subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] For Lance"

cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-21 Thread Lance Muir




One would assume, Dean, that herein lies something 
of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 'something' 
from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a reply?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you 
  agree with it?If not why?
  
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, 
  whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our 
  epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are 
  sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: 
  an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to 
  express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. 
  Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ 
  and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same 
  position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
  It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have 
  been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do 
  otherwise than call them brethren.
  If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as 
  though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, 
  sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His 
  brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, 
  "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are 
  all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say 
  "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they 
  are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human 
  position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth 
  as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He 
  is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
  This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in 
  principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them 
  His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled Him to present 
  them with Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;" 
  but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to Mary of 
  Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and 
  your Father, and to my God an your God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He 
  had been heard from the horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of 
  a Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of 
  the assembly.
  He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the link 
  itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to the Father, 
  until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had died; until then He 
  remained 
alone,

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?









- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a reply?

cd: Christ did not lower himself to become as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not allow it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?


cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?




This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;" but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God an your God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He had been heard from the horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of a Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of the assembly.
He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the link itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to the Father, until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had died; until then He remained alone,

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-21 Thread Taylor




Yeah, I think that God in Christ actually 
penetrated to the root of humanity's problem, thus purging sin from within man. 
I'll say more about this in that post tonight. In the meantime you can start 
thinking about it like this: God did not just protect the human nature of Jesus 
from exterior intrusions, which is all he would have had to do if we were 
like pre-fallen Adam; no, he actually got inside the man Jesus and beat sin from 
within his nature, where it haddevoured Adam's posterity. I'll expand upon 
thislater.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:26 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Ah! This then would put JND in the position 
  of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if 
  JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how 
  it is that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they do. 
  This, in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David 
  Miller on the 'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally 
  wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on 
  pretty much everything.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?







  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  One would assume, Dean, that herein lies 
  something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw 
  that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, 
  await a reply?
  
  cd: Christ did not lower himself to become 
  as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not 
  allow it.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
Lance, Bill, John, David?


cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do 
you agree with it?If not why?


  

This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are 
saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this 
which our epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the Christ), 
and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the 
Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily 
apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the 
abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of 
sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified 
ones are all one company, men together in the same position before 
God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could 
not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He 
could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too 
far, as though He and the others were of the same nature 
as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He 
would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the 
children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls 
so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature 
and position together before God. When I say "the same," it is 
not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the 
Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human 
position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far 
forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this 
account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in 
principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only 
called them His brethren when He had finished the work which 
enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. He said indeed 
"mother, sister, brother;" but He did not use the term "my 
brethren," until He said to Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and 
sa

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?









- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Ah! This then would put JND in the position of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how it is that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they do. This, in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David Miller on the 'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on pretty much everything.
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to jump to others being non Christian hereticsbecause they fail to understand the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what we are discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out andbe nice.Read the words of Darby below and notice what I have underlined-Heck why not read the entire short artical-Ifirstgave the longer form because Darby explains this well for understanding this topic?

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?







- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a reply?

cd: Christ did not lower himself to become as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not allow it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?


cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?




This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled Him to present them with Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;" but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God an your God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He had been heard from the horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of a Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the midst of the assembly.
He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth, but the link itself could not be formed; He could not introduce them to the Father, until the grain of wheat, falling into the ground, had died; until then He remained alone,

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-21 Thread Lance Muir




1. Yes
2. I'd call them 'Christian' heretics, 
Dean.
3. We speak of Jesus Incarnating as A man 
but, in reality, he was a baby to begin with so, yes a child can understand what 
Bill Taylor is teaching.
4. That would be like me saying to DM 
'practicing homosexuals are believers who fall a little short. Thereafter, I'd 
ask him to read the balance of what I said.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 09:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

Ah! This then would put JND in the position 
of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if 
JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how 
it is that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they 
do. This, in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David 
Miller on the 'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally 
wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on 
pretty much everything.
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is 
also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to jump 
to others being non Christian hereticsbecause they fail to understand 
the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what we are 
discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out andbe 
nice.Read the words of Darby below and notice what I have 
underlined-Heck why not read the entire short artical-Ifirstgave 
the longer form because Darby explains this well for understanding this 
topic?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies 
something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw 
that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, 
await a reply?

cd: Christ did not lower himself to become 
as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not 
allow it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 21, 2006 
07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, 
  Lance, Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: 
  Do you agree with it?If not why?
  
  

  
  This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are 
  saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is 
  this which our epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the 
  Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for 
  God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of 
  which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one 
  abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that 
  it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and 
  the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same 
  position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
  It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could 
  not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He 
  could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
  If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed 
  too far, as though He and the others were of the same 
  nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this 
  case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is 
  only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that 
  He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the 
  same nature and position together before God. When I say "the 
  same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, 
  for they are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but i

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?









- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 9:26:25 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

1. Yes
cd:Then if I prove myself right you will have to live with your hersery or repent to God and others whom you called Heritics? Right?
2. I'd call them 'Christian' heretics, Dean.
cd: Then you would be in error Lance.
3. We speak of Jesus Incarnating as A man but, in reality, he was a baby to begin with so, yes a child can understand what Bill Taylor is teaching.
cd: Not so Lance -A Child can only understand Jesus was a good man sent from God that will help forgivetheir bad things.

4. That would be like me saying to DM 'practicing homosexuals are believers who fall a little short. Thereafter, I'd ask him to read the balance of what I said.
cd: You have lost me one this one.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 09:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?







- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Ah! This then would put JND in the position of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to suggest that if JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to understand better how it is that the Brethren and, their offspring preach the 'gospel' that they do. This, in reality, is that to which I was alluding when I addressed David Miller on the 'homosexual question'. IFF your christology is fundamentally wrong (I'm with Bill on this one) then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on pretty much everything.
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to jump to others being non Christian hereticsbecause they fail to understand the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what we are discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out andbe nice.Read the words of Darby below and notice what I have underlined-Heck why not read the entire short artical-Ifirstgave the longer form because Darby explains this well for understanding this topic?

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 08:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?







- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

One would assume, Dean, that herein lies something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why not draw that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own words then, await a reply?

cd: Christ did not lower himself to become as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in Him would not allow it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 21, 2006 07:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?


cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?




This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our epistle sets before us  He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified ones are all as men in the same nature and position together before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as far forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before God. On this account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified His brethren.
This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for although in principle, the children were given to Him before, yet He only called them His brethren when He had finished the work which enabled

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-21 Thread knpraise

I know this is too long -- but please take the time. I was having one of the moments in the Lord. If doesn't work for you, then it was just for me. I can live with that !!

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cd: Bill I have condenses articlewritten by Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?

This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head. It is this which our epistle sets before us He who sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an _expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones are all one company, men together in the same position before God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the same nature as children of Adam, sinners together. In this case He would have to call every man His brother; whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him, "sanctified" ones, that He calls so. I do not agree with this. Dean, if Christ is not of the same nature as we, well, what is left? Do you know of more "natures" than the two - human and divine ?? If we allow for Christ to be human but refuse to think that He was of the same nature as we -- what is the benefit? I do not understand. Why didn't He just come down, as God, and assume a human body, one fashioned just for Him maybe King David's body, since it was available, and go with that.Christ could claim to be thefulfillment of all that David wrot
e about in the Psalms. Or, just make up your own scenario.
Do you understand that the "sinful" nature IS the nature of man? That it existed BEFORE the fall? That it has two sides to it -- a God side and a man side? (Romans 7:14-25 is only an expansion of this reality.)
The really big difference between God and Man is this -- God cannot -- CANNOT -- be tempted. It is impossible for God to sin, as God. God will never change because He cannot change. He is fully free to be Himself. He is not bound to choice, as we are.
If God had made another God (even impossible for God, by the way) there would have been no tree of knowledge. It would have been wholly unnecessary. There would not have been a serpent, for the same reason. There would have been no need for redemption. And so on.
But God made Man. That "sinful" nature is not one which necessarily sins !!Why do you not see the need for children to receive blood offerings under the oldLaw? There is no sacrifice for children's sins, right? Becasue their sinful nature is not that which receives or merits condemnation !!! There can be no other reason !!So , simply having a sinful nature is not the issue ofjudgment. Choice is the critical difference between the two natures. God has no choice and is , therefore, free to be who He is. Man, on the other hand, does have choice and has had this choice from the very beginning!! Correct?!! God is not temptable, man is. The tree of knowledge is just that, but more !! It is also a testament to the fact
that man was created with a choice -- to eat or not to eat. It is a testament that man's nature is not God's nature.
What does it mean to be "temptable?" We do have scripture on this and you know it as well as I. James explains it to us. The importantissue in Jamesis this -- temptation appeals is to our human desires (James calls this "lust"). In James, neither "lust" nor temptation is wrong - as he defines the workings of "sin." And in that discussion by James , we have the description of the human nature. It is temptable !! And that is why we call it a "sinful nature." Not thatweMUST sin, but thatwe can sin. When we say that Christ has a "sinful nature," we are not saying that He was a sinner. No. But we are saying that He had the same desires as we. When He was tempted by Satan -- HE WAS TEMPTED. But wait ! We should not forget that Christ is both God and man.
One of Bill's most revealing comments, to me, is found in his belief that in Christ Jesus, we have a combining of natures that truly makes Him the Unique Son of God. There is only ONE nature in Christ (IMO). And, it is wholly infinte and finite. Because this is true, Paul tells us that He has reconciled all things unto Himself IN THEBODY OF HIS FLESH. In Christ, God and man and man's predicatment are all brought together, in one person and in that circumstance, we have true resolution. And Paul uses "reconciliation" to speak of the resolution. This is the fact of reconciliation. The purpose

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread Taylor




Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI 
decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to 
emphasize; then I could respond.

As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is 
not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she 
does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not 
only to her theology, but to her character as well.

Take care,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, 
  John, David?
  
  
  cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do 
  you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found 
  this.
  
  
  
  Heb 2:1-18 - 
  This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word 
  spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
  memory.
  God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means 
  of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we 
  escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus 
  the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the 
  apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost 
  established.
  Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
  glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
  calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
  We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, 
  is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it 
  the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but 
  His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to 
  whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles 
  is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having 
  added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who 
  distributed His gifts to each according to His will.
  The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
  Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God 
  has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the 
  Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as 
  Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but 
  here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; 
  the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of 
  salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to 
  come is not made subject to them  that is, this habitable earth, directed and 
  governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has 
  spoken of by the prophets.
  The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, 
  or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, 
  who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being 
  not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work 
  of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new 
  order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world 
  is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with 
  regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or 
  the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than 
  the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him 
  over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus 
  all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, 
  according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular 
  of the Son of man.
  When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, 
  that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of 
  Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us the righteous 
  man, accepted of God, the godly remnant with which Christ connected Himself; 
  Psalm 2, the counsels of God respecting His Messiah, in spite of the efforts 
  made by the kings and governors of the earth. God establishes Him as King in 
  Zion, and summons all the kings to do homage to Him whom He proclaimed to be 
  His Son on the earth. Afterwards we see that being rejected the remnant 
  suffer, and this Psalm 2 is what Peter quotes to prove the rising up of the 
  powers of the earth, Jewish and Gentile, against

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?




IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's 
self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you 
ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
  subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI 
  decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
  prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want 
  to emphasize; then I could respond.
  
  As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is 
  not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as 
  she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks 
  not only to her theology, but to her character as well.
  
  Take care,
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, 
John, David?


cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do 
you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just 
found this.



Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the 
word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then 
shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has 
announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of 
the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to 
find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of 
the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous 
manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to 
His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which 
God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is 
even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world 
to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with 
the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter 
they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on 
God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they 
do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them  that is, this 
habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have 
accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the 
law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the 
Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His 
enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is 
carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will 
yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to 
come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in 
the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made 
him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and 
honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all 
things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has 
made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under 
the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man.
When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, 
namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and 
dominion o

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread Taylor




I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; 
however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against 
the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is really 
an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have come from 
Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think so.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:45 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's 
  self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have you 
  ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David 
  Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI 
decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want 
to emphasize; then I could respond.

As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy 
is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," 
as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me 
speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as 
well.

Take care,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: To help us understand each other better: What part 
  do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just 
  found this.
  
  
  
  Heb 2:1-18 - 
  This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the 
  word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
  memory.
  God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
  means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then 
  shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has 
  announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
  salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of 
  the Holy Ghost established.
  Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
  glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
  calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
  We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
  treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to 
  find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
  prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
  sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
  which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of 
  the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the 
  miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each 
  according to His will.
  The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
  Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which 
  God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is 
  even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world 
  to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with 
  the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter 
  they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on 
  God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, 
  they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them  that 
  is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God 
  shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
  The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the 
  law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the 
  Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His 
  enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is 
  carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will 
  yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world 
  to come." Now that world is not made subject to ange

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?




I see what you see, Bill. Yes, it is nigh on 
impossible to hold the position that I yet do. I've posted some old Burns  
Allen. See if you don't think that Judy might be a TT counterpart to 
Gracie.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 08:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; 
  however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks against 
  the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold dear) is 
  really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my arguments have 
  come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't think 
so.
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:45 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?

IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to Judy's 
self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's doing. Have 
you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of David 
Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 20, 2006 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
  subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI 
  decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I 
  would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something 
  you want to emphasize; then I could respond.
  
  As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy 
  is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of 
  men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This 
  to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as 
  well.
  
  Take care,
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 
7:10 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
Bill, John, David?


cd: To help us understand each other better: What 
part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way 
I just found this.



Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t 
the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form 
life and memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How 
then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself 
has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony 
of the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on 
the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His 
Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of 
Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect 
to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation 
of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the 
miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to 
each according to His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during 
which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, 
He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with 
the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing 
Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the 
previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they 
are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w 
they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made 
subject to them  that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed 
as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread Judy Taylor




Doesn't take much for you to dive into the 
character assassination again does it Bill?
Why is this so close to the surface with 
you? It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave 
the
judgment to the one who judges 
righteously.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this 
  subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI 
  decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would 
  prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want 
  to emphasize; then I could respond.
  
  As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is 
  not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as 
  she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks 
  not only to her theology, but to her character as well.
  
  Take care,
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, 
John, David?


cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do 
you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just 
found this.



Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the 
word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and 
memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by 
means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then 
shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has 
announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of 
salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of 
the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the 
glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, 
calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to 
find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken 
prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He 
sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That 
which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of 
the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous 
manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to 
His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the 
Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which 
God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is 
even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world 
to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with 
the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter 
they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on 
God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they 
do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them  that is, this 
habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have 
accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the 
law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the 
Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His 
enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is 
carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will 
yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to 
come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in 
the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made 
him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and 
honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all 
things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has 
made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under 
the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man.
When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, 
namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and 
dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us 
the righteous man, accepted of God, the godly remnant

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread Judy Taylor




No Bill and Lance, the attack is against the 
doctrines that do not conform you to godliness and 
holiness.
I am amazed that anyone reading Church history 
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow 
their example. With their 
politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where 
is the love? and faith for that 
matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living 
God?"

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:56:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I see what you see, Bill. Yes, it is nigh on 
  impossible to hold the position that I yet do. I've posted some old Burns 
   Allen. 
  See if you don't think that Judy might be a TT 
  counterpart to Gracie.
  
From: Taylor 

I will still entertain that possibility, Lance; 
however, it is becoming rather obvious to me that her constant attacks 
against the early fathers (not to mention every other theologian we hold 
dear) is really an attack against us. I wonder if she notices that my 
arguments have come from Scripture. Is she unaware of that too? I don't 
think so. Bill

  From: Lance Muir 
  
  IFO and, I may be the last holdout as to 
  Judy's self-awareness, believe Judy to be quite unaware of what she's 
  doing. Have you ever heard Gracie Allen? FWIW, I believe this equally of 
  David Miller.
  
From: Taylor 

Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about 
this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not 
mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique 
point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if 
there be something you want to emphasize; then I could 
respond.

As an aside, I find it curiousthat 
Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines 
of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. 
This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as 
well.

Take care,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 
  7:10 AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, 
  Bill, John, David?
  
  
  cd: To help us understand each other better: What 
  part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the 
  way I just found this.
  
  
  
  Heb 2:1-18 - 
  This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t 
  the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form 
  life and memory.
  God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated 
  by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. 
  How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord 
  Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was 
  a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the 
  mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established.
  Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on 
  the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His 
  Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of 
  Christ.
  We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle 
  treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not 
  expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had 
  only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, 
  among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that 
  testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only 
  treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having 
  added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the 
  Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will.
  The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of 
  the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, 
  during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the 
  Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in 
  connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 
  speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them 
  altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was 
  given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of 
  salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the 
  world to come is not made subject to them  that is, this habitable

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread David Miller

Judy wrote:
 I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
 would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
 and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
 hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
 etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
 Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God?

You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting 
with Constantine with the church fathers.  Clement of Rome, one of the first 
church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, 
and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, 
being banished themselves like the apostle John was.  This is not meant to 
say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your 
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being 
the case, as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about 
church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in 
Jesus.  They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. 
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings.

David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread David Miller

Hi Judy.  Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father.  I think over 
generalization is a big problem here.

By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about 
the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing 
as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that is 
common to men.  Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the 
fall.  Consider the following quote from John Calvin:

From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.
==
It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, 
and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, 
it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of 
the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he 
was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by 
the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would 
have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever 
Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human 
nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the 
sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is 
inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a 
twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the 
generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental 
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our 
integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption.
==

Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would 
the writings of you or others on TruthTalk?  Are they not expressions of 
what other Christians perceive truth to be?  Why should the fact that Calvin 
or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage. 
Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they have 
already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Judy wrote:
 I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
 would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
 and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
 hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
 etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
 Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God?

You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting
with Constantine with the church fathers.

I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was
thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches, 
and
the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since 
the
record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the 
story
was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their teachings
which has culminated in the present day rcc.

Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you 
describe
here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the 
subjects
of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was.

Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not church
infighting.  I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what 
he
taught.  I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings 
out
and putting them on the same level as the Word of God.

This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, 
but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being 
the case,
as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about church fathers, 
you
are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus.

Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this issue 
is kind
of akin to some of the things he taught.  Reformed theology today claims 
that God
decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him
personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that 
the Holy
Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as 
outrageous.

They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings.
David Miller.

The above may be so David; I am much more interested in following the Lord 
and
being a part of the future Church than I am in trying to figure out what 
went on in the
past (other than scripture) ie forgetting what lies behind

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Well said, David.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 20, 2006 12:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Judy wrote:

I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God?

You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome 
starting
with Constantine with the church fathers.  Clement of Rome, one of the 
first

church fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp,
and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting,
being banished themselves like the apostle John was.  This is not meant to
say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being
the case, as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about
church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in
Jesus.  They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them 
here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and 
teachings.

David Miller.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Well said again, David.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 20, 2006 16:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

Hi Judy.  Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father.  I think 
over

generalization is a big problem here.

By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about
the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing
as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that 
is

common to men.  Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the
fall.  Consider the following quote from John Calvin:

From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.
==
It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all 
taint,
and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the 
Spirit,

it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of
the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because 
he
was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified 
by

the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would
have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever
Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human
nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the
sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is
inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a
twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the
generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom 
our

integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption.
==

Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would
the writings of you or others on TruthTalk?  Are they not expressions of
what other Christians perceive truth to be?  Why should the fact that 
Calvin

or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage.
Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they 
have

already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Judy wrote:

I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
and follow their example.  With their politics, heresy
hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
Why choose dead orthodoxy over a living God?

You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome 
starting

with Constantine with the church fathers.

I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was
thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches,
and
the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. 
Since

the
record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what 
the

story
was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their 
teachings

which has culminated in the present day rcc.

Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you
describe
here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the
subjects
of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was.

Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not 
church
infighting.  I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea 
what

he
taught.  I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their 
teachings

out
and putting them on the same level as the Word of God.

This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of 
God,

but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being
the case,
as any student of Church history knows.  When you talk about church 
fathers,

you
are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus.

Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this 
issue

is kind
of akin to some of the things he taught.  Reformed theology today claims
that God
decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him
personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that
the Holy
Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as
outrageous.

They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and 
teachings.

David Miller.

The above may

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread knpraise

Good points, here.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Judy. Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father. I think over generalization is a big problem here. By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that is common to men. Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the fall. Consider the following quote from John Calvin: From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE. == It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of th
e seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our &
gt; integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption. == Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would the writings of you or others on TruthTalk? Are they not expressions of what other Christians perceive truth to be? Why should the fact that Calvin or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage. Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they have already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours. David Miller.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: I am amazed that anyone reading Church history &
gt; would want to hold the early fathers in such honor and follow their example. With their politics, heresy hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter. Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?" You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine with the church fathers. I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches, and the politics that went on when they began having the church councils. Since the record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what the story was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their teachings which has culminated in the present day rcc. Clement of Rome, one of the first chu
rch fathers, was nothing like you describe here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the subjects of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was. Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not church infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea what he taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their teachings out and putting them on the same level as the Word of God. This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of God, but your characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being the case, as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church fathers, you are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus. Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to
me this issue is kind of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims that God decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as outrageous. They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here. I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and teachings. David Miller. The above may be so David; I am much more interested in

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?

2006-01-20 Thread knpraise


Simply incredible !! 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Doesn't take much for you to dive into the character assassination again does it Bill?
Why is this so close to the surface with you? It's much easier to think the best of ppl and leave the
judgment to the one who judges righteously.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:44:54 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Hi Dean, thanks for caring enough about this subject to search out and post this. I hope you do not mindifI decline comment, as it is much too long to critique point by point. I would prefer if you would paraphrase Darby's points if there be something you want to emphasize; then I could respond.

As an aside, I find it curiousthat Judy is not critiquing you for regularly posting the "doctrines of men," as she does us when we reference sources from Church history. This to me speaks not only to her theology, but to her character as well.

Take care,

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?


cd: To help us understand each other better: What part do you not agree with the below written by Darby. By the way I just found this.



Heb 2:1-18 - 
This is the reason why it is so much the more needful to hearken t the word spoken, in order that they should not let it pass away form life and memory.
God had maintained the authority of the word that was communicated by means of angels, punishing disobedience to it, for it was a law. How then shall we escape if we neglect a salvation which the Lord Himself has announced? Thus the service of the Lord among the Jews was a word of salvation, which the apostles confirmed, and which the mighty testimony of the Holy Ghost established.
Such is the exhortation addressed to the believing Jews, founded on the glory of the Messiah, whether with regard to His position of His Person, calling them away from what was Jewish to higher thoughts of Christ.
We have already remarked that the testimony, of which this epistle treats, is attributed to the Lord Himself. Therefore we must not expect to find in it the assembly (as such), of which the Lord had only spoken prophetically; but His testimony in relation to Israel, among whom He sojourned on the earth, to whatever extent that testimony reached. That which was spoken by the apostles is only treated here as a confirmation of the Lord's own word, God having added His testimony to it by the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, who distributed His gifts to each according to His will.
The glory of which we have been speaking is the personal glory of the Messiah, the Son of David; and His glory in the time present, during which God has called Him to sit at His right hand. He is the Son of God, He is even the Creator; but there is also His glory in connection with the world to come, as Son of man. Of this Chapter 2 speaks, comparing Him still with the angels; but here to exclude them altogether. In the previous Chapter they had their place; the law was given by angels; they are servants, on God's part, of the heirs of salvation. In Chapter w they have no place, they do not reign; the world to come is not made subject to them  that is, this habitable earth, directed and governed as it will be when God shall have accomplished that which He has spoken of by the prophets.
The order of the world, placed in relationship with Jehovah under the law, or "lying in darkness," has been interrupted by the rejection of the Messiah, who has taken His place at the right hand of God on high, His enemies being not yet given into His hand for judgment; because God is carrying on His work of grace, and gathering out the assembly. But He will yet establish a new order of things on the earth; this will be "the world to come." Now that world is not made subject to angels. The testimony given in the Old Testament with regard to this is as follows: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; thou hast set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Thus all things without exception (save He who has made them subject to Him), are, according to the purpose of God, put under the feet of man, and in particular of the Son of man.
When studying the Book of Psalms, we saw that which I recall here, namely, that this testimony in Psalm 8 is, with regard to the position and dominion of Christ as man, an advance upon Psalm 2. Psalm 1 sets before us the righteous man, accepted of God, the godly remnant with which Christ connected Himself; Psalm 2, the counsels of God respecting His Messiah, in spite of the efforts made by the kings and governors of the earth. God establishes Him as King in Zion, and summons all the kings to do homage to Him

RE: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-21 Thread ShieldsFamily









Well, duhI guess that means she
didnt call YOU the Accuser. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005
12:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] For Lance







Bingo !!! And do you think that we are all stupid enough
not to know who the Accuser is? 











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


FYI, jd, when someone speaks of the
Accuser, they may be speaking about the spirit motivating you; not you
personally. Get it? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005
8:38 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance







These words I
didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 





struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often
does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not
believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote
!! She pretends to not be at war with me -
yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full
well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it
does get tiring. 





That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no
sincerity in her post. Sorry.











-- Original message -- 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts.
Give credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be
family. Let's try harder.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Arrogance will get you nowhere.











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]




I didn't understand it JD,





It was incomprehensible to me and I
don't consider myself at war with you.





I was not intentionally being rude about
it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 





Guess I am so used to being set up and
then knocked down here.





Sorry about that. ATST you are
misjuding me.











On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday?
The post written 





last night asking about a truce ?? That
was written under the direction of 





the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience
and clearly, from God. 





Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 











jd











From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]










You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore
this one also?













You wrote:













You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by
extension indicates 





that you do not apprehend the significance
of the Incarnation and the humanity of
Jesus.











Do you actually believe your salvation
comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?





What does that mean - and in the light
of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture





below means:











and so it is written. The first
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam





was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The





first man is of the earth earthy; the
second man is the Lord from heaven. As is





the earthy such are they also that are
earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are





they also that are heavenly. And
as we have borne the image of the earthy, we





shall also bear the image of the
heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh





and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither
doth corruption inherit





incorruption (2 Cor
15:45-50)







judyt

He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments

is a liar (1 John 2:4)



















judyt

He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments

is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-20 Thread David Miller

JD wrote:
 These words  I didn't understand it JD,  It was
 incomprehensible to me  struck me as casting
 my writing in the same light as DM often does.
 I regard such as blatant arrognace.

This is your example of arrogance?  You are only projecting your own 
arrogance upon Judy.  You think you write so perfectly that nobody in the 
world could fail to understand you!

JD wrote:
 I do not believe for a second that Judy could
 not understand what I wrote !!  She pretends
 to not be at war with me -  yet she opposes my
 words with every post.  She has called me the
 Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of
 that word.   I consider the source, but it does
 get tiring.  That she is not at war with me is simply
 not believable.  I see no sincerity in her post.  Sorry.

I fully believe that Judy did not understand what you wrote.  I often cannot 
understand your writings.  Your assumptions are very different from most 
people I know.

As for Judy's concept that she is not at war with you, well, the reason she 
thinks that way is because in her heart she has nothing personally against 
you.  Opposing some of your posts is an act of love on her part, hoping that 
you will see that your viewpoint is not the shining tower of truth that you 
seem to think it is.  It is no different than a parent correcting one's 
child.  Some might think that parental correction and discpline is contrary 
to love, but those of us mature in the Lord know that such is love of the 
highest degree.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-20 Thread knpraise

I explained why I used the word "arrogance."

You will excuse me for speaking from my perspective which is the proverbial dirty end of the stick -- Judy being on the sanitized end. I am not in need of a mother, David.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. This is your example of arrogance? You are only projecting your own arrogance upon Judy. You think you write so perfectly that nobody in the world could fail to understand you! JD wrote: I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry. I fully believe that Judy did not understand what you wrote. I often cannot understand your writings. Your assumptions are very different from most people I know. As for Judy's concept that she is not at war with you, well, the reason she thinks that way is because in her heart she has nothing personally against you. Opposing some of your posts is an act of love on her part, hoping that you will see that your viewpoint is not the shining tower of truth that you seem to think it is. It is no different than a parent correcting one's child. Some might think that parental correction and discpline is contrary to love, but those of us mature in the Lord know that such is love of the highest degree. Peace be with you. David Miller. --
t; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance


Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? The post written last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written under the direction of the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and clearly, from God. Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-19 Thread Judy Taylor




I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider 
myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about it and didn't 
know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked 
down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are misjuding 
me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? 
  The post written 
  last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written 
  under the direction of 
  the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and 
  clearly, from God. 
  Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore 
this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the 
earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and 
the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes 
through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - 
Pleasetell me what the 
scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made 
a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that 
was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is 
the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and 
as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 
Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 
neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)
 
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance


Arrogance will get you nowhere.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are misjuding me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? The post written 
last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written under the direction of 
the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and clearly, from God. 
Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-19 Thread Judy Taylor




Arrogance? Where does that perception come 
from?
Don't answer that - I know.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:28:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Arrogance will get you nowhere.
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider 
myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about it and 
didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked 
down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are misjudging my 
motives.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly 
  everyday? The post written 
  last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was 
  written under the direction of 
  the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience 
  and clearly, from God. 
  Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore 
this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of 
the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation 
and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes 
through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - 
Pleasetell me what the 
scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was 
made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit 
that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second 
man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; 
and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we 
have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the 
heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 
neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 
15:45-50)
 
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-19 Thread Terry Clifton





Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts. Give
credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be family. Let's
try harder.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Arrogance will get you nowhere.
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I
don't consider myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about
it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and
then knocked down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are
misjuding me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday?
The post written 
  last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written
under the direction of 
  the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience
and clearly, from God. 
  Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 
  
  jd
  
  From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going
to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for
things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the
Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your
salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the
light of it - Pleasetell me what the
scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man
Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy;
the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that
are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as
we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the
heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)


judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
 is a liar (1 John 2:4)



  
  



judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
 is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance


These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 
struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. 
That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry.

-- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts. Give credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be family. Let's try harder.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Arrogance will get you nowhere.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are misjuding me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? The post written 
last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written under the direction of 
the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and clearly, from God. 
Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-19 Thread Terry Clifton





I understand. Do whatever you think will please the Lord.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 
  struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often
does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not believe for a
second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends
to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my
words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full
well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it
does get tiring. 
  That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see
no sincerity in her post. Sorry.
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts. Give
credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be family. Let's
try harder.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Arrogance will get you nowhere.
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I
don't consider myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude
about it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up
and then knocked down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are
misjuding me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly
everyday? The post written 
  last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written
under the direction of 
  the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional
experience and clearly, from God. 
  Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 
  
  jd
  
  From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you
going to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain
for things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the
Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your
salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the
light of it - Pleasetell me what the
scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth
earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also
that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the
heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)


judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
 is a liar (1 John 2:4)



  
  



judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
 is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance


always the best of advice. 

Thanks

jd

-- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand. Do whatever you think will please the Lord.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 
struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. 
That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry.

-- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts. Give credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be family. Let's try harder.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Arrogance will get you nowhere.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,
It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider myself at war with you.
I was not intentionally being rude about it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 
Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked down here.
Sorry about that. ATST you are misjuding me.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? The post written 
last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written under the direction of 
the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and clearly, from God. 
Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore this one also?


You wrote:


You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates 
that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.

Do you actually believe your salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?
What does that mean - and in the light of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture
below means:

"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The
first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is
the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

RE: [TruthTalk] For Lance

2005-12-19 Thread ShieldsFamily









FYI, jd, when someone speaks of the
Accuser, they may be speaking about the spirit motivating you; not you
personally. Get it? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005
8:38 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance







These words I
didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 





struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often
does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not believe
for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote
!! She pretends to not be at war with me -
yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser,
knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the
source, but it does get tiring. 





That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no
sincerity in her post. Sorry.











-- Original message -- 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts.
Give credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be
family. Let's try harder.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Arrogance will get you nowhere.











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]




I didn't understand it JD,





It was incomprehensible to me and I
don't consider myself at war with you.





I was not intentionally being rude about
it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 





Guess I am so used to being set up and
then knocked down here.





Sorry about that. ATST you are
misjuding me.











On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday?
The post written 





last night asking about a truce ?? That
was written under the direction of 





the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience
and clearly, from God. 





Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 











jd











From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]










You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore
this one also?













You wrote:













You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by
extension indicates 





that you do not apprehend the significance
of the Incarnation and the humanity of
Jesus.











Do you actually believe your salvation
comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?





What does that mean - and in the light
of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture





below means:











and so it is written. The first
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam





was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The





first man is of the earth earthy; the
second man is the Lord from heaven. As is





the earthy such are they also that are
earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are





they also that are heavenly. And
as we have borne the image of the earthy, we





shall also bear the image of the
heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh





and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit





incorruption (2 Cor
15:45-50)







judyt

He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments

is a liar (1 John 2:4)



















judyt

He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments

is a liar (1 John 2:4)

RE: [TruthTalk] For Lance


Bingo !!! And do you think that we are all stupid enough not to know who the Accuser is? 

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








FYI, jd, when someone speaks of the Accuser, they may be speaking about the spirit motivating you; not you personally. Get it? iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:38 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance


These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me 

struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. 

That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry.



-- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where is the arrogance, John? This is one of her better efforts. Give credit where it is due. Please? We are sposed to be family. Let's try harder.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Arrogance will get you nowhere.



-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I didn't understand it JD,

It was incomprehensible to me and I don't consider myself at war with you.

I was not intentionally being rude about it and didn't know you wanted an answer. 

Guess I am so used to being set up and then knocked down here.

Sorry about that. ATST you are misjuding me.



On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:04 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Do you not ignore questions I ask of you, nearly everyday? The post written 

last night asking about a "truce" ?? That was written under the direction of 

the Holy Spirit, Judy.It was a very emotional experience and clearly, from God. 

Your response? Ignore, ignore , ignore. 



jd



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



You have not answered my question Lance ... are you going to ignore this one also?




You wrote:




You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates 

that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus.



Do you actually believe your salvation comes through Jesus' humanity Lance?

What does that mean - and in the light of it - Pleasetell me what the scripture

below means:



"and so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam

was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual. The

first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is

the earthy such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are

they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we

shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say brethren, that flesh

and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit

incorruption" (2 Cor 15:45-50)

 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)


 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-10 Thread ttxpress




myth [behind this 
statement it's jt herselfjudging (for)God]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:57:26 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life they 
  exclude themselves from his Promises.

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-10 Thread Kevin Deegan

  I Was Crazy Once  by Brandon M. DennisWith iron prodders and pokey things  They scrape and mar and break and bleed  While the younglings lay in dreams  Of Lucifers fall and Adams deedDown the hatch where leaves fall  I saw the coin of the smartest side  Where no one knows how big or small  The cuckoo grins at his feathery rideForever they swept the furthest barrow  And within found what he foretold  About Thors goats marrow  The shimmering rays the sword-blade holdI then went walking down the ravine  To examine every flying whim  Whose scales are now better seen  In feathery flinching fighting finBeneath my skin I saw it crawl  And make its trail and burrow deep  Forever to retain the call  of laughter for your ears to keep!And you who sit on earthy-blood  Read the tree-flesh while you chew  on runes carved with inky mud.  You think Im crazy, dont you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  myth [behind this statement it's jt herselfjudging (for)God] 
   On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:57:26 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life they exclude themselves from his Promises.
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-10 Thread ttxpress




..jt ain't happy 
with God's perspective so she created her own (God: 
herself)

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:47:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth [behind this 
  statement it's jt herselfjudging (for)God]
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:57:26 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
..they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life 
they exclude themselves from his Promises.

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-10 Thread ttxpress




i've noticed; yes, 
how it's all about you, too

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:16:28 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  I Was Crazy Once
  by Brandon M. Dennis
  
  With iron prodders and pokey 
  things
  They scrape and mar and break and 
  bleed
  While the younglings lay in 
  dreams
  Of Lucifers fall and Adams 
  deed
  
  Down the hatch where leaves 
  fall
  I saw the coin of the smartest 
  side
  Where no one knows how big or 
  small
  The cuckoo grins at his feathery 
  ride
  
  Forever they swept the furthest 
  barrow
  And within found what he 
  foretold
  About Thors goats marrow
  The shimmering rays the sword-blade 
  hold
  
  I then went walking down the 
  ravine
  To examine every flying whim
  Whose scales are now better 
  seen
  In feathery flinching fighting 
  fin
  
  Beneath my skin I saw it crawl
  And make its trail and burrow 
  deep
  Forever to retain the call
  of laughter for your ears to 
  keep!
  
  And you who sit on 
earthy-blood
  Read the tree-flesh while you 
  chew
  on runes carved with inky mud.
  You think Im crazy, dont 
you?
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



myth [behind 
this statement it's jt herselfjudging 
(for)God]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:57:26 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ..they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life 
  they exclude themselves from his 
  Promises.
  
  
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
  Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-10 Thread Kevin Deegan

We are poor. You are poorer too. But we are poorer. Guaranteed. Mostly because we are skipping calling in sick to work to bring you something vaguely similar to really good music journalizm. Just think of it as posting a tax-deductible comment, except your "words" are numbers.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i've noticed; yes, how it's all about you, tooOn Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:16:28 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I Was Crazy
Once by Brandon M. DennisWith iron prodders and pokey things They scrape and mar and break and bleed While the younglings lay in dreams Of Lucifers fall and Adams deedDown the hatch where leaves fall I saw the coin of the smartest side Where no one knows how big or small The cuckoo grins at his feathery rideForever they swept the
furthest barrow And within found what he foretold About Thors goats marrow The shimmering rays the sword-blade holdI then went walking down the ravine To examine every flying whim Whose scales are now better seen In feathery flinching fighting finBeneath my skin I saw it crawl And make its trail and burrow deep Forever to retain the call of
laughter for your ears to keep!And you who sit on earthy-blood Read the tree-flesh while you chew on runes carved with inky mud. You think Im crazy, dont you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth [behind this statement it's jt herselfjudging (for)God]On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:57:26 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life they exclude themselves from his Promises. Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

2005-12-08 Thread Judy Taylor




On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:42:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Even the one 'infallible interpreter' on TT has taken issue 
  with your Scriptural interpretation(s) on occasion(s). 
  Many have taken exception to your 
  non-personalist hermeneutic. 
  
  What in the world is this? If we are to communicate 
  Lance, you will have to use plain-speak
  
  Many take exception to your sacred/secular dichotomy. 
  
  And what is this? Separating the holy from the 
  profane? Being unwilling to call the world sacred in the face
  of your belief that it was all assumed in 
  Christ?
  
  Many take exception over your dualism/gnosticism. 
  
  I don't have a "gnosticism" What I do have is a 
  "walking after the Spirit" and not fulfilling the lusts of the 
  flesh
  Faulty exegesis here Lance.
  
  Many take exception to your unthinking criticisms of persons whom God holds dear. 
  
  (Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Tolkien  BOB DYLAN) (Maybe just 
  you and me on this one, Gary)
  
  God holds the whole unbelieving world "dear" for that 
  matter (John 3:16) - but when they judge themselves unworthy of eternal 
  life they exclude themselves from his 
  Promises. The ones who make it are those who do His will and 
  who
  speak as the "oracles of God"
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
    
    Sent: December 08, 2005 07:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to 
Check Archives

Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the 
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting. It is 
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
"fundamentalist"card file. 
As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have 
always said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox 
and bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is 
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... 
even when it comes to what I personally believe.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

  OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just make 
  yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word 
  'HELL'. 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
  Lewis actually knew the Lord'
  
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to 
  a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not 
  knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so 
  consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 
  'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following 
  questions: 
  
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
  'know' (define please) the Lord?
  
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL 
  Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who 
  called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not 
  following the example Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics.Do 
  you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't 
  imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But 
  Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these 
  heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the 
  will of the Father? Is this following 
  Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
  servant?"
  
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
  some biblical interpretation, please)
  
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one 
  he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
  accepting or rejecting him on that 
  day.
  
  thanks, Lance
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

RE: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my 
questions to you remain unanswered.


Perry



From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of 
themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500

Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY




Yoda - you mean that little wizened up devil in the 
Star Wars movies

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Garden variety Christian am I. (How 
  yoda-like).
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY

2005-12-03 Thread Lance Muir




The same that David  Christine went to see in 
SWIII. Ya him!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 03, 2005 09:47
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance 
  (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT 
  SDA PERRY
  
  Yoda - you mean that little wizened up devil in the 
  Star Wars movies
  
  On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Garden variety Christian am I. (How 
yoda-like).
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i






I get the impression Perry that Lance thinks himself as 
way above us on an intellectual
level and that most of the time he just plays with us 
here on TT. jt


On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:44:52 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my  
 questions to you remain unanswered.  Perry 
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people  
speak of  themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY 
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500  Garden variety 
Christian am I. (How yoda-like).   -- 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you  may 
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)  http://www.InnGlory.org  If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed. If you  have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.  


 
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread Lance Muir

Like I said to you the other day Perry, ya gots ta learn to read for 
meaning. It IS all in my post. Sadly, the word 'drivel' is the sum of it.
- Original Message - 
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 03, 2005 09:44
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of 
themselves i

Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my 
questions to you remain unanswered.

Perry

From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of 
themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500

Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY




Do you know why they went? Were they going for 
sheer entertainment or to keep up with what is
important and relevant to the worldlings at the 
University they are involved with. Either way it is
their business. Why do you bring it up? As 
an accusation?


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:52:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The same that David  Christine went to see 
  in SWIII. Ya him!
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Yoda - you mean that little wizened up devil in the 
Star Wars movies

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Garden variety Christian am I. (How 
  yoda-like).
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread Lance Muir




Didja ever see Tom  Jerry?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 03, 2005 09:50
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance 
  (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i
  
  
  
  I get the impression Perry that Lance thinks himself 
  as way above us on an intellectual
  level and that most of the time he just plays with us 
  here on TT. jt
  
  
  On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:44:52 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my  
   questions to you remain unanswered.  Perry 
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people  
  speak of  themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY 
  Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500  Garden 
  variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).   
  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you  may know how you ought to answer every man." 
  (Colossians 4:6)  http://www.InnGlory.org  If 
  you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed. If you  have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.  
  
  
   
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread Charles Perry Locke

It would seem that way.

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak 
of themselves i

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:50:28 -0500

I get the impression Perry that Lance thinks himself as way above us on
an intellectual
level and that most of the time he just plays with us here on TT.  jt

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:44:52 -0800 Charles Perry Locke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my

 questions to you remain unanswered.

 Perry

 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people
 speak of
 themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY
 Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500

 Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
 may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you
 have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

 judyt

He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread Charles Perry Locke


Lance,

  You may think that your responses are deep and meaningful, but they are 
too elusive for me to spend time on. I ask for your position on a few simple 
issues from the Revelation, and you post a 2000 word treatise on SDA that 
you copied from some web site without any explanation. Was I to assume you 
believe it? not beleive it? Agree with some parts. Agree with none of it? 
Instead or your saying so, I (and others) have to spend several rounds of 
posts to try to get your response and you STILL have not answered my 
questions.


  How about blessing us with some of your own intellectual insight by 
answering my original questions. Wait! Don't go look up what someone else 
said about it. I want YOUR thoughts on it!


Perry



From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak 
of themselves i

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:57:52 -0500

Like I said to you the other day Perry, ya gots ta learn to read for 
meaning. It IS all in my post. Sadly, the word 'drivel' is the sum of it.
- Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 03, 2005 09:44
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak 
of themselves i



Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my 
questions to you remain unanswered.


Perry



From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of 
themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500

Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.





--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i

2005-12-03 Thread knpraise


Funny, I often get the imprression that he is. 

jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:55:25 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i


It would seem that way.From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves iDate: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:50:28 -0500I get the impression Perry that Lance thinks himself as way above us onan intellectuallevel and that most of the time he just plays with us here on TT. jtOn Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:44:52 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke"[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  Okay, then the question remains why you posted the SDA stuff, and my   questions to you remain unanswered.   PerryFrom: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people  speak of  themselves in the 3rd person?) NOT SDA PERRY  Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:39:10 -0500Garden variety Christian am I. (How yoda-like).-- &
gt; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you  may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)  http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you  have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.   judytHe that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer ev
ery man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i