Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. Just another LDS prooftext. In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. Blaine I would also like chapters and verses regards Elijah restoring all things in Matthew and Luke. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost.I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "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. _ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar - includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you o
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. Furthermore, even though that is my belief, I am not trying to promote it here. What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. Just another LDS prooftext. DAVEH: I humbly believe you do not understand the nature of my questions, Perry. May I suggest (again, humbly) that you address the question I ask, instead of the question you perceive I'm asking and let's see if we can have a more meaningful discussion..please! In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? DAVEH: No. If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer? No. If the verses in Matthew and Luke where Elijah restores all things are not the verse you are referring to, then please lead me in sctripture to where you are reading about the restituiton of all things. DAVEH: Sorry it is taking so long to respond to your question, Perry. I've got a few minutes to kill while waiting to leave, so I'll see if I can get this post out of my inbox! Let's start by saying I was reading about the restitution of all things that you mentioned at the top does not apply to the LDS Church. I'll highlight it in blue. So.the question should be addressed to yourself, shouldn't it? If you do not believe the restitution of all things has anything to so with the LDS but you do believe it applies to something/someone elsethen to whom do you believe restitution of all things has to do? That is not to say I don't think there need be a restoration.quite the contrary. If you want me to quote a Scripture that I think pertain to this prophesied event Mal 4: 5-6 Mt 17:10-13 Acts 3:19-21 Rev 14:6-7 are a few that I believe apply. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
JS = Joseph Smith?? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:01:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JS' What is JS John -- the new guy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:59:13 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FTR though, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions, Vincent. OK, fair enough. vincent j. fulton -- 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] The Last Days
Something happens toyour Language processing, when you become a Mormon Hey Dave NOTICE the "if not" clause. You do not need to answer if you did not answer the preceding in the affirmative. I know this is very tricky. Try it real slow. CPL In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah?DAVEH: No.CPL If not, please give ma a chapter and verse.DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Perry Locke wrote: The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS.DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. Furthermore, even though that is my belief, I am not trying to promote it here. What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. Just another LDS prooftext.DAVEH: I humbly believe you do not understand the nature of my questions, Perry. May I suggest (again, humbly) that you address the question I ask, instead of the question you perceive I'm asking and let's see if we can have a more meaningful discussion..please! In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah?DAVEH: No. If not, please give ma a chapter and verse.DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer? From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. Furthermore, even though that is my belief, I am not trying to promote it here. What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. Just another LDS prooftext. DAVEH: I humbly believe you do not understand the nature of my questions, Perry. May I suggest (again, humbly) that you address the question I ask, instead of the question you perceive I'm asking and let's see if we can have a more meaningful discussion..please! In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? DAVEH: No. If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer? No. If the verses in Matthew and Luke where Elijah restores all things are not the verse you are referring to, then please lead me in sctripture to where you are reading about the restituiton of all things. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- Let
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Kevin Deegan wrote: Something happens toyour Language processing, when you become a Mormon Hey Dave NOTICE the "if not" clause. You do not need to answer if you did not answer the preceding in the affirmative. I know this is very tricky. Try it real slow. DAVEH: I guess I'm pretty dense, Kevin. IF I do not think JS is Elijah, then what passages does Perry want me to give...? What should those passages forthcoming passages say? CPL In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? DAVEH: No. CPL If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. In my sometimes humble opinion, they probably didn't see the heresies as apostasies. If one claims to believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, the light, and nobody gets to the Father or paradise or heaven without first believing in Jesus, then they are not apostate. When somebody says, I just don't believe anymore. I've stopped believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Annointed One, the means chosen by the Father to be reconciled with humanity, then that person is apostate. Giving the strong lds bent of some here, the next question might be, If Mormons claim to believe in Jesus, then why are they not considered Christians? In my opinion, the short answer is that they believe in a counterfeit Jesus, one not described in the bible. They believe His Father was once a man like us, contrary to the bible. They believe He and lucifer were / are spirit brothers, whereas the bible tells us that God, through the ... um person of Jesus created everything, which of course would include the creature lucifer. No doubt there's more, but I haven't exhaustively studied lds-ism, so I can't come up with more off the top of my head. vincent j fulton -- 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] The Last Days
OK smarty pants... through the ... um person LOL[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800 Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: DAVEH: What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken.In my sometimes humble opinion, they probably didn't see theheresies as apostasies. If one claims to believe that Jesus is the way,the truth, the light, and nobody gets to the Father or paradise or heavenwithout first believing in Jesus, then they are not apostate. Whensomebody says, "I just don't believe anymore. I've stopped believing thatJesus is the Christ, the Annointed One, the means chosen by the Father tobe reconciled with humanity," then that person is apostate.Giving the strong lds bent of some here, the next question might be,"If Mormons claim to believe in Jesus, then why are they not consideredChristians?" In my opinion, the short answer is that they believe in acounterfeit Jesus, one not described in the bible. They believe HisFather was once a man like us, contrary to the bible. They believe He andlucifer were / are spirit brothers, whereas the bible tells us that God,through the ... um person of Jesus created everything, which ofcourse would include the creature lucifer. No doubt there's more, but Ihaven't exhaustively studied lds-ism, so I can't come up with more offthe top of my head. vincent j fulton--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. In my sometimes humble opinion, they probably didn't see the heresies as apostasies. If one claims to believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, the light, and nobody gets to the Father or paradise or heaven without first believing in Jesus, then they are not apostate. When somebody says, "I just don't believe anymore. I've stopped believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Annointed One, the means chosen by the Father to be reconciled with humanity," then that person is apostate. DAVEH: Ahhh..I see. We (LDS) view apostasy a bit differently, I think. Giving the strong lds bent of some here, the next question might be, "If Mormons claim to believe in Jesus, then why are they not considered Christians?" In my opinion, the short answer is that they believe in a counterfeit Jesus, one not described in the bible. They believe His Father was once a man like us, contrary to the bible. They believe He and lucifer were / are spirit brothers, whereas the bible tells us that God, through the ... um person of Jesus created everything, which of course would include the creature lucifer. No doubt there's more, but I haven't exhaustively studied lds-ism, so I can't come up with more off the top of my head. DAVEH: There is no need to do that, as I'm sure it has all been aired on TT already. FTR though, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions, Vincent. vincent j fulton -- -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] The Last Days
Who did the RC Church burn during the dark ages? Bible believing christians were never in short supply for torches You are totally leaving out the Waldenses, Anabaptists Albigenses How do they fit in your scheme of things? Why did they keep getting slaughtered? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? DAVEH: I'm not trying to shoot arrows into you or Protestants in general, Vince. I'm trying to find out what they believe and why they believe such. To me, the apostasy and subsequent restoration is a given from my LDS bias. It seems so obvious (again.from my LDS perspective) that the gospel went through dark ages just as the world did in other aspects. It just surprises me the Reformers did not jump onto that bandwagon (apostasy as evidenced by RCC theology) while claiming to be the Biblical answer (in the effect of a restoration of what the RCC folks lost). Now again, Vincethis is my LDS biased thinking. I'm curious to know if any Protestants have given any thought to this. And if not, why not? To me it seems relatively a logical path to take. Are there any Biblical reasons why the Reformers did not consider traveling that route?-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up [Greek, harpazo]together with them in the clouds, to meet the LORD in the air: and so shall we ever be with the LORD" 1Thessalonians 4:17"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up [Greek, harpazo] to the Third Heaven" 2Corinthians 12:2 "And they heard a Great Voice from Heaven saying unto them, Come Up Hither. And they ascended up to Heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them" Rev 11:12 The word rapture is used to express a doctrine AND a GREEK WORD harpazo Rapture "transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to Heaven" American Heritage Dictionary Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not in the Bible, but an english word commonly used to refer to the catching up or snatching away of the church as described in 1 Thes 4:17 (but, you knew that already). Like "trinity", or "the antichrist" (when used as an epithet for 'the beast" of Revelation). English words that catch the idea of the text, but do not appear in that text.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last DaysDate: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:42:14 -0700On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote: ..the rapture..is this biblical wording now; what verse?G ~ P 235_Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote: ..the rapture.. is thisbiblical wording now; what verse? G ~ P 235 Naw,G. Rapture is not in the Bible. It's just a word we use to communicate an idea. The same way we use reverend or pope. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times SOME shall DEPART from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Not all just some. Seems to me JoE was a prime candidate for this. He joined left the methodist church he was seduced by a "angelic" spirit beingDave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different.DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray,DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared.DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due),DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS.DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain Five email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DAVEH: Do you recognize/accept the Trinity Doctrine? To me, the word doctrine means a set of principles, something concrete to use as a measuring device. I am not sure that I can describe the trinity and do justice. Your idea of one in purpose is clearly included, but I think Bill and Kevin made it more clear. I believe in a triune God. Whether for clarification we use "persons", or "personalities", or Gods, there are three. They have not only the same purpose (A baseball team has the same purpose), they are absolutly alike in how they think. No disagreement whatsoever on any point, at any time. They have exactly the same attributes and emotions. What one loves, they all love. What one hates, they all hate. You cannot play one against the other because they are always in total agreement. They are unified like no three humans have ever been. I wish I could explain it better I do not know when the apostasy began. I do not know any reformers. I don't even know what a tangential path looks like or where it leads. I am fairly ignorant of these things you find important. I am not even certain what it is you offered to explain. Do you not believe that we are in the last days? DAVEH: Yes I do. But as you mentioned previously, you believe the last days started 2 millennia ago.. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. So, my point was that the falling away could have taken place shortly after Jesus' death and still be considered in the last days as opposed to thinking the falling away has not yet happened. Have you looked at Paul's comments to Timothy in 2nd. Tim.3:1-5? Have you seen these things come about in your life time? I have. DAVEH: ButI assume you do not think the falling away (apostasy) has exclusively happened in these latter-days? No, I think it has been a long gradual slide, but starting about the time of ww2, the slide got steeper and we picked up speed Now we are like a runaway freight train headed down hill with the throttle to the wall. The slide is about over and the wreck will be terrible, and none of us can stop it. God has a plan, and His plans always work the way He wants them to. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Again, this is not an issue I hang my salvation on. I am actually "pan-trib"...however it pans out! Hey Perry. That's my view on the tribulation too. I just never knew what to call it before. Many thanks I would like to hear (read) your post-tribulational resurrection beliefs if and when you have time. BTW, I am currently reading a book called "When will Jesus Come", by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? We have a couple of books by Dave Hunt, and get his "Berean call" regularly. His book,"What Love is This" is a super study on Calvinism. Terry From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:58:35 -0500 Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the "falling away" occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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. _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- "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] The Last Days
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Charles Perry Locke wrote: Again, this is not an issue I hang my salvation on. I am actually pan-trib...however it pans out! *Hey Perry. That's my view on the tribulation too. I just never knew what to call it before. Many thanks* I must attribute this line to Hank Hanegraaf, of the Christian Research Institute. I borrowed it from him. I would like to hear (read) your post-tribulational resurrection beliefs if and when you have time. BTW, I am currently reading a book called When will Jesus Come, by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? *We have a couple of books by Dave Hunt, and get his Berean call regularly. His book,What Love is This is a super study on Calvinism.* I bought What Love is This?, but have yet to get into it. Because of your comment maybe I will start it this week!. Terry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:58:35 -0500 Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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. _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- 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. _ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ -- 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] The Last Days
Perry wrote: Actually, we know the order is true despite what falling away may mean, right? Paul is laying out the order. The falling away happens, then the man of sin is revealed, then the Lord comes. Now, if one takes falling away to mean a falling away of the faithful from the faith, then the time of the resurrection is unspecified in this verse. Why do you say this? The time of the resurrection happens AFTER the falling away. Read the passage. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him [the Resurrection / Rapture], That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 KJV) The apostasy mentioned (falling away) cannot be translated to refer to the resurrection because he just framed his entire speech to say that the coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering together unto him would not happen until the apostasy and revealing of the man of sin. This seems so obvious to me that I truly do not understand how you could frame an argument otherwise. As Terry said, the passage says what it says. Perry wrote: But, I was writing in the context of the falling away meaning the resurrection itself (see the reference I gave in a previous post). In this context, it would indicate that the resurrection would happen, then the man of sin would be revealed, then the Lord would come. This viewpoint contradicts the immediate verse preceding this one, and it also contradicts other verses in the context. For example, consider the previous chapter that associates the coming of the Lord and the glorification of the saints (the Resurrection / Rapture) with a fiery judgment of vengeance upon the wicked. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 KJV) The verses following the passage you have commented upon also indicate the apostasy, calling it the mystery of iniquity, which will continue to work and hold fast until this spirit behind it is taken out of the way and the son of perdition, the man of sin, is revealed. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 KJV) So very clearly, the passage indicates apostasy followed by the man of sin followed by Christ appearing in the clouds, the resurrection of the saints, and the judgment of the nations, all in that order. Perry wrote: But, I suspect you do not consider the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 to be the resurrection. Am I right? Right. The falling away is an apostasy, the working of iniquity. Perry wrote: BTW, I am currently reading a book called When will Jesus Come, by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? I have never met Dave Hunt but I have heard good reports about him. I do not know his eschatological views too well, but I read his books, The Seduction of Christianity and Beyond Seduction. I'm not really in his target audience because I already accept the Bible as an authority for truth, so much of it was kind of boring and uninteresting to me. That is not to say he is not doing a good work, just that I am not in his target audience concerning the subjects he has written about. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:01:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JS' What is JS John -- the new guy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Hi everyone. This is funny to me but , I sat down, opened all the mail from this list, post three or four replies and emptied my mail box. I immedicately exited the email and re-entered just to see if anything had post while I working on your (you all) articles. THERE WERE 20 new emails. Man oh man. Good thing we are not having babies !!! John
RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DavidM says I already accept the Bible as an authority for truth What are the other "authorities"? David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perry wrote: Actually, we know the order is true despite what "falling away" may mean, right? Paul is laying out the order. The falling away happens, then the man of sin is revealed, then the Lord comes. Now, if one takes "falling away" to mean a falling away of the faithful from the faith, then the time of the resurrection is unspecified in this verse.Why do you say this? The time of the resurrection happens AFTER thefalling away. Read the passage.Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,and by our gathering together unto him [the Resurrection / Rapture],That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is athand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,the son of perdition. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 KJV)The apostasy mentioned (falling away) cannot be translated to refer tothe resurrection because he just framed his entire speech to say thatthe coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering together unto him wouldnot happen until the apostasy and revealing of the man of sin. Thisseems so obvious to me that I truly do not understand how you couldframe an argument otherwise. As Terry said, the passage says what itsays.Perry wrote: But, I was writing in the context of the "falling away" meaning the resurrection itself (see the reference I gave in a previous post). In this context, it would indicate that the resurrection would happen, then the man of sin would be revealed, then the Lord would come.This viewpoint contradicts the immediate verse preceding this one, andit also contradicts other verses in the context. For example, consider the previous chapter that associates the coming ofthe Lord and the glorification of the saints (the Resurrection /Rapture) with a fiery judgment of vengeance upon the wicked.And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall berevealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire takingvengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of ourLord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destructionfrom the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When heshall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all themthat believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.(2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 KJV)The verses following the passage you have commented upon also indicatethe apostasy, calling it the mystery of iniquity, which will continue towork and hold fast until this spirit behind it is taken out of the wayand the son of perdition, the man of sin, is revealed.For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now lettethwill let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wickedbe revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2 Thessalonians2:7-8 KJV)So very clearly, the passage indicates apostasy followed by the man ofsin followed by Christ appearing in the clouds, the resurrection of thesaints, and the judgment of the nations, all in that order.Perry wrote: But, I suspect you do not consider the "falling away" in 2 Thes 2:3 to be the resurrection. Am I right?Right. The falling away is an apostasy, the working of iniquity.Perry wrote: BTW, I am currently reading a book called "When will Jesus Come", by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him?I have never met Dave Hunt but I have heard good reports about him. Ido not know his eschatological views too well, but I read his books,"The Seduction of Christianity" and "Beyond Seduction." I'm not reallyin his target audience because I already accept the Bible as anauthority for truth, so much of it was kind of boring and uninterestingto me. That is not to say he is not doing a good work, just that I amnot in his target audience concerning the subjects he has written about.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
ROTFLOLWelcome to TT, a hotbed of religious discussion! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone. This is funny to me but , I sat down, opened all the mail from this list, post three or four replies and emptied my mail box. I immedicately exited the email and re-entered just to see if anything had post while I working on your (you all) articles. THERE WERE 20 new emails. Man oh man. Good thing we are not having babies !!! John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:01:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JS' DAVEH: Sorry John..I sometimes forget there a lot of new folks in TT now. Joseph Smith. What is JS John -- the new guy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:49:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Sorry John..I sometimes forget there a lot of new folks in TT now. Joseph Smith. thank you john
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:16:53 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now we beseech you..by our gathering together unto him..2Thess 2 literarily. isn'tthe (current)gathering together, above,the main proof that the day of the Lord is future? G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. Just another LDS prooftext. In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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. _ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ -- 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] The Last Days
Thanks for taking the time. DavidM. As I said, my salvation does not hang on when the resurrection occurs. I am ready at any time to go. Although I long to be with the Lord and hope to avoid the great tribulation, I am in part curious to witness the end times. Another cute phrase that means nothing: Pray for pre, prepare for post. I just finished Hunt's book that I mentioned. He is pre all the way, and presents interpretations of many verses that indicate such. But, I have heard post argments as well (plus a few mid). Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:16:53 -0500 Perry wrote: Actually, we know the order is true despite what falling away may mean, right? Paul is laying out the order. The falling away happens, then the man of sin is revealed, then the Lord comes. Now, if one takes falling away to mean a falling away of the faithful from the faith, then the time of the resurrection is unspecified in this verse. Why do you say this? The time of the resurrection happens AFTER the falling away. Read the passage. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him [the Resurrection / Rapture], That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 KJV) The apostasy mentioned (falling away) cannot be translated to refer to the resurrection because he just framed his entire speech to say that the coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering together unto him would not happen until the apostasy and revealing of the man of sin. This seems so obvious to me that I truly do not understand how you could frame an argument otherwise. As Terry said, the passage says what it says. Perry wrote: But, I was writing in the context of the falling away meaning the resurrection itself (see the reference I gave in a previous post). In this context, it would indicate that the resurrection would happen, then the man of sin would be revealed, then the Lord would come. This viewpoint contradicts the immediate verse preceding this one, and it also contradicts other verses in the context. For example, consider the previous chapter that associates the coming of the Lord and the glorification of the saints (the Resurrection / Rapture) with a fiery judgment of vengeance upon the wicked. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 KJV) The verses following the passage you have commented upon also indicate the apostasy, calling it the mystery of iniquity, which will continue to work and hold fast until this spirit behind it is taken out of the way and the son of perdition, the man of sin, is revealed. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 KJV) So very clearly, the passage indicates apostasy followed by the man of sin followed by Christ appearing in the clouds, the resurrection of the saints, and the judgment of the nations, all in that order. Perry wrote: But, I suspect you do not consider the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 to be the resurrection. Am I right? Right. The falling away is an apostasy, the working of iniquity. Perry wrote: BTW, I am currently reading a book called When will Jesus Come, by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? I have never met Dave Hunt but I have heard good reports about him. I do not know his eschatological views too well, but I read his books, The Seduction of Christianity and Beyond Seduction. I'm not really in his target audience because I already accept the Bible as an authority for truth, so much of it was kind of boring and uninteresting to me. That is not to say he is not doing a good work, just that I am not in his target audience concerning the subjects he has written about. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. Furthermore, even though that is my belief, I am not trying to promote it here. What I am trying to do is find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken. Just another LDS prooftext. DAVEH: I humbly believe you do not understand the nature of my questions, Perry. May I suggest (again, humbly) that you address the question I ask, instead of the question you perceive I'm asking and let's see if we can have a more meaningful discussion..please! In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? DAVEH: No. If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you chapter/verse for a negative answer? From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV DAVEH: Thanx Terry.Let me quote it... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV DAVEH: Thanx Terry.Let me quote it... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, DAVEH: Then it would be reasonable to consider the apostasy could have begun 2 millennia ago? If so, then could that not be reflected in the persecution of the Primitive Saints and the rise of the RCC? Would it not also explain the Dark Ages? That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Do you understand what I'm saying, Terry? we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? -- 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] The Last Days
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Got a couple of reasons Dave. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. If we were in the last days then, DAVEH: Then it would be reasonable to consider the apostasy could have begun 2 millennia ago? If so, then could that not be reflected in the persecution of the Primitive Saints and the rise of the RCC? Would it not also explain the Dark Ages? That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Do you understand what I'm saying, Terry? we are certainly in the last days now. There have been a few events since then, as you mentioned, where men have shamed the name of Christ until you marvel that the Lord did not return at that point and wipe out evil forever. He has not done that, however, so we are still in the last days, and men are more evil than ever. Homosexuality has been an abomination since Sodom was wiped out, but no more. In these last days, it is an approved lifestyle. It is no longer filty and disgusting. What is disgusting now are intolerant Christians. At one time, children were a blessing from the Lord. Now they are a blessing to those running abortion clinics. There is good money in killing babies. At one time, people held God's word in reverence. If Jesus said there would be no marriage in Heaven, that's the way it was. Now you have the book of Mormon, and you call Jesus a liar when you say you believe it. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry I thought that I explained this before, but here it is again in case you forgot. I am not a protestant. I am not protesting anything and am not part of a protestant organization. I do not have a denomination or recognize any spiritual authority over me except my high priest, Jesus, the Christ. My only guide is the Holy Bible and we come together as a church in one anothers homes. You have confused me with an institutional Christian. Though I regard some of them highly, I am not one of them. I do not know when the apostasy began. I do not know any reformers. I don't even know what a tangential path looks like or where it leads. I am fairly ignorant of these things you find important. I am not even certain what it is you offered to explain. Do you not believe that we are in the last days? Have you looked at Paul's comments to Timothy in 2nd. Tim.3:1-5? Have you seen these things come about in your life time? I have. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. [2 Thes 2:3] _ Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as $29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ -- 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] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry == Sorry Perry, as a rule, I am in your corner, but that's too much of a stretch for me. 'course, I'm not real big on taking a piece of scripture and saying,That is not really what it means. If it says falling away, I buy that as is, Just as I think that when the Bible says Fear God, it really means Fear God, though many say it just means He is awesome. That does not mean that I do not expect the rapture at some point after the falling away. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Terry, Thios is not one of my do-or-die beleifs, and it certainly will determine no one's salvation either way, but does seem to fit well with the end times and the rapture. This translation of apostasia in this verse in no way indicates that there won't be many who fall away from the faith in the end times; there may well be, it is just that there is evidence that in this verse, that is not what is being discussed. If you feel like following up, here is an excellent treatise on the subject. http://www.upway.com/watchmenwatching/apostasy.html Basically, the word apostasia can be translated rebellion, apostasy, falling away, or departure. The author of the above treatise gives the evidence for departing, as in being raptured, being the proper translation. One of my favorite references gives and interesting explanation of the meaning: In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasia does not refer to genuine Christians who depart from the faith, but mere professors who, without devine grace, succumb to the Satanic deception of the Antichrist. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, by Spiro Zodhiates, Th.D.) However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:26:10 -0600 Charles Perry Locke wrote: Gentlemen, many hold that the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 referred to below actually means separation, which refers to the rapture of believers prior to the revealing of the man of sin. This is in agreement with end-times revelation that Jesus will not come until after the rapture and the beast of revelation is revealed. I am in this camp. In the context in which it is written, there is no reason to believe that falling away refers to an apostasy. Perry == Sorry Perry, as a rule, I am in your corner, but that's too much of a stretch for me. 'course, I'm not real big on taking a piece of scripture and saying,That is not really what it means. If it says falling away, I buy that as is, Just as I think that when the Bible says Fear God, it really means Fear God, though many say it just means He is awesome. That does not mean that I do not expect the rapture at some point after the falling away. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx -- 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] The Last Days
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Terry, Thios is not one of my do-or-die beleifs, and it certainly will determine no one's salvation either way, but does seem to fit well with the end times and the rapture. This translation of apostasia in this verse in no way indicates that there won't be many who fall away from the faith in the end times; there may well be, it is just that there is evidence that in this verse, that is not what is being discussed. If you feel like following up, here is an excellent treatise on the subject. http://www.upway.com/watchmenwatching/apostasy.html Basically, the word apostasia can be translated rebellion, apostasy, falling away, or departure. The author of the above treatise gives the evidence for departing, as in being raptured, being the proper translation. One of my favorite references gives and interesting explanation of the meaning: In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasia does not refer to genuine Christians who depart from the faith, but mere professors who, without devine grace, succumb to the Satanic deception of the Antichrist. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, by Spiro Zodhiates, Th.D.) However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. Perry === Thanks Perry. I'll check it out when I get a chance. Right now I am tired, and my brain has stopped functioning. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote:..the rapture.. is thisbiblical wording now; what verse? G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
DaveH wrote: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Many Protestants did take this perspective. In fact, we have discussed before how the Stone-Campbell movement was a restoration movement of the 19th century that Joseph Smith borrowed from, even taking the same name as them for his church, the church of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] The Last Days
Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Terry. I will explain it to you if you wish, but it is a tangential path away from the nature of my questions to you about the falling away and why Protestants don't claim to be the resultant restoration of all things. There is probably much more information on this subject that David or Bill or Kevin or Judy could provide. I haven't studied on it much because it is all pre programmed by a higher authority and there is nothing I can do to change any portion of it. DAVEH: Are you referring to Protestant dogma and tradition have charted the course of your beliefs, Terry? I do not know when He is coming again. No one does, but we are two thousand years closer to the end than we were. Don't be surprised if He comes today. Terry I thought that I explained this before, but here it is again in case you forgot. I am not a protestant. DAVEH: I think you mentioned that before, Terry. My primary interest is in finding out Protestant theology. Though you may not consider yourself to be Protestant, I suspect much of what you believe is biased by the work of the Reformers. If not, you may always point out how your believe differs from Protestant dogma.that would be helpful to me too. I am not protesting anything and am not part of a protestant organization. I do not have a denomination or recognize any spiritual authority over me except my high priest, Jesus, the Christ. My only guide is the Holy Bible and we come together as a church in one anothers homes. You have confused me with an institutional Christian. Though I regard some of them highly, I am not one of them. DAVEH: Do you recognize/accept the Trinity Doctrine? I do not know when the apostasy began. I do not know any reformers. I don't even know what a tangential path looks like or where it leads. I am fairly ignorant of these things you find important. I am not even certain what it is you offered to explain. Do you not believe that we are in the last days? DAVEH: Yes I do. But as you mentioned previously, you believe the last days started 2 millennia ago.. First, the book of Hebrews explains that we have been in the last days for almost two thousand years, Heb 1:1-2. So, my point was that the falling away could have taken place shortly after Jesus' death and still be considered in the last days as opposed to thinking the falling away has not yet happened. Have you looked at Paul's comments to Timothy in 2nd. Tim.3:1-5? Have you seen these things come about in your life time? I have. DAVEH: ButI assume you do not think the falling away (apostasy) has exclusively happened in these latter-days? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? DAVEH: I'm not trying to shoot arrows into you or Protestants in general, Vince. I'm trying to find out what they believe and why they believe such. To me, the apostasy and subsequent restoration is a given from my LDS bias. It seems so obvious (again.from my LDS perspective) that the gospel went through dark ages just as the world did in other aspects. It just surprises me the Reformers did not jump onto that bandwagon (apostasy as evidenced by RCC theology) while claiming to be the Biblical answer (in the effect of a restoration of what the RCC folks lost). Now again, Vincethis is my LDS biased thinking. I'm curious to know if any Protestants have given any thought to this. And if not, why not? To me it seems relatively a logical path to take. Are there any Biblical reasons why the Reformers did not consider traveling that route? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Not in the Bible, but an english word commonly used to refer to the catching up or snatching away of the church as described in 1 Thes 4:17 (but, you knew that already). Like trinity, or the antichrist (when used as an epithet for 'the beast of Revelation). English words that catch the idea of the text, but do not appear in that text. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:42:14 -0700 On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:33:32 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Perry Locke wrote: ..the rapture.. is this biblical wording now; what verse? G ~ P 235 _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- 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] The Last Days
DavidM, Actually, we know the order is true despite what falling away may mean, right? Paul is laying out the order. The falling away happens, then the man of sin is revealed, then the Lord comes. Now, if one takes falling away to mean a falling away of the faithful from the faith, then the time of the resurrection is unspecified in this verse. But, I was writing in the context of the falling away meaning the resurrection itself (see the reference I gave in a previous post). In this context, it would indicate that the resurrection would happen, then the man of sin would be revealed, then the Lord would come. The next question is, do you believe the man of sin is the beast spoken of in Revelation, and if so, when is he revealed? If he is revealed at the start of the 7 year tribulation, then this would point to a pre-tribulational resurrection. But, maybe he is not revealed AS the man of sin until 3.5 years into the tribulation...then a mid-tribulational resurrection would be in view. But, I suspect you do not consider the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3 to be the resurrection. Am I right? Again, this is not an issue I hang my salvation on. I am actually pan-trib...however it pans out! I would like to hear (read) your post-tribulational resurrection beliefs if and when you have time. BTW, I am currently reading a book called When will Jesus Come, by Dave Hunt. He takes a pre-tribulational resurrection view, and provides a lot of evidence for that position. Do you know of Dave Hunt? if so, what is your impression of him? Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:58:35 -0500 Perry wrote: However, if the order of events is preserved in the 2 Thes 2:3 (and we know it is since it's entire purpose is to state the order of events), then the above cannot be possible since at the time the falling away occurs, the man of sin has not yet been revealed. I think you are making a huge mistake with this statement. You assume your assumption of the order is true and then interpret the text from that. Based upon my study of Scripture, the resurrection (what you call the rapture) happens AFTER the man of sin is revealed. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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. _ Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx -- 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] The Last Days
If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. Luther thought the church had gone astray, and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), but not JS. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:26:31 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:13:47 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Vince: False prophets and false teachers make false claims. The fact that lds-ites makes false claims is no reason to compete with lds for primacy in those false claims. That's like having a contest to see who could most disasterously beat their own thumbs with a hammer. Is asking a non-lds to defend a position which he never advocated the best arrow that you have in your quiver? DAVEH: I'm not trying to shoot arrows into you or Protestants in general, Vince. I'm trying to find out what they believe and why they believe such. To me, the apostasy and subsequent restoration is a given from my LDS bias. It seems so obvious (again.from my LDS perspective) that the gospel went through /dark ages/ just as the world did in other aspects. It just surprises me the Reformers did not jump onto that bandwagon (apostasy as evidenced by RCC theology) while claiming to be the Biblical answer (in the effect of a restoration of what the RCC folks lost). Now again, Vincethis is my LDS biased thinking. I'm curious to know if any Protestants have given any thought to this. And if not, why not? To me it seems relatively a logical path to take. Are there any Biblical reasons why the Reformers did not consider traveling that route? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. _ Create a Job Alert on MSN Careers and enter for a chance to win $1000! http://msn.careerbuilder.com/promo/kaday.htm?siteid=CBMSN_1Ksc_extcmp=JS_JASweep_MSNHotm2 -- 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] The Last Days
David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: That would then open the door to the Reformers claiming they were the answer to Biblical prophecy. Yet I don't recall any Protestants making such a claim. I'm curious as to why they don't adopt this scenario. By not seeing it from this perspective, it seems to me they leave the field exclusively open to folks (like the LDS) who do claim to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Many Protestants did take this perspective. In fact, we have discussed before how the Stone-Campbell movement was a restoration movement of the 19th century that Joseph Smith borrowed from, DAVEH: Yes, thank youI had forgotten that you had previously mentioned such. I was thinking a little earlier than that thoughback at the time of Luther, Wesley, et al. Was SC the first to adopt that thinking, or was it commonly perceived prior to them? How about now.are there Biblical reasons why Protestants don't think along such lines? even taking the same name as them for his church, "the church of Christ." Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
