with this CE nonsense? DAVEH: I'm just quoting from some who have a different perspective, Terry. Do you have a problem with viewing early Christianity from the other side of the fence? Note the third quote below In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, ...in which the author uses AD rather than CE. Does that make his comments acceptable from your perspective? Terry Clifton wrote: 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. -- ~~~
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVEH: OK Terry.I understand your feelings about that. I'll try to behave myself, as I sure don't want to be visited by the terminator again :-( Terry Clifton wrote: Yeah, I have a big problem viewing anything that minimizes Christ. In this case though, I will forgive you. If it happens again, expect a visit from Izzy, the terminator. Dave wrote: What bis with this CE nonsense? DAVEH: I'm just quoting from some who have a different perspective, Terry. Do you have a problem with viewing early Christianity from the other side of the fence? Note the third quote below In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, ...in which the author uses AD rather than CE. Does that make his comments acceptable from your perspective? Terry Clifton wrote: 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] Real men kill people
It seems to me that Judy was just trying to communicate with you how the "cute little rich girl" label comes across to her. This is proper discussion. She was not attempting to quote you. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people 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
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Most of these comments are not concerning the primitive church (1st century / early 2nd century), and they tend to focus upon the symbol rather than the cross itself. I can post lots of quotes from the early church fathers if you like, those from the first andsecond century.There is absolutely no doubt that the cross was central in their theology and faith. These comments you share below are what I call spin. They prey upon the ignorance of those who have not read the early church fathers. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ 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 crossThe 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 gravewhich 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] apostles and prophets
Recent comments in Green below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets -- 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) I'm talking Bible and you are talking NT. Still, most apostles wrote nothing that made it to the Bible, and probably most of what the apostles said or did never made it to the Bible. Writing the Bible was not the job of the apostles. 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. The idea that the Scriptures were being recorded, and this suddenly stopped when John died, is bogus.Men of God wrote and thiskind of writing was done before John and after John. Hundreds of years later, some of these writings were canonized as Scripture. 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. I hope you agree that MOST apostles left us no Scripture at all. 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. Why now add "under the tutelage of the apostles"? What is wrong with accepting the fact that most of the Bible was written by prophets, and that some of theapostles made significant contributions to it? 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 !! Sorry... this is one of those "brain fart" times. Idon't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote this. James was an apostle. 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 know I am aware that many scholars view most of Mark's information to come from Peter, but I am not aware of the idea that Peter directlysupervised its writing. As for Mark not being around at the time of Christ,Hippolytus namesMark as one of the seventy appointed by Jesus inLuke 10. I believe that Mark (as well as Luke) was around during the ministry of Jesus, and that hewas one of those probably under consideration to replace Judas Iscariot. or 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. There are many other definitions that could be considered, but the problem you are having is contrasting teachers and prophets. Teachers explain revelation. Prophets give revelation directly from the Spirit. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
I know what she was doing. Because she allows for words not written and thoughts not presented - well, that is not proper discussion in anyone's book except those who thrive on debate based upon personal bias. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me that Judy was just trying to communicate with you how the "cute little rich girl" label comes across to her. This is proper discussion. She was not attempting to quote you. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people 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
[TruthTalk] Fwd: Praise the Lord
In a message dated 12/29/2005 10:56:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was a little old lady, who every morning stepped onto her frontporch, raised her arms to the sky, and shouted: "PRAISE THE LORD!"One day an atheist moved into the house next door.He became irritated at the little old lady.Every morning he'd step onto his front porch after her and yell:"THERE IS NO LORD!"Time passed with the two of them carrying on this way every day.One morning, in the middle of winter, the little old lady stepped ontoher front porch and shouted: "PRAISE THE LORD! Please Lord, I have nofood and I am starving, provide for me, oh Lord!The next morning she stepped onto her porch and there were two hugebags of groceries sitting there."PRAISE THE LORD!" she cried out. "HE HAS PROVIDED GROCERIES FOR ME!"The atheist neighbor jumped out of the hedges and shouted:"THERE IS NO LORD! I BOUGHT THOSE GROCERIES!!"The little old lady threw her arms into the air and shouted: "PRAISETHE LORD! HE HAS PROVIDED ME WITH GROCERIES AND MADE THE DEVIL PAY FOR THEM!JoanA candle loses nothing by lighting another candle. ---BeginMessage--- There was a little old lady, who every morning stepped onto her front porch, raised her arms to the sky, and shouted: PRAISE THE LORD! One day an atheist moved into the house next door. He became irritated at the little old lady. Every morning he'd step onto his front porch after her and yell: THERE IS NO LORD! Time passed with the two of them carrying on this way every day. One morning, in the middle of winter, the little old lady stepped onto her front porch and shouted: PRAISE THE LORD! Please Lord, I have no food and I am starving, provide for me, oh Lord! The next morning she stepped onto her porch and there were two huge bags of groceries sitting there. PRAISE THE LORD! she cried out. HE HAS PROVIDED GROCERIES FOR ME! The atheist neighbor jumped out of the hedges and shouted: THERE IS NO LORD! I BOUGHT THOSE GROCERIES!! The little old lady threw her arms into the air and shouted: PRAISE THE LORD! HE HAS PROVIDED ME WITH GROCERIES AND MADE THE DEVIL PAY FOR THEM! Joan A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle. ---End Message---
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
red is the color of choice. -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recent comments in Green below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets -- 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) I'm talking Bible and you are talking NT. Still, most apostles wrote nothing that made it to the Bible, and probably most of what the apostles said or did never made it to the Bible. Writing the Bible was not the job of the apostles.why do you change the context of the discussion? Yes , I am sepaking of the NT. IT WAS MY POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO -- so I assume You are talking about the same thing I AM talking about. Just another example of mono v mono. 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. The idea that the Scriptures were being recorded, and this suddenly stopped when John died, is bogus.Men of God wrote and thiskind of writing was done before John and after John. Hundreds of years later, some of these writings were canonized as Scripture. You got me , here. I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you late date some of the NT scritpures. Wouldn't surprise me. 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. I hope you agree that MOST apostles left us no Scripture at all.You might try reading the sentence IMMEDIATELY preceding your sentence above. Short memory 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. Why now add "under the tutelage of the apostles"? What is wrong with accepting the fact that most of the Bible was written by prophets, and that some of theapostles made significant contributions to it?Again, I will insist on talking about the NT scriptures. For the sake of this discussion, I really do not care who wrote the bible -- only who wrote the N. T. You have a problem with "under the tutelage of the apostles"?? I beleive Mark was supervised by Peter. And Paul spoke of others writng some of his letters -- they were written under his tutelage. Let me put it to you this wise -- ALL OF NEW COVENANT DOCTRINE WAS GIVEN TO US BY AN APOSTLE, WHETHER , PETER, JAMES, PAUL, MATTHEW OR JOHN. I believe this to be the keys to the kingdom. 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 !! Sorry... this is one of those "brain fart" times. Idon't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote this. James was an apostle. It is obvious to me. John is wrong and must be opposed.so we start writing before our brain kicks into gear. 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 know I am aware that many scholars view most of Mark's information to come from Peter, but I am not aware of the idea that Peter directlysupervised its writing. As for Mark not being around at the time of Christ,Hippolytus namesMark as one of the seventy appointed by Jesus inLuke 10.Hippolytus of 340 AD ??? Use him for an authority if you wish. I don'tI believe that Mark (as well as Luke) was around during the ministry of Jesus, and that hewas one of those probably under consideration to replace Judas Iscariot. Thanks for your opinion on this. We disagree. or 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
