Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God
cd: Lord willing I will attempt do so shortly. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Terry Clifton Sent: 12/17/2005 8:54:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God Dean, I would love to see you try to establish this from scripture: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments. jd -- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean Moore wrote: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God
Thanks, jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Lord willing I will attempt do so shortly. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Terry Clifton Sent: 12/17/2005 8:54:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God Dean, I would love to see you try to establish this from scripture: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments. jd -- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean Moore wrote: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God
Dean, I would love to see you try to establish this from scripture: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments. jd -- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean Moore wrote: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] New law in Illinois
Your Speech Liberties totter on the brinkShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Illinois churches cannot discriminate against gays: www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42502 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law
Tim and I have had hours of study together and his testimony regarding the value of faith is wholesome.If anything, one who gives the standard answer above should be worried in regard to James 2.14-17, realizing that contextually and culturally, works in this passage is Mitzvot which is translated two ways (and one way in truth): Good Deeds, Observance of Torah.-- slade What about the unrenewed mind Slade; I'm assuming all believers, Messianic and other have this to contend with and it is addressed in Psalm 19 and other places: The Law of the Lord is perfect Converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple, The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes, The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether, More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward. Selah! I don't always understand some of your wording Slade and admit I do find some of this frustrating at times. However, I do shareTim and your love and respect for God's Word. It is truly the 'bread of Life' Judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] God's Law
My intent is not to be frustrating, Judy; I know you do not intend your words to be either. Thank you for quoting Tehillim 19. I love that passage. The first line of your quote, when I translate the Hebrew says, Torah of YHVH is without-blemish-and-complete [temimah], turning-back [shuvah] the living being [nefesh]. I do not use the word convert because the concept of conversion is non-descriptive. Torah is designed to change our habits and to turn us from our sinful lifestyle perpetrated through the Hebrew word shuvah from which teshuvah is derived [Teshuvah = repent/turn from sin]. Have a blessed Shabbat. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law Tim and I have had hours of study together and his testimony regarding the value of faith is wholesome.If anything, one who gives the standard answer above should be worried in regard to James 2.14-17, realizing that contextually and culturally, works in this passage is Mitzvot which is translated two ways (and one way in truth): Good Deeds, Observance of Torah.-- slade What about the unrenewed mind Slade; I'm assuming all believers, Messianic and other have this to contend with and it is addressed in Psalm 19 and other places: The Law of the Lord is perfect Converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple, The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes, The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether, More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward. Selah! I don't always understand some of your wording Slade and admit I do find some of this frustrating at times. However, I do shareTim and your love and respect for God's Word. It is truly the 'bread of Life' Judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law
Then we do have basically the same idea which you statein a different way Slade. Idon't find you frustrating or your manner, it's mostly the unfamiliarHebrew Words. I seesalvation is a walk of grace more than a conversion experiencebut there must bea beginning in time, probably when the light of understanding comes on by grace and I don't see how this can happen withoutinstruction in God's Word. Paul's letters to Timothy are interesting. He notes unfeigned faith in both mother and grandmother which they passed on to Timothy byinstructing him in God's Word so that he could shepherd others while stilla young man, apparently his mother was a Jewess. Are you and your Tim training to be Shepherds in God's sheepfold also? judyt On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:01:20 -0400 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My intent is not to be frustrating, Judy; I know you do not intend your words to be either. Thank you for quoting Tehillim 19. I love that passage. The first line of your quote, when I translate the Hebrew says, Torah of YHVH is without-blemish-and-complete [temimah], turning-back [shuvah] the living being [nefesh]. I do not use the word convert because the concept of conversion is non-descriptive. Torah is designed to change our habits and to turn us from our sinful lifestyle perpetrated through the Hebrew word shuvah from which teshuvah is derived [Teshuvah = repent/turn from sin]. Have a blessed Shabbat. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law Tim and I have had hours of study together and his testimony regarding the value of faith is wholesome.If anything, one who gives the standard answer above should be worried in regard to James 2.14-17, realizing that contextually and culturally, works in this passage is Mitzvot which is translated two ways (and one way in truth): Good Deeds, Observance of Torah.-- slade What about the unrenewed mind Slade; I'm assuming all believers, Messianic and other have this to contend with and it is addressed in Psalm 19 and other places: The Law of the Lord is perfect Converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple, The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes, The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether, More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward. Selah! I don't always understand some of your wording Slade and admit I do find some of this frustrating at times. However, I do shareTim and your love and respect for God's Word. It is truly the 'bread of Life' Judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] God's Law
The diversity of definitions helps explain why our conversations are frustrated. If God would give me, say, seven additional hours per day, I could give you a dictionary of terminology and that would likely solve our nomenclature difficulties. I cannot. Therefore, please consider the following books (I do not necessarily agree with each point they make): Authentic Christianity Mikhael Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek Throlief Boman Jesus the Jewish Theologian Paul Young Light for an Age of Confusion Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel Messiah Volume 1: Understanding His Life and Teachings Avi Ben Mordechai Paul the Jewish Theologian Paul Young Reading The Book Burton L Visotzky Studying the Torah: A Guide to In-Depth Interpretation Avigdor Bonchek Take Hold Ariel Dvorah Berkowitz The Jewish New Testament Commentary David H Stern The Jewish New Testament David H Stern The Mystery of Romans, Mark Nanos The Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, Artists for Israel International Theology in Rabbinic Stories Chaim Pearl They Loved the Torah David Friedman Torah Rediscovered, Arial Dvorah Berkowitz Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus David Biven, Roy Blizzard Jr. I hear so often that it is impossible to keep Gods Law as though Eternal Life can be attained if such a thing were possible. The keeping of commandments was never intended to facilitate such a thing. Thats like saying [erroneously] a street will get you to Rome. A car or a horse will get you to Rome the road simply LEADS you there. Grace is the car and Torah is the street in this comparison. If it is impossible to keep the commandments of God then God is a liar because he said that it is possible. (Deuteronomy 30.11-14). Thank you for your prayers. They are desired and appreciated. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 4:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law Slade, I've got a comment and some questions about this thread. First it's good to remember that John's parents were born 'under the Law' and so thiswas their life. The Jews of Jesus time however were counting on being the children of Abraham to put them over according to one conversation he had with them where he told them God could raise up rocks and stones to praise him so they shouldn't think that biology alone was going to justify them before God. I believe God's Law still stands in the sense that it judges everyone both now and later because it is the standard of righteousness and sin is defined in scripture as law-less-ness. ATST we know that the letter killeth (because in and of ourselves we are not able to fulfill or keep God's Law) but the Spirit gives Life and when we walk after the Spirit we are like the man in Romans 2:12-16 who by nature (his new nature) did the things required by God in His Law. Is this basically what you and Tim have been saying in a different way or are you saying something else? I hope you are safe and secure in the arms of Jesus while the storm threatens minus some of it's punch - I'm with the pray'ers... Thanks, Judy
RE: [TruthTalk] God's Law
Timothy must have lost his father at an early age and his mother and grandmother admirably took on the role of Spiritual Guide in Timothys formative years. There is not doubt in my mind that she was Jewish. I cannot speak for Tim and his calling but I am training now for just a position. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God's Law Then we do have basically the same idea which you statein a different way Slade. Idon't find you frustrating or your manner, it's mostly the unfamiliarHebrew Words. I seesalvation is a walk of grace more than a conversion experiencebut there must bea beginning in time, probably when the light of understanding comes on by grace and I don't see how this can happen withoutinstruction in God's Word. Paul's letters to Timothy are interesting. He notes unfeigned faith in both mother and grandmother which they passed on to Timothy byinstructing him in God's Word so that he could shepherd others while stilla young man, apparently his mother was a Jewess. Are you and your Tim training to be Shepherds in God's sheepfold also? judyt On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:01:20 -0400 Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My intent is not to be frustrating, Judy; I know you do not intend your words to be either. Thank you for quoting Tehillim 19. I love that passage. The first line of your quote, when I translate the Hebrew says, Torah of YHVH is without-blemish-and-complete [temimah], turning-back [shuvah] the living being [nefesh]. I do not use the word convert because the concept of conversion is non-descriptive. Torah is designed to change our habits and to turn us from our sinful lifestyle perpetrated through the Hebrew word shuvah from which teshuvah is derived [Teshuvah = repent/turn from sin]. Have a blessed Shabbat. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
Yes we can. Lance- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 09:52 Subject: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER
"Key" comes off a little too much like "doctrine" Judy. Even a JTD but,reading, indwelling Scripture is always and ever an EXCELLENT IDEA! Blessings, Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 01, 2004 10:23 Subject: [TruthTalk] GOD'S LAW OUR FRIEND and SCHOOLMASTER You know what the key to the scriptures is Lance? It's not Church doctrine, it's not words and it's not indicatives and imparatives It's the parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13:3, Mark 4:3, Luke 8:5. jtFrom: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Yes we can. Lance-~~~ Can we say with the Psalmist The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes The fear of the Lord is clean enduring for ever The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb Moreover by them is thy servant warned And in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his erorrs? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sin; Let them not have dominion over me Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Perry wrote: The canon is closed. You repeat what you have read in the scripture, you do not deliver new inspired scripture. I do not only repeat what I have read in Scripture anymore than those mentioned in the New Testament only repeated what they read in the Hebrew Scriptures. I repeat what I have read in Scripture, but I also speak by the Holy Spirit. Perry wrote: Otherwise, following Revelation we would have The Book of DavidM. Which of us knows what the future holds? I am like you in that I don't expect any future Scripture to be added to the canon, but I do not take this position with authority. It is not my place to do so. Who determines what holy writings become Scripture? No man determines that. God does, and God's Providence as it is worked out in history. Perry wrote: I am convinced that even if we let hapax mean purely the word once, that my argument still can be made. Yes, the argument can be made, but if you accept the Textus Receptus, then you are not being consistent when you consider the use of hapax in Jude 5 just two verses later. Perry wrote: I guess, since you have dismissed both the work of McArthur and Zodhiates as biased I don't have a leg to astand on. And to think, I trusted those guys! Well, that is the problem. We ought not put trust in the flesh. We ought not to have respect of persons. :-) In any case, I did not dismiss Zodhiates because I don't think he was making the point as strongly as you were. If you are really interested in this, I can quote you several Greek scholars on this word hapax, Greek scholars which both of these men have based much of their Greek understanding upon. Perry wrote: ... I think labels are okay if they help us understand the beliefs, characteristics, religions, and other obvious groups. I agree. Perry wrote: Why is it that all of a sudden pentecostal and charismatic become taboo? These words are not any more taboo in describing me than Methodist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, etc. To many, a Pentecostal means someone from a denomination like Assembly of God, Church of God, United Pentecostal Church, etc. The word charismatic means someone in a traditional non-Pentecostal denomination who has received the baptism with the Holy Spirit and spoken in tongues, or who is from some non-denominational church such as a Word of Faith church. None of this presently describes me. I was just trying to help you not get confused by the labels. :-) Perry wrote: What is not right, is when people use the labels to deny people under a label their basic rights. Now, that is a misuse of labels. Also what is not right is when the label's purpose is to abase a group of people. Do you think that either of the labels pentecostal or charismatic is abasing, or being used to deny those in the groups their rights? I have seen Christians use the labels frequently to divide those who are charismatic from those who are not. Charismatics always suffer from the characterization from non-charismatics as being a group of people who *think* they have something that other non-charismatic Christians don't have. Some non-charismatics react humbly toward charismatics, asking them how they can receive the Holy Spirit in the same way that they have it, but more often other Christians react with hostility and consider the charismatics as arrogant and divisive. There really is suppose to be only one kind of follower of Christ, and I think if we paid less attention to labels like Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, charismatic, pentecostal, etc. and more attention to truth, then there would be a whole lot less fighting and division and more appreciation for each other and the aspect of Christ that we bring. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 Law
Charles P. Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: Did he actually use the term persecute to describe your treatment of him, or are you assuming that is the way he felt? Yes, he claimed in a return email that I was persecuting him (maybe the exact word was persecution, or persecute). DAVEH: In all the instances you are referring to, did the LDS person ever claim you were persecuting them by using that term (or a root of it) in describing your actions? Yes. In fact, I have heard it 2 or 3 times from LDS. DAVEH: I find that interesting. They sounded so much alike alike I wondered if maybe young missionaries in training are taught that people will persecute them, DAVEH: Not that I recall. so maybe they thought anyone who disagreed with them was persecuting them. DAVEH: Nah.I suspect they picked it up elsewhere. Like I said, I don't recall ever hearing anybody suggest such. After all, the Bible does say that the Apostles will be persecuted in His name, so it is not unreasonable to teach that, but it sounds like they may not have focused on what persecution really is. DAVEH: That's an understatement! Actually, upon looking at the definition of persecute, it includes harassment, so maybe he felt I was harassing him. DAVEH: I wouldn't think it would apply in this sense. But I suppose if one verbally harangued someone enough, perhaps they would perceive that as a form of persecution. My tolerance for such is probably higher than most LDS folks though. As you have seen, I am quite strong in the expression of my position relative to LDS. DAVEH: LOL.Yes Perry, I've noticed that! Do you feel I am harassing you? Do you feel persecuted? DAVEH: No to both. BTW, when in person I do not come off nearly as strong as in email. I think when I respond to email I spend much more time formulating a response and get worked up when I think about the great deception that I see being worked on an unsuspecting people. Perry -- 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 Law
David Miller wrote: What exactly does that mean to you, that the delivery of the gospel was complete? Perry wrote: Christ made one sacrice and was resurrected once, the apostles reported on it with eyewitness accounts, set up churches, and wrote letters defining doctrine to those churches. All of this was done to establish the faith. Neither the sacrifice, resurrection, or the reporting on it will ever happen again. I understand how the sacrifice and resurrection won't happen again, but I am very confused as to why you would say that the reporting on it won't happen again. I continue to report on it today, as do many other people. David Miller wrote: Surely you do not mean that it no longer was being delivered or preached, do you? Perry wrote: No. Glad to hear that. Then what do you mean by saying that the reporting on it will not ever happen again? Do you mean first hand reporting? Very little of the New Testament consists of first hand reporting. David Miller wrote: And if not that, then you must mean that the content of the gospel message didn't have anything else added to it, but when did this happen? Perry wrote: When was nothing else added to it? Since the last Apostle wrote about it. That most likely was Jude. But Jude doesn't really touch on the gospel much in his letter, and I think it likely that others wrote after him. And what do you mean by last Apostle? Do you mean of the twelve? As you know, Paul was not of the twelve, nor a first hand eyewitness. The author of Jude appears not to be one of the twelve apostles either. So I'm confused about what you mean by saying since the last Apostle wrote about it. Most of the apostles did not write about it, and many who were not apostles did write about it. This focus upon apostles writing Scripture bothers me. Perry wrote: Christ's part (that is, the visible part) seems to have been complete before any of it was written down. The Apostles still had to establish the church through their missionary journeys, and then it had to be recorded. (No job is done until the paperwork is complete G) You seem to have the same mentality about the church that the Roman Catholics and the Mormons do, as some single huge institution for the whole world. I see churches less institutionalized, as defining the community of believers within a local community, who actually have relationship with one another. Therefore, I do not see the writing of Scripture as having much to do with establishing churches. The apostles weren't creating some huge institution. They were preaching the gospel, primarily vocally, and establishing people in the faith through face to face relationship. Through this effort, many churches were established, and the writing of Scripture was a side product, a glimpse for the rest of history concerning what was happening. Perry wrote: I am not meaning to imply that He is not still active in His church through the Holy Spirit, but just that He is not rewriting the script as the play is going on. I think the script was finished before God created the earth and all that is in it. I agree with you that he is not rewriting the script. Perry wrote: Well, not being a greek scholar, I have to rely on others who are much more educated than myself. However, I did look in Strong's Dictionary, if that is a reliable source at all, and it said one (or a single) time (numerically or conclu-sively): --once., and to be honest, I see plenty of room for it meaning once for all. Sure, there is room, but it has to do with context, and sometimes modifying prepositions. For example, the Greek word pros before hapax would imply once for all, but that is lacking in Jude 3. One must rely on context, and hapax corresponds nicely with our numerical word once so it doesn't take a Greek scholar to look at the passage and determine from context whether it means once for all or just once before. There are Greek scholars on both sides concerning this specific passage. Perry wrote: Are you familiar with The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New testament (by Spiro Zodhiates)? Yes I am, but my copy of this text does not have an entry for hapax. Maybe I have an older copy. Perry wrote: At the risk of boring you, let me include an excerpt from his entry for hapax: Once for all, already, formerly (Heb. 6:4; 9:26, 28; 10:2; Jude 1:3,5; Sept. Ps 62:12; 89:36). ... While he gives examples from Hebrews, at the beginning he lists the verses that take on this meaning, and includes Jude 3. So, in my estimation, with my limited knowledge and resources, it appears that the NASB actually reflects more accurately the intent of the word! Well, just including Jude 3 simply means that he is on that side of the camp. Notice his arguments deal with other passages that clearly mean once for all, but there are many other passages in Scripture as well as early secular documents that clearly do not mean once for all. We use
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Miller wrote: What exactly does that mean to you, that the delivery of the gospel was complete? Perry wrote: Christ made one sacrice and was resurrected once, the apostles reported on it with eyewitness accounts, set up churches, and wrote letters defining doctrine to those churches. All of this was done to establish the faith. Neither the sacrifice, resurrection, or the reporting on it will ever happen again. I understand how the sacrifice and resurrection won't happen again, but I am very confused as to why you would say that the reporting on it won't happen again. I continue to report on it today, as do many other people. The canon is closed. You repeat what you have read in the scripture, you do not deliver new inspired scripture. Otherwise, following Revelation we would have The Book of DavidM. David Miller wrote: Surely you do not mean that it no longer was being delivered or preached, do you? Perry wrote: No. Glad to hear that. Then what do you mean by saying that the reporting on it will not ever happen again? I mean the canon is closed. However, preachers tell the story over and over. Do you mean first hand reporting? Very little of the New Testament consists of first hand reporting. I mean the canon is closed. David Miller wrote: And if not that, then you must mean that the content of the gospel message didn't have anything else added to it, but when did this happen? Perry wrote: When was nothing else added to it? Since the last Apostle wrote about it. That most likely was Jude. But Jude doesn't really touch on the gospel much in his letter, and I think it likely that others wrote after him. And what do you mean by last Apostle? Do you mean of the twelve? As you know, Paul was not of the twelve, nor a first hand eyewitness. The author of Jude appears not to be one of the twelve apostles either. So I'm confused about what you mean by saying since the last Apostle wrote about it. Most of the apostles did not write about it, and many who were not apostles did write about it. This focus upon apostles writing Scripture bothers me. True, Jude is not one of the 24 Apostles. However, since I believe that the canon of scripture is closed, I am referring to those who wrote the New Testament, and referring to Jude since it is entirely possibly that his book was the last one written. Apostles was not the proper term to use. Perry wrote: Christ's part (that is, the visible part) seems to have been complete before any of it was written down. The Apostles still had to establish the church through their missionary journeys, and then it had to be recorded. (No job is done until the paperwork is complete G) You seem to have the same mentality about the church that the Roman Catholics and the Mormons do, as some single huge institution for the whole world. I see churches less institutionalized, as defining the community of believers within a local community, who actually have relationship with one another. Therefore, I do not see the writing of Scripture as having much to do with establishing churches. The apostles weren't creating some huge institution. They were preaching the gospel, primarily vocally, and establishing people in the faith through face to face relationship. Through this effort, many churches were established, and the writing of Scripture was a side product, a glimpse for the rest of history concerning what was happening. Whatever. Perry wrote: I am not meaning to imply that He is not still active in His church through the Holy Spirit, but just that He is not rewriting the script as the play is going on. I think the script was finished before God created the earth and all that is in it. I agree with you that he is not rewriting the script. Perry wrote: Well, not being a greek scholar, I have to rely on others who are much more educated than myself. However, I did look in Strong's Dictionary, if that is a reliable source at all, and it said one (or a single) time (numerically or conclu-sively): --once., and to be honest, I see plenty of room for it meaning once for all. Sure, there is room, but it has to do with context, and sometimes modifying prepositions. For example, the Greek word pros before hapax would imply once for all, but that is lacking in Jude 3. One must rely on context, and hapax corresponds nicely with our numerical word once so it doesn't take a Greek scholar to look at the passage and determine from context whether it means once for all or just once before. There are Greek scholars on both sides concerning this specific passage. Perry wrote: Are you familiar with The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New testament (by Spiro Zodhiates)? Yes I am, but my copy of this text does not have an entry for hapax. Maybe I have an older copy. Zodhiates has two versions ...one is the Complete Word Study Dictionary and one is the Word Study New
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Charles P. Locke wrote: DAVEH: Really?!?!?! Have you actually had that happen to you personally? Yes. Did you really hear an LDS person claim they were persecuted merely from theological discussions??? Yes. I recall one in particular...during a discussion on email...the LDS respondent had used the phrase Doctrine of Polygamy in the Bible, and I had responded that the Bible expounds no doctrine of polygamy, does not condone it, and, furthermore, teaches against it. And that, even though it was practiced at different periods, it was never taught as doctrine, but only tolerated, if that. I further drew an analogy that Moses killed a man, and David had a man killed, which makes them murderers, but does not establish murder as a doctrine. I added that it was a fabrication of Joseph Smith's, most likely to cover up the adultery in which he had been caught. Then I followed up with the slap in the face of the martyrs post. While I was very emphatic with him, and stern in my response, I certainly did not think I was persecuting him. The respondent sang the persecution song, DAVEH: Did he actually use the term persecute to describe your treatment of him, or are you assuming that is the way he felt? and said he had added my name to his email filter, and that he never wanted me to try to send him another email. (Gee, I sure am glad he did not know where I live!) Other persecution songs I have heard LDS sing were much softer. DAVEH: In all the instances you are referring to, did the LDS person ever claim you were persecuting them by using that term (or a root of it) in describing your actions? Perry -- 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 Law
Perry wrote: I agree that the scripture does not directly address the issue of the closing of canon, or even the cononicity of any particular book. ... However, I do thnk that Jude felt that the delivery of the gospel, in his day, was complete. What exactly does that mean to you, that the delivery of the gospel was complete? Surely you do not mean that it no longer was being delivered or preached, do you? And if not that, then you must mean that the content of the gospel message didn't have anything else added to it, but when did this happen? Surely a good many years before Jude wrote his epistle. Surely the gospel was complete in this sense prior to any of the New Testament being written, don't you think? Perry wrote: I don't think new scripture does abrogate old scripture. The NT reveals what was prophesied and was a mystery to the OT readers (and maybe there is still OT prophecy to be fulfilled). It appears to be a continuum to me. I agree with you about this. Not everyone on TruthTalk seems to have this perspective. Many take a more dispensational approach. Perry wrote: I actually use several references, the KJV among them. But, I feel, the KJV in this instance did not express the meaning of hapax as clearly as the NASB, for example. And when I examine the Greek, it seems to me that the NASB adds additional words not found in the Greek, and incorrectly communicates an idea of finality which is not present in the Greek. I guess it all depends what kind of preconceptions we have when reading it. Perry wrote: First, Jude three uses a definite article, the faith, so it is not referring to anyone's personal faith (or it would say your faith), but to some specific body of knowledge or events or both. Definite articles don't make the object they modify impersonal. Definite articles simply draw attention and make emphasis. Consider the following passage that has a definite article preceding faith: Act 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. Do you take the phrase, the faith, in this passage to refer to some body of knowledge, or does it refer to something dynamic, a trust and reliance upon Christ? Perry wrote: the faith, which was delivered once [for all] to the saints must refer to the whole gospel of Christ, that is, all that was known about and taught by Jesus, and written by the apostles at the time Jude was written, that is to say, all in which we should place our faith. Do you think all this simply because of the definite article? Was the gospel preached by Jesus incomplete, and then completed just prior to Jude's epistle being written? I'm having trouble accepting your perspective on this. Perry wrote: Second, I believe that between Jesus and the Apostles everything that there is to know about the faith has been recorded in the NT. Everything that there is to know? Why then does that which is recorded in the NT teach that the Holy Spirit would be given as our teacher? Jesus never promised that one day there would be Scripture to show us all things. Rather, he taught his followers that they would receive the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. The testimony of the New Testament, in my opinion, is that it is only a partial record of the faith and it points us to receiving the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that we can have the mind of Christ and know all things, according to the New Testament. Perry wrote: The holy scripture contains everything necessary and sufficient to understand the gospel. I agree, but those Holy Scriptures point us to ongoing revelation. The Scriptures do not say, believe only what is written in the Scriptures and shun revelation by the Holy Spirit. No, the Scriptures give us all the knowledge necessary so that each of us can receive the Holy Spirit within ourselves and receive revelation. Perry wrote: To say that there was any part of the story that was left out, or that it is incomplete, is to say that God is not capable of delivering the gospel to people in sufficient enough form for them to understand salvation. I don't see it that way at all. John said the reason everything wasn't recorded about Jesus was because the world could not contain all the books if they were all written down. We really only need a subset or information written down to be able to enter into the same relationship with Jesus that they had. The Scriptures are sufficient and complete enough to lead people unto salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit, but it would be foolish to think that they contain everything that has ever been known or revealed from God concerning salvation and the things of God. Even the Scriptures themselves mention people having revelation whereby they could not write what they heard and saw, and the Scriptures also quote other books and passages from
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
DavidH, I retract my accusation that you use witticisms to sidestep issues. When I disagree with a LDS, they often cry Persecution! Persecution! You are persecuting me! Whaaa! Whaaa! Whaaa! And my response is, When were you beaten for the name of Jesus? When were you killed for the name of Jesus? When were you boiled in hot oil? When were you crucified upside down? When were you stoned to death? When were you impaled? It makes me sick, and I find it to be a slap in the face of every martyr whose blood has ever been spilled for the name of Christ, to claim that when someone disagrees with them, they are being persecuted. I have not accused you of doing this, but it is a tendency (and obviously others have experienced it, too) among LDS to cry Persecution! when being challenged. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:48:23 -0800 Charles P. Locke wrote: The point I was trying to make is that when I bring up controversial issues about LDS docrtrine, you often give a cute witticism, and thus avoid a serious response. DAVEH: I do not recall such, but that doesn't mean I didn't do what you sayI have a terrible memory. Give me an example, Perry. Just check the post prior to this one, David. You racked up two in that one. DAVEH: Perry, I find your response to be evasive and difficult to understand. WHAT PRIOR POST??? Why did you sidestep the question instead of simply answering it with a cut/paste example or two? There are lots of posts flying around TT, and you are expecting me to know not only which one you are referring to, but also the specific instances within that post?!?!?!?! Please...If you want to accuse me of something, I'd appreciate you giving me a specific example. There may be a reason I answer the way I do that may not be understood by you. Or it could be that I perceive your question as rhetorical and I'm trying to be amusing with my response. Or heckperhaps I'm trying to evade you. But until I know what you are referring to, I don't know how to respond. I'm not trying to ignore your questions. I do like to discuss many of these things, so if you don't like the way I answer, say so and ask the question again. If I don't want to answer it, I'll probably say so. Maybe I should accept the fact there are some aspects of Mormon doctrine that are indefensible, and when I bring those up, there can be no reasonable response. DAVEH: Or, it could be that I sometimes tire of rude comments. I've had my nose bloodied enough times in TT that perhaps I am sometimes reluctant to stick it out again. Again, please give me an example or two. I can understand why. When the Bible says that Christians will be prosecuted for the name of Jesus, LDS take that to mean them. DAVEH: That's interesting you would say that, Perry. Once again you have sidestepped my question. I've heard that comment made previously by other TTers. Now you have made it too. Why?!?!?!?! I personally don't think getting my nose bloodied in TT qualifies as persecution. If I did, I would probably not post anything. Have you heard other LDS folks say that they feel persecuted by simply discussing theology? Again, see my prior post. Perry ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf -- 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 Law
Charles P. Locke wrote: Charles P. Locke wrote: DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS concerns, they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever. DAVEH: Hmmm...am I to assume that is a criticism, or a compliment? If you find my comments not to your liking, I'm sorry 'bout that. I just like to keep TT discussions light an airy. Sometimes the air here can be pretty heavy and depressing when some of us take these discussions too seriously. At least that's the way I see it. The point I was trying to make is that when I bring up controversial issues about LDS docrtrine, you often give a cute witticism, and thus avoid a serious response. DAVEH: I do not recall such, but that doesn't mean I didn't do what you sayI have a terrible memory. Give me an example, Perry. Maybe I should accept the fact there are some aspects of Mormon doctrine that are indefensible, and when I bring those up, there can be no reasonable response. DAVEH: Or, it could be that I sometimes tire of rude comments. I've had my nose bloodied enough times in TT that perhaps I am sometimes reluctant to stick it out again. Again, please give me an example or two. Perry ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles P. Locke wrote: Charles P. Locke wrote: DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS concerns, they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever. DAVEH: Hmmm...am I to assume that is a criticism, or a compliment? If you find my comments not to your liking, I'm sorry 'bout that. I just like to keep TT discussions light an airy. Sometimes the air here can be pretty heavy and depressing when some of us take these discussions too seriously. At least that's the way I see it. The point I was trying to make is that when I bring up controversial issues about LDS docrtrine, you often give a cute witticism, and thus avoid a serious response. DAVEH: I do not recall such, but that doesn't mean I didn't do what you sayI have a terrible memory. Give me an example, Perry. Just check the post prior to this one, David. You racked up two in that one. Maybe I should accept the fact there are some aspects of Mormon doctrine that are indefensible, and when I bring those up, there can be no reasonable response. DAVEH: Or, it could be that I sometimes tire of rude comments. I've had my nose bloodied enough times in TT that perhaps I am sometimes reluctant to stick it out again. Again, please give me an example or two. I can understand why. When the Bible says that Christians will be prosecuted for the name of Jesus, LDS take that to mean them. Again, see my prior post. Perry Perry ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ _ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf -- 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 Law
Perry wrote: Herein lies a problem. To you YOUR revealed interpretation is the correct one, and to me MY revealed interpretation is the correct one. There are only 4 possibilities here: 1) the true meaning was revealed to me and not to you, 2) the true meaning was revealed to you and not to me, 3) the true meaning was not revealed to either of us, or 4) the Holy Spirit has contradicted himself by revealing different meanings to each of us. How are we to choose which of the above 4 possibilities are correct? This is where submitting one to another becomes important. The early church hashed out these same problems. Some had one revelation, another had their own revelation. Some thought the resurrection was past, some baptized for the dead, some thought that Gentiles needed to be circumcised, etc. By testifying what has been revealed to us, and by submitting one to another, a beautiful balance comes into play. Of course, all this requires humbleness and meekness, but then that is exactly what God is after in us, is it not? The alternative is to take a scientific approach and declare that what has been written and established is the only way in which God talks to us. This is only an attempt to make Christianity objective rather than subjective, but the very fact that the Bible tells us to be witnesses for Christ implies that Christianity is meant to be subjective. I think that there are more problems by trying to make Christianity's pursuit of truth objective rather accepting its subjective nature. When we submit one to another in the spirit of love and meekness, we will find that what revelations we do receive are small and minor. What is even more wonderful is when you receive a revelation from your brother and sister, something not revealed directly to you prior to hearing from them, and you marvel within yourself at the light of God that is in them. You recognize the Holy Spirit within them and marvel at their anointing. This creates a bonding between us that cannot be explained in words. In the end, personal revelation is a wonderful bonding force of love rather than the divisive, back biting source of false doctrine that it is feared to be. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 Law
Hi, David. Not being trained in Biblical exegesis, and not being a biblical or greek or hebrew scholar, it takes me a lot of time to respond to your very deeply thought out posts. Sometimes I just don't have the energy or time to do it, thus my lack of response to your ealier questions. I do much better at responding to single issue posts. When they become multi-faceted, and fork into several different themes, it takes me forever to put together a response. I guess that is why some people post 8 or 10 responses to a single post. Anyway, I have tried, within my limited knowledge and exegetic skills, to answer your questions: From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:03:49 -0500 Hi Perry. I do not accept the additional Mormon Scriptures, but I am interested in being fair with our scholarship. I have a few comments to which perhaps you would consider responding. Charles wrote: One of the tenets of Christian theology is that the canon of scripture is closed (as mentioned in Jude 3), and that there will be no more revelation of the kind Joseph Smith purports to have received, i.e., revelation that reveals anything more than the Bible reveals, contradicts the Bible, or reveals any new doctrines that were not aready revealed in the Bible. What you say above has certainly been a growing traditional perspective since the fifteenth century, but it does not appear that the Scriptures themselves either establish a canon, nor indicate any closure to it. Would you agree? I agree that the scripture does not directly address the issue of the closing of canon, or even the cononicity of any particular book. In fact, I would guess that as most of the NT writers were writing, they did not consider that their writings would become part of the what we recognize as the canon of scripture today. What we accept today as the canon was assembled much later. However, I do thnk that Jude felt that the delivery of the gospel, in his day, was complete. Perry wrote: The prime test of anything anyone says they received from God is that it has to be in accord with the existing canon. If it contradicts scripture, or teaches a different gospel, then it can't be from God. I agree with you on this. The Scripture cannot be broken, so all subsequent revelation must not contradict previous revelation. Nevertheless, some might argue that the New Testament Scripture changed what was revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, some say that whereas before it was clear that one ought to observe the seventh day and keep it holy in the Hebrew Scriptures, subsequent revelation did away with that. If this is true, then there appears to be a contradiction here, or at least a paradox that needs explaining. In what way can new Scripture abrogate older Scripture? I don't think new scripture does abrogate old scripture. The NT reveals what was prophesied and was a mystery to the OT readers (and maybe there is still OT prophecy to be fulfilled). It appears to be a continuum to me. God has progressively revealed Himself throughout both the OT and NT, and in the NT has taken us all the way up to the end of the world. Perry wrote: ... only by disregarding the statement in Jude 3 that the gospel was delivered once for all to the saints, can the LDS get away with trying to add new revelation to the already existing and closed canon of scripture. It is so unfortunate that so many have been blinded to these simple truths. I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending Mormon Scripture, but in the interest of fair and true scholarship, I must point out that Jude 3 does not settle the matter of the canon being closed. The phrase, once for all is not in the actual Greek. There is only one Greek word present, hapax, which might mean once for all as in the sense of once for all completed, but it also might instead mean formerly. Because I view faith as something that is ongoing and dynamic, I do not interpret this verse to mean once for all, neither do I view faith as religion or doctrine or gospel or Scripture. The passage basically means that we need to contend and fight for the faith which we once received. Ever hear people talk about how they wish they could be like they were when they were first saved? That is what he is addressing, keeping this faith alive, and not being like the Israelites, who after having been delivered from Egypt, some murmured and were destroyed after this deliverance had been once given to them. Jude 5 uses this word hapax again. Unfortunately, the modern translations favor those older Egyptian texts which the majority text adherents consider corrupted. Jude 5 is one of those verses where the underlying Greek text is different, especially in regard to the use of this word hapax. If we accept the majority of Greek Texts, the ones that have the ending to Mark 16 and numerous other passages that are missing in the more modern Greek Texts,
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS concerns, they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever. Regarding the Dish, or even cable, years ago, when the kids were toddlers, my wife and I chose to sacrifice a few really neat channels to keep all of the trash out of our house. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:14:36 -0800 Charles P. Locke wrote: DavidH, I am in no rush...I can wait for your response. No, I did not see the History Channel special on the Bible. I would like to have watched it, but do not get the HIstory Channel. DAVEH: That's a good reason for you to consider getting DISH TV. There are a few channels that make TV worth watching. DISCOVERY, HISTORY BIOGRAPHY are some that can make TV a learning experience. (AndI didn't even mention BYU-TV!) May I assume you watched it? Do you think it was, or at least made an attempt to be accurate, or was it hype? DAVEH: Yes, I watched it (and recorded it so I can review it later). I was very tired and fell asleep several times throughout the 3 hour program. But, in typical history channel fashion, it explained it in a neutral (scholarly) sense. When did it place the writing of the Revelation? DAVEH: The treatment of Revelation was at the end when I was the most tired. I will have to review it when I get home (if I can remember) to tell you what they said about it. Even if no one understands the whole of the Bible, that does not underscore the need for continued revelation. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree. To suggest there is no need for further revelation implies that you think God does not want us to know more than we do now. I think that is very short sighted. Especially when the body of supposed revelation to which you are referring contains self-serving and false information. DAVEH: I have not been 'pushing' LDS revelations. In a general sense, I am suggesting that the nature of the Bible has been a reflection of the Lord's revelations to mankind through prophets. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then one would expect him to continue to reveal his will through prophets. Forgetting LDS prophets.do you know of any prophets who God is revealing his will through? And, are there any prophets who are creating Scripture as happened in Biblical times? If not, then why not? Is Canon really closed.and if so, why? At this time it seems to me that it might be very helpful to receive further guidance from above. For instance, would it not be useful to have enlightenment from Above regarding the proper method of baptizingsprinkling, pouring, immersing or perhaps even don't bother? Or a question that recently arose about the Sabbathperhaps a prophet could tell us what is acceptable to the Lord in that regard. After all, can you tell me who Oliver Granger is, and why his name would be remembered from generation to generation (even though that is ALL that was remembered of him, and only because that is recorded doctrine!)? What sacred memories do you have of Ollie? Or, has forever and ever already passed, so this prophecy has expired? DAVEH: I suspect that if no one other than the Lord remembers him, he'll be happy! David, this is just one tiny example of the multitude of errors that one finds in the DC, and likewise in the BoM, yet LDS continue daily to tear and strain at explanations for errors like this. DAVEH: Is that you consider to be an error? Would you consider similar criticisms of the Bible? I can deeply understand their need to continue to do this, for to deny even one word from the DC or BoM (at the LDS leadership level) would bring this vast empire tumbling like a house of cards. The only thing, I believe, that keeps this empire intact is their pride, which makes them think they are right. I grieve for the LDS, who continue to deceive themselves and others with these false writings and teachings. I do not understand why God allows such wonderful and well-intentioned people to continue to be decieved. DAVEH: Perhaps he isn't as concerned about it as much as you, Perry. Now, as I wipe a tear from my heart, I hope you and your family have a wonderful time at the beach. At which beach are you vacationing? DAVEH: Thank you Perry. Gleneden Beach, between Depoe Bay and Lincoln City on the Central Oregon coast. Perry Reference: DC 117:12 And again, I say unto you, I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Charles P. Locke wrote: DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS concerns, they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever. DAVEH: Hmmm...am I to assume that is a criticism, or a compliment? If you find my comments not to your liking, I'm sorry 'bout that. I just like to keep TT discussions light an airy. Sometimes the air here can be pretty heavy and depressing when some of us take these discussions too seriously. At least that's the way I see it. Regarding the Dish, or even cable, years ago, when the kids were toddlers, my wife and I chose to sacrifice a few really neat channels to keep all of the trash out of our house. DAVEH: I understand that and your concerns. I don't know if you are aware of modern satellite technology, but it is very easy to not only prevent children from viewing certain types of programs with passwords, but channels can be locked out as well. If you only wanted 2 or 3 channels to be available from the satellite, that is easy to do. I agree, there is a lot of trash on TV. But IMO there is also a lot of good programming if you want to look for it. Perry -- 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 Law
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:13:01 -0800 Charles P. Locke wrote: DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS concerns, they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever. DAVEH: Hmmm...am I to assume that is a criticism, or a compliment? If you find my comments not to your liking, I'm sorry 'bout that. I just like to keep TT discussions light an airy. Sometimes the air here can be pretty heavy and depressing when some of us take these discussions too seriously. At least that's the way I see it. The point I was trying to make is that when I bring up controversial issues about LDS docrtrine, you often give a cute witticism, and thus avoid a serious response. Maybe I should accept the fact there are some aspects of Mormon doctrine that are indefensible, and when I bring those up, there can be no reasonable response. Perry _ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf -- 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 Law
DavidH, I am in no rush...I can wait for your response. No, I did not see the History Channel special on the Bible. I would like to have watched it, but do not get the HIstory Channel. May I assume you watched it? Do you think it was, or at least made an attempt to be accurate, or was it hype? When did it place the writing of the Revelation? Even if no one understands the whole of the Bible, that does not underscore the need for continued revelation. Especially when the body of supposed revelation to which you are referring contains self-serving and false information. After all, can you tell me who Oliver Granger is, and why his name would be remembered from generation to generation (even though that is ALL that was remembered of him, and only because that is recorded doctrine!)? What sacred memories do you have of Ollie? Or, has forever and ever already passed, so this prophecy has expired? David, this is just one tiny example of the multitude of errors that one finds in the DC, and likewise in the BoM, yet LDS continue daily to tear and strain at explanations for errors like this. I can deeply understand their need to continue to do this, for to deny even one word from the DC or BoM (at the LDS leadership level) would bring this vast empire tumbling like a house of cards. The only thing, I believe, that keeps this empire intact is their pride, which makes them think they are right. I grieve for the LDS, who continue to deceive themselves and others with these false writings and teachings. I do not understand why God allows such wonderful and well-intentioned people to continue to be decieved. Now, as I wipe a tear from my heart, I hope you and your family have a wonderful time at the beach. At which beach are you vacationing? Perry Reference: DC 117:12 And again, I say unto you, I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:49:46 -0800 To DaveH: There is no need for God to reveal more than has been revealed in the Bible. No one yet understands all that has already been given. DAVEH: Which only underscores the need for continuing enlightenment from our Lord in the form of continued revelation, Terry. Terry I'll bet DaveH will argue well, then, The Revelation is null and void because it was written after Jude...my rebuttal will be to ask him to prove that Revelation was written after Jude. DAVEH: Perry, I am meaning to reply to your previous post on this, but simply have not had time. Since you seem to think your explanation is correct, then why don't you explain to us when the books of Jude and Revelation were penned? BTW.Did you catch the HISTORY CHANNEL special last night about who wrote the Bible? Perry . ___ _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf -- 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 Law
Well, then, I've had that myself more than once. I'm sure I'm not unusual for that! Sure you don't want to define your meaning again? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=74 74SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_elimina teviruses_3mf -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
I don't think I can change the meaning of a word because one person claims to have had a revelation. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:19:26 -0600 Well, then, I've had that myself more than once. I'm sure I'm not unusual for that! Sure you don't want to define your meaning again? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=74 74SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_elimina teviruses_3mf -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf -- 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 Law
Perry, Do you mean to tell me that the Holy Spirit has never given you information? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law I don't think I can change the meaning of a word because one person claims to have had a revelation. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:19:26 -0600 Well, then, I've had that myself more than once. I'm sure I'm not unusual for that! Sure you don't want to define your meaning again? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7 4 74SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_elimin a teviruses_3mf -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI =7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartsp amprotection_3mf -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Izzy, I was waiting for you to ask that or a similar question. Thank you. Of course the HS has given me information. He has convicted me of my sin. He has shown me my need for a saviour. He has answered prayer by leading me to the right path...all of a personal nature. But he has never told me that all Christian denominations are an abomination. He has never told me to go find some gold tablets and translate them. He has never told me to start a new church that is contrary to scripture. He has never told me to marry many wives, and that to not do so would damn me. He has never told my wife to shut up about polygamy or He would destory her. He has never revealed to me the need for a temple, or told me to steal the secret ceremonies of the Freemasons and use them as endowments in a temple, or led me to make false prophecies. And most of all, He has never revealed to me anything that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, that would contradict what the Apostles have already written in the canon of the NT. The long and short of it is that there is more than one kind of revelation. Personal revelation is one thing, and I think that if we are walking in the spirit we receive such. But, anytime anyone starts out by saying God told me..., I become suspicious, especially if what they say God told them contradicts the Holy Scriptures. So, I believe that the HS is active in the world, busy guiding and working with believers, and this may even lead to large results in the world, but I do not believe God is revealing new revelation that is undermining his own church. How does that appeal to you? It validates your experience regarding revelation, but still maintains my point about new revelation that changes what has already been written. But it is all revelation, i.e., information from a supernatural source. (BTW, if JS truly did receive revelation (information from a supernatural source), and it contradicts scripture, then whom might we assume is the supernatural force from which this infomation came? Hmmm.) Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:36:53 -0600 Perry, Do you mean to tell me that the Holy Spirit has never given you information? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law I don't think I can change the meaning of a word because one person claims to have had a revelation. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:19:26 -0600 Well, then, I've had that myself more than once. I'm sure I'm not unusual for that! Sure you don't want to define your meaning again? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7 4 74SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_elimin a teviruses_3mf -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Perry, Thanks. But I would still like to have a more concise definition from you now that you have said there is personal vs other kinds of revelation, if you don't mind. This might help us to define the kind of revelation the mormons claim to have. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Izzy, I was waiting for you to ask that or a similar question. Thank you. Of course the HS has given me information. He has convicted me of my sin. He has shown me my need for a saviour. He has answered prayer by leading me to the right path...all of a personal nature. But he has never told me that all Christian denominations are an abomination. He has never told me to go find some gold tablets and translate them. He has never told me to start a new church that is contrary to scripture. He has never told me to marry many wives, and that to not do so would damn me. He has never told my wife to shut up about polygamy or He would destory her. He has never revealed to me the need for a temple, or told me to steal the secret ceremonies of the Freemasons and use them as endowments in a temple, or led me to make false prophecies. And most of all, He has never revealed to me anything that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, that would contradict what the Apostles have already written in the canon of the NT. The long and short of it is that there is more than one kind of revelation. Personal revelation is one thing, and I think that if we are walking in the spirit we receive such. But, anytime anyone starts out by saying God told me..., I become suspicious, especially if what they say God told them contradicts the Holy Scriptures. So, I believe that the HS is active in the world, busy guiding and working with believers, and this may even lead to large results in the world, but I do not believe God is revealing new revelation that is undermining his own church. How does that appeal to you? It validates your experience regarding revelation, but still maintains my point about new revelation that changes what has already been written. But it is all revelation, i.e., information from a supernatural source. (BTW, if JS truly did receive revelation (information from a supernatural source), and it contradicts scripture, then whom might we assume is the supernatural force from which this infomation came? Hmmm.) Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:36:53 -0600 Perry, Do you mean to tell me that the Holy Spirit has never given you information? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law I don't think I can change the meaning of a word because one person claims to have had a revelation. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:19:26 -0600 Well, then, I've had that myself more than once. I'm sure I'm not unusual for that! Sure you don't want to define your meaning again? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7 4 74SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_elimin a teviruses_3mf -- Let your speech
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Izzy, please stick with me and read my entire post. I do not believe that Joseph Smith received any revelations from God. Either he made them up and subsequently came to believe them (perhaps in order to keep from being lynched by the large number of followers his little prank had collected), or he was delusional, or his revelation was from Satan. It is a known fact that he dabbled with divination. Is it more than coincidental that he was a peeper, that is, claimed to be able to find buried treasure by looking into a seer stone (his arrest record for bilking farmers using this method is recorded and has been published for review), and that he also used two seer stones to interpret the gold plates? Why do the LDS overlook this? Is it coincidental that the translated BoM contains entire chapters and verses copied verbatim from the KJV? The book is obviously a fraud, and there are other extant works that predate the BoM that are based on the premis that ancient Hebrews populated the Americas, and are the ancesters of the American indians. Even BH Roberts, a very prominent LDS historian acknowledges that enough written material existed prior to the translation of the BoM to have provided it's content through plaigerism. Why do the LDS overlook this? It is a known fact that JS and his brother Hyrum were both 33rd degree Freemasons. I do not know how much you know about Freemasonry, but they use secret handshakes, signs, passwords, penalties, and incantations in their ceremonies. JS shanghaied the secret ceremonies from the Freemasons and made it a part of the LDS temple endowments. Since Freemasonry is considered occultic, Mormonism, which uses the same occultic rites, must also be occultic. Why do the LDS overlook this? Read Doctrine and Covenants number 132, about adultery and polygamy, and keep in the back of your mind that while these revelations were being revealed to JS, he was engaged in adultery. (No man knows My History, by Fawn Brodie.) It is so ludicrous, that JS even claims that God told him that if his wife, Emma Smith, did not embrace polygamy that he would destroy her. JS obvioulsy used the redefinition of adultery, and revelations about polygamy to justify his own adulterous tendencies. This, my dear believer friend, is against the Holy Scripture, and was only for the benefit of saving JS from being an adulterer in the church (I hate to besmirch the word) that he created. Not only did he have the audacity to contradict the Holy Scripture, but to claim that this is a new covenant with God. That is blasphemous, evil, and sinful at it's very core. This alone should raise a red flag to the LDS, but since they place more importance on the heretical works of JS that the Holy Scripture, they have gone astray. There is not a single LDS member today that will tell you that polygamy is a sin. They will only state that we don't practice polygamy today, but they have to beleive it is still a new covenant with God, otherwise they are not true LDS believers. Why do the lds overlook this? So, I believe that God does reveal many things to individual believers on an individual and personal basis, but I do not believe that he has delivered any revelation upon which new doctrine can be based, or that would change anything that has already been written by the Apostles. That is what I mean when I say that the BoM, DC, do not add one iota to the gospel, regardless of what the LDS claim. The gospel is Holy, perfect, and complete as written. I'll tell you why the LDS overlooks these things. Because to cast doubt on the church means to 1) be disfellowshipped from the one true church, 2) to be castigated and looked down upon by all of your family and close friends, and 3) to lose the opportunity to become a God. Becoming a god is the very thing that Satan's pride caused him to want, and caused his fall; Eve's pride caused her to want to be god, and also caused her fall, and the LDS' pride causes them to want to be gods today, and is thier fall. And, since Satan is the father of lies, what more can I say? Izzy, hope this helps clarify the kind of revelation that JS received. If you are looking for a word to classify this type of revelation, lets use lies. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:46:47 -0600 Perry, Thanks. But I would still like to have a more concise definition from you now that you have said there is personal vs other kinds of revelation, if you don't mind. This might help us to define the kind of revelation the mormons claim to have. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Izzy, I was waiting for you to ask that or a similar question. Thank you
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Perry, Well we certainly agree on THAT! The poor mormons are dupes of JS at best--may God save them by His mercy. However, I wonder if you cannot believe that the Lord could give further revelation in this day via the Holy Spirit which IS be in agreement with scriptures? I believe there are some on TT who believe He does. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Izzy, please stick with me and read my entire post. I do not believe that Joseph Smith received any revelations from God. Either he made them up and subsequently came to believe them (perhaps in order to keep from being lynched by the large number of followers his little prank had collected), or he was delusional, or his revelation was from Satan. It is a known fact that he dabbled with divination. Is it more than coincidental that he was a peeper, that is, claimed to be able to find buried treasure by looking into a seer stone (his arrest record for bilking farmers using this method is recorded and has been published for review), and that he also used two seer stones to interpret the gold plates? Why do the LDS overlook this? Is it coincidental that the translated BoM contains entire chapters and verses copied verbatim from the KJV? The book is obviously a fraud, and there are other extant works that predate the BoM that are based on the premis that ancient Hebrews populated the Americas, and are the ancesters of the American indians. Even BH Roberts, a very prominent LDS historian acknowledges that enough written material existed prior to the translation of the BoM to have provided it's content through plaigerism. Why do the LDS overlook this? It is a known fact that JS and his brother Hyrum were both 33rd degree Freemasons. I do not know how much you know about Freemasonry, but they use secret handshakes, signs, passwords, penalties, and incantations in their ceremonies. JS shanghaied the secret ceremonies from the Freemasons and made it a part of the LDS temple endowments. Since Freemasonry is considered occultic, Mormonism, which uses the same occultic rites, must also be occultic. Why do the LDS overlook this? Read Doctrine and Covenants number 132, about adultery and polygamy, and keep in the back of your mind that while these revelations were being revealed to JS, he was engaged in adultery. (No man knows My History, by Fawn Brodie.) It is so ludicrous, that JS even claims that God told him that if his wife, Emma Smith, did not embrace polygamy that he would destroy her. JS obvioulsy used the redefinition of adultery, and revelations about polygamy to justify his own adulterous tendencies. This, my dear believer friend, is against the Holy Scripture, and was only for the benefit of saving JS from being an adulterer in the church (I hate to besmirch the word) that he created. Not only did he have the audacity to contradict the Holy Scripture, but to claim that this is a new covenant with God. That is blasphemous, evil, and sinful at it's very core. This alone should raise a red flag to the LDS, but since they place more importance on the heretical works of JS that the Holy Scripture, they have gone astray. There is not a single LDS member today that will tell you that polygamy is a sin. They will only state that we don't practice polygamy today, but they have to beleive it is still a new covenant with God, otherwise they are not true LDS believers. Why do the lds overlook this? So, I believe that God does reveal many things to individual believers on an individual and personal basis, but I do not believe that he has delivered any revelation upon which new doctrine can be based, or that would change anything that has already been written by the Apostles. That is what I mean when I say that the BoM, DC, do not add one iota to the gospel, regardless of what the LDS claim. The gospel is Holy, perfect, and complete as written. I'll tell you why the LDS overlooks these things. Because to cast doubt on the church means to 1) be disfellowshipped from the one true church, 2) to be castigated and looked down upon by all of your family and close friends, and 3) to lose the opportunity to become a God. Becoming a god is the very thing that Satan's pride caused him to want, and caused his fall; Eve's pride caused her to want to be god, and also caused her fall, and the LDS' pride causes them to want to be gods today, and is thier fall. And, since Satan is the father of lies, what more can I say? Izzy, hope this helps clarify the kind of revelation that JS received. If you are looking for a word to classify this type of revelation, lets use lies. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:46:47 -0600
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Izzy, One of the tenets of Christian theology is that the canon of scripture is closed (as mentioned in Jude 3), and that there will be no more revelation of the kind Joseph Smith purports to have received, i.e., revelation that reveals anything more than the Bible reveals, contradicts the Bible, or reveals any new doctrines that were not aready revealed in the Bible. The prime test of anything anyone says they received from God is that it has to be in accord with the existing canon. If it contradicts scripture, or teaches a different gospel, then it can't be from God. If you, or anyone, believes there has been such revelation, outside of the Bible, that changes or adds to the canon of scripture and that has been accepted by the christian church as canonical, then please bring it to my attention. If there had been any, then wouldn't we have added books to the Bible containing these sacred new doctrines and changes to existing doctrine? In fact, that is exactly what JS has done! The BoM is even subtitled Another Testament of Jesus Christ. And, only by disregarding the statement in Jude 3 that the gospel was delivered once for all to the saints, can the LDS get away with trying to add new revelation to the already existing and closed canon of scripture. It is so unfortunate that so many have been blinded to these simple truths. Now, you know that I am talking about revelation that changes or adds to the gospel, not personal revelation that believers receive from the HS with respect to their personal walks. And personal revelation may even lead to great events in Christian history, but they STILL must be in accord with the existing canon of scripture. Think about this: The OT covers from the beginning (creation) to about 400 years before the cross. The NT covers from the birth of Jesus to the end of the world. That pretty much tells it all. Why would we need any additional revelation (of the gospel changing kind) for the period in between? Jesus told us what we needed to do to be saved and have eternal life, and the apostles taught it. Why does that need to be enhanced? What could anyone possibly say that could change or improve that? Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:50:47 -0600 Perry, Well we certainly agree on THAT! The poor mormons are dupes of JS at best--may God save them by His mercy. However, I wonder if you cannot believe that the Lord could give further revelation in this day via the Holy Spirit which IS be in agreement with scriptures? I believe there are some on TT who believe He does. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles P. Locke Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Izzy, please stick with me and read my entire post. I do not believe that Joseph Smith received any revelations from God. Either he made them up and subsequently came to believe them (perhaps in order to keep from being lynched by the large number of followers his little prank had collected), or he was delusional, or his revelation was from Satan. It is a known fact that he dabbled with divination. Is it more than coincidental that he was a peeper, that is, claimed to be able to find buried treasure by looking into a seer stone (his arrest record for bilking farmers using this method is recorded and has been published for review), and that he also used two seer stones to interpret the gold plates? Why do the LDS overlook this? Is it coincidental that the translated BoM contains entire chapters and verses copied verbatim from the KJV? The book is obviously a fraud, and there are other extant works that predate the BoM that are based on the premis that ancient Hebrews populated the Americas, and are the ancesters of the American indians. Even BH Roberts, a very prominent LDS historian acknowledges that enough written material existed prior to the translation of the BoM to have provided it's content through plaigerism. Why do the LDS overlook this? It is a known fact that JS and his brother Hyrum were both 33rd degree Freemasons. I do not know how much you know about Freemasonry, but they use secret handshakes, signs, passwords, penalties, and incantations in their ceremonies. JS shanghaied the secret ceremonies from the Freemasons and made it a part of the LDS temple endowments. Since Freemasonry is considered occultic, Mormonism, which uses the same occultic rites, must also be occultic. Why do the LDS overlook this? Read Doctrine and Covenants number 132, about adultery and polygamy, and keep in the back of your mind that while these revelations were being revealed to JS, he was engaged in adultery. (No man knows My History, by Fawn Brodie.) It is so ludicrous, that JS even claims that God told him that if his wife, Emma Smith
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
There are three places in the Bible that warn us not to add to God's word. It is finished. You have all the information you need in the Bible. Anything added is either a lie, or the result of an active imagination (eg. Joe Smith) . I do not pretend to know all that the Bible teaches, but I am satisfied that all I need to know is there. Terry Terry Clifton wrote: If it is not in the Bible, it is not God's word. DAVEH: Seems to me that you aren't giving God much room to reveal more of his will to us, Terry! Don't trust it, and don't trust the author. Satan is adept at using even the sincerest of lost men. Terry (aka the narrow minded fundamentalist) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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 Law
All right. We have an artist on the forum. Or a poet who doesn't know it. Ever studied the principles and elements of art? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law dizzyness is settin' in, DavidM; and, you and Marlin oughta be takin'responsibility for gettin' Izzy dizzy; now she's gettin'to whereshe can't tell Izzyism from Judaism: On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:42:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message-David Miller said: What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. David, There are hundreds of scriptures which say otherwise. What do you mean??? Lets no[t] get mixed up on earning salvation vs the rewards of pleasing God in this life and the next. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
David Miller wrote: What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Izzy wrote: David, There are hundreds of scriptures which say otherwise. What do you mean??? Let's no get mixed up on earning salvation vs the rewards of pleasing God in this life and the next. Two men are sitting in the field one Saturday morning and see another man who has been walking from a long journey fall into the ditch and hurt his leg. He is bleeding badly. One of the men says within himself, it is written, 'the seventh day is the sabbath of Yahweh thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.' That man has broken the sabbath of God, and now tempts me to break it as well, which surely I would if I were to help him. It is sad that he got hurt, but he really should not have been out there on the sabbath day. I must love God above all else and respect and hallow his sabbath day, as saith the Scriptures. The other man sees what happens and is moved with compassion. He carries the man to his car, puts him in it, and carries him far away to a hospital to receive help. Now I ask you, which of these men will God reward? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 Law
Marlin: Ever studied the principles and elements of art? what am i doin' wrong?
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Gary, You need to lay off the funny ciggies! J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 1:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law dizzyness is settin' in, DavidM; and, you and Marlin oughta be takin'responsibility for gettin' Izzy dizzy; now she's gettin'to whereshe can't tell Izzyism from Judaism: On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:42:02 -0600 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- David Miller said: What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. David, There are hundreds of scriptures which say otherwise. What do you mean??? Lets no[t] get mixed up on earning salvation vs the rewards of pleasing God in this life and the next. ||
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
-Original Message- I do not pretend to know all that the Bible teaches, but I am satisfied that all I need to know is there. Terry Terry, I guess you don't need to know the Theory of Relativity. Or how to use your computer. :-) Izzy -- 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 Law
---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, December 26, 2002 12:01:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law -Original Message-I do not pretend to know all that the Bible teaches, but I am satisfiedthatall I need to know is there.TerryTerry,I guess you don't need to know the Theory of Relativity. Or how to useyour computer. :-) IzzyThat is true. I know nothing about either one.--"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.. IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
-Original Message- Now I ask you, which of these men will God reward? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- David, Obviously the one who obeyed the law of love. That's what Jesus taught; we should do good on the Sabbath. Izzy -- 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 Law
Creativity is a Godly traight. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Marlin: Ever studied the principles and elements of art? what am i doin' wrong?
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
My father sent me this. --Marlin Subject: FBI EYES http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
To DaveH:
Thereis no need for God to reveal more
than has been revealed in the Bible.
No one yet understands all that has already been given.
I suggest that all these people presently being given
further revelation, get together with the four hundred
or so screwballs in Los Angeles that are presently
claiming to be the Christ. You could compare notes. Maybe
write a book.
Terry
---Original Message---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, December 26, 2002 07:37:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Please, lets not forget Jude 3, which indicates that the gospel was delivered "once for all" to the saints. No more revelation is needed. To claim that more revelation is needed is to say that the death of Christ on the cross was not enough to save us! There was only a single act, a single gospel, and a single canon. This is very evident when one considers that the extra-biblical texts considered by the LDS to be revealed scripture not only do not add even one iota to the gospel, but are full of internal and external inconsistencey and self-serving false prophecy. They only serve to direct focus AWAY from Christ, and onto the insane rantings of a false prophet named Joseph Smith and his lost sheep.I'll bet DaveH will argue "well, then, The Revelation is null and void because it was written after Jude"...my rebuttal will be to ask him to prove that Revelation was written after Jude.PerryFrom: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The LawDate: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:20:25 -0800Terry Clifton wrote: There are three places in the Bible that warn us not to add to God's word. It is finished. You have all the information you need in the Bible. Anything added is either a lie, or the result of an active imagination (eg. Joe Smith) . I do not pretend to know all that the Bible teaches,DAVEH: That ("There are three places in the Bible that warn us not to add to God's word") is something I don't think you fully understand, Terry. When the prophets wrote those warnings, it only applied to their revelations and specific writings.Otherwise, anything included in the Bible post Duet 4:2 would be null void. Furthermore, the last instance (Rev 22:18) was not the last thing to be written that is included in the BIble. His warning was to those who might want to change the book ofRevelation, not the entire Bible. The whole nature of the Bible is that it is God's way of letting us know what he wants us to do by continuously revealing his secrets to his servants, the prophets. (Amos 3:7) To suggest that the Bible is ALL that hehas revealed, or that it is ALL he wants us to know, seems a bit risky to me, Terry. Why would you want to limit the Lord like that? Does that make sense to you, Terry. If not, I'll try to explain it a little more when I get back in a couple weeks. but I am satisfied that all I need to know is there.DAVEH: IMHO, I think that is a bit shortsighted, Terry. TerryTerry Clifton wrote: If it is not in the Bible, it is not God's word. DAVEH: Seems to me that you aren't giving God much room to reveal more of his will to us, Terry! Don't trust it, and don'ttrust the author. Satan is adept at using even the sincerest of lost men. Terry (aka the narrow minded fundamentalist) --~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.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._The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf--"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..
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Terry, Somebody already did that...back in 1830 (VBG). Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 20:18:33 -0600 (Central Standard Time) To DaveH: There is no need for God to reveal more than has been revealed in the Bible. No one yet understands all that has already been given. I suggest that all these people presently being given further revelation, get together with the four hundred or so screwballs in Los Angeles that are presently claiming to be the Christ. You could compare notes. Maybe write a book. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, December 26, 2002 07:37:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Please, lets not forget Jude 3, which indicates that the gospel was delivered once for all to the saints. No more revelation is needed. To claim that more revelation is needed is to say that the death of Christ on the cross was not enough to save us! There was only a single act, a single gospel, and a single canon. This is very evident when one considers that the extra-biblical texts considered by the LDS to be revealed scripture not only do not add even one iota to the gospel, but are full of internal and external inconsistencey and self-serving false prophecy. They only serve to direct focus AWAY from Christ, and onto the insane rantings of a false prophet named Joseph Smith and his lost sheep. I'll bet DaveH will argue well, then, The Revelation is null and void because it was written after Jude...my rebuttal will be to ask him to prove that Revelation was written after Jude. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:20:25 -0800 Terry Clifton wrote: There are three places in the Bible that warn us not to add to God's word. It is finished. You have all the information you need in the Bible. Anything added is either a lie, or the result of an active imagination (eg. Joe Smith) . I do not pretend to know all that the Bible teaches, DAVEH: That (There are three places in the Bible that warn us not to add to God's word) is something I don't think you fully understand, Terry. When the prophets wrote those warnings, it only applied to their revelations and specific writings. Otherwise, anything included in the Bible post Duet 4:2 would be null void. Furthermore, the last instance (Rev 22:18) was not the last thing to be written that is included in the BIble. His warning was to those who might want to change the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. The whole nature of the Bible is that it is God's way of letting us know what he wants us to do by continuously revealing his secrets to his servants, the prophets. (Amos 3:7) To suggest that the Bible is ALL that he has revealed, or that it is ALL he wants us to know, seems a bit risky to me, Terry. Why would you want to limit the Lord like that? Does that make sense to you, Terry. If not, I'll try to explain it a little more when I get back in a couple weeks. but I am satisfied that all I need to know is there. DAVEH: IMHO, I think that is a bit shortsighted, Terry. Terry Terry Clifton wrote: If it is not in the Bible, it is not God's word. DAVEH: Seems to me that you aren't giving God much room to reveal more of his will to us, Terry! Don't trust it, and don't trust the author. Satan is adept at using even the sincerest of lost men. Terry (aka the narrow minded fundamentalist) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf -- 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. . _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Perry wrote: No more revelation is needed. To claim that more revelation is needed is to say that the death of Christ on the cross was not enough to save us! How does this logically make sense, when the entire New Testament was written AFTER the death of Christ on the cross? Did the New Testament writings, or the many non-Biblical revelations attested to by the New Testament, in any way undermine the significance of Christ's death on the cross? I don't think so. Perry wrote: There was only a single act, a single gospel, and a single canon. And that gospel and canon testifies that revelation is the experience of true believers in Jesus Christ. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. (John 16:12-14) Perry wrote: This is very evident when one considers that the extra-biblical texts considered by the LDS to be revealed scripture not only do not add even one iota to the gospel Actually, they do add some things, which we have discussed here. For example, these Scriptures claim many who have followed the Bible in its present form have been brought under the power of Satan because of its missing plain and precious parts. They also add that without baptism, a person cannot be saved. There are many dangerous teachings in the LDS Scriptures. I agree with your assessment that the Mormon added Scriptures are false, but not with your idea that revelation is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have now received the living Word which is complementary to the written Word. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 Law
Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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 Law
The sense in which I am using revelation is information that comes to an individual by divine or supernatural means. A supernatural revealing of information. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:22:49 -0600 Perry, Just for clarification, would you care to define revelation? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- I AM saying that 1) no additional revelation beyond the NT is necessary relative to the gospel message or salvation, -- 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. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf -- 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 Law
To DaveH: Thereis no need for God to reveal more than has been revealed in the Bible. No one yet understands all that has already been given. DAVEH: Which only underscores the need for continuing enlightenment from our Lord in the form of continued revelation, Terry. TerryI'll bet DaveH will argue "well, then, The Revelation is null and void because it was written after Jude"...my rebuttal will be to ask him to prove that Revelation was written after Jude. DAVEH: Perry, I am meaning to reply to your previous post on this, but simply have not had time. Since you seem to think your explanation is correct, then why don't you explain to us when the books ofJude and Revelation were penned? BTW.Did you catch the HISTORY CHANNEL special last night about who wrote the Bible?Perry. ___
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
Terry, Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Gal 3:7) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29) That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Gal 3:6) I believe I am, by faith in Christs atoning Blood, no longer a Gentile (ie: A pagan or heathen), but the seed of Abraham. I do not honor the Sabbath to save myself. I honor it because I am free to obey. I want to obey. I am blessed when I obey. I am happy when I obey. Does that bother you? You sound a bit testy about it. J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 7:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] The Law Listen carefully brothers and sisters, and I will try one more time. All the words in the Bible do not apply to every Bible reader! Before you stone me for that outrageous statement, please look at Leviticus, the book of the Law. Go to the last chapter, then down to the last verse.(27:34) See it now? The law was for the Children of Israel. Only the Children of Israel. Christians do not need to keep the sabbath. The law never applied to Gentiles, not then, not now. The rich young ruler in Matthew was spoken to prior to the cross. He was still under the law at that time because he was a Jew, not a Gentile, and prior to the cross, the law was in effect. Got it now? Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] The Law
I appreciate your permission. J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Naw, I'm not testy. I am really a pussycat. I just get frustrated that I do not have the ability tohelp people see the truth. Go ahead and take Saturday off. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 08:43:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Law Terry, Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Gal 3:7) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29) That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Gal 3:6) I believe I am, by faith in Christs atoning Blood, no longer a Gentile (ie: A pagan or heathen), but the seed of Abraham. I do not honor the Sabbath to save myself. I honor it because I am free to obey. I want to obey. I am blessed when I obey. I am happy when I obey. Does that bother you? You sound a bit testy about it. J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 7:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] The Law Listen carefully brothers and sisters, and I will try one more time. All the words in the Bible do not apply to every Bible reader! Before you stone me for that outrageous statement, please look at Leviticus, the book of the Law. Go to the last chapter, then down to the last verse.(27:34) See it now? The law was for the Children of Israel. Only the Children of Israel. Christians do not need to keep the sabbath. The law never applied to Gentiles, not then, not now. The rich young ruler in Matthew was spoken to prior to the cross. He was still under the law at that time because he was a Jew, not a Gentile, and prior to the cross, the law was in effect. Got it now? Terry IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Terry wrote: Listen carefully brothers and sisters, and I will try one more time. All the words in the Bible do not apply to every Bible reader! Before you stone me for that outrageous statement, please look at Leviticus, the book of the Law. ... The law was for the Children of Israel. Only the Children of Israel. Christians do not need to keep the sabbath. The law never applied to Gentiles, not then, not now. Hi Terry. Nothing outrageous at all in what you are saying here. Covenants are important. There was a covenant with Noah. There was a covenant with Abraham. There was a covenant with Moses. There was a covenant with Jesus. The covenant with Moses applies only to Jews. Very good observation and once which we ought to always keep in mind when we read the Torah, and when we read the New Testament, especially books like Galatians. With regards to the sabbath, this appears to go back prior to Moses, way back to the time of creation itself. However, I'm still waiting for Marlin to show me if he has any knowledge of a commandment to keep the sabbath. It seems to me to have been only sabbath observance, not sabbath keeping by commandment and duty. Terry wrote: The rich young ruler in Matthew was spoken to prior to the cross. He was still under the law at that time because he was a Jew, not a Gentile, and prior to the cross, the law was in effect. Got it now? Well, the law did not stop the moment Jesus died on the cross (see Mat. 5:18). Jesus preached the gospel BEFORE he died on the cross, and he indicated that people were pressing into it (Mat. 11:12). The law is not against or contrary to grace. What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the man who thinks he can break God's commandments, that it does not matter whether or not he keeps God's commandments because he is justified by grace through faith, that man's faith is dead, and he too has fallen from grace. Look for the middle road here. Trust in Jesus Christ for righteousness, and expect to keep all the commandments as Christ lives His life through you as you walk in the Spirit of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 Law
sheer judaism, more proof: On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:08:08 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:keep..God's [613] commandments[though] justified by grace through faith [because whoever doesn't]'s faith is dead, and he too has fallen from grace.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
If it is not in the Bible, it is not God's word. Don't trust it, and don't trust the author. Satan is adept at using even the sincerest of lost men. Terry (aka the narrow minded fundamentalist) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Perry wrote: Having enumerated the 7 laws of Noah, the author of the book then separately considers each of the seven laws, and determines which of the 613 Mosaic laws are covered by each of the 7 Noahide laws, and determines that 66 of the 613 Mosaic laws are thus included in the Noahide laws. That's an interesting point. I had not heard that 66 of the laws are covered by the 7 Noahide laws. The thing Christians have a hard time understanding about Judaism is that they are not bent on evangelism like Christians are. They do not believe that you must be a Jew in order to inherit the world to come. Rather, they believe that if a Gentile keeps the 7 Noahide laws, he will make it in the world to come. So in Judaism, conversion is actually discouraged. That's why the Judaizers were creating a problem in more ways than one. As a Pharisee, Paul found it repulsive, and as a Christian, he found it repulsive. The Judaizers evidently thought they were following out in a practical way what Paul taught about how the Gentiles are made children of Abraham by their faith. Interesting thoughts about the book you are reading. Feel free to share more if anything else strikes you as interesting in the book. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
Dear people, Sounds like a great dialogue here. I really enjoy the thought- provoking discussions. I agree with Terry on the point of looking at who each scripture is talking to- lokk at the book of Job for instance. It has a lot of talk in it that was recorded of Job's three friends. One has to definitely watch so as not to take one of these [SCRIPTURES] as necessarily being truth! On the law, however, I ask you guys... Where do you get your standard of right and wrong? How do you know how to conduct yourself in life? I think that my God did me a big favor by giving Moses a written law for ME TO FOLLOW. Without it, I guess I would be forced to make my own decisions about right and wrong (like Adam and Eve). I also find much wisdom(!) and good living advice in Proverbs (of course). We can be sure that Solomon was given that understanding by God, and so we can put stock in it. Why not look at the law of Moses with respect, instead of shunning it? -Peter P. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Law Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:08:08 -0500 Terry wrote: Listen carefully brothers and sisters, and I will try one more time. All the words in the Bible do not apply to every Bible reader! Before you stone me for that outrageous statement, please look at Leviticus, the book of the Law. ... The law was for the Children of Israel. Only the Children of Israel. Christians do not need to keep the sabbath. The law never applied to Gentiles, not then, not now. Hi Terry. Nothing outrageous at all in what you are saying here. Covenants are important. There was a covenant with Noah. There was a covenant with Abraham. There was a covenant with Moses. There was a covenant with Jesus. The covenant with Moses applies only to Jews. Very good observation and once which we ought to always keep in mind when we read the Torah, and when we read the New Testament, especially books like Galatians. With regards to the sabbath, this appears to go back prior to Moses, way back to the time of creation itself. However, I'm still waiting for Marlin to show me if he has any knowledge of a commandment to keep the sabbath. It seems to me to have been only sabbath observance, not sabbath keeping by commandment and duty. Terry wrote: The rich young ruler in Matthew was spoken to prior to the cross. He was still under the law at that time because he was a Jew, not a Gentile, and prior to the cross, the law was in effect. Got it now? Well, the law did not stop the moment Jesus died on the cross (see Mat. 5:18). Jesus preached the gospel BEFORE he died on the cross, and he indicated that people were pressing into it (Mat. 11:12). The law is not against or contrary to grace. What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the man who thinks he can break God's commandments, that it does not matter whether or not he keeps God's commandments because he is justified by grace through faith, that man's faith is dead, and he too has fallen from grace. Look for the middle road here. Trust in Jesus Christ for righteousness, and expect to keep all the commandments as Christ lives His life through you as you walk in the Spirit of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- 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 subscri _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf -- 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 Law
-Original Message- David Miller said: What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. David, There are hundreds of scriptures which say otherwise. What do you mean??? Lets no get mixed up on earning salvation vs the rewards of pleasing God in this life and the next. II Sam 22: 21The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. 22For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. 23For all his judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. 24I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity. 25Therefore the LORD hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight. 26With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright. 27With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury. 28And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down. Luke 6 23Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven... Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Law
dizzyness is settin' in, DavidM; and, you and Marlin oughta be takin'responsibility for gettin' Izzy dizzy; now she's gettin'to whereshe can't tell Izzyism from Judaism: On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:42:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message-David Miller said: What is contrary to grace is when people put their confidence in their law keeping to make them right in God's eyes. For example, if a man thinks that observing the seventh day makes him in right standing before God, that God looks upon him with greater pleasure because of this act of obedience, then he has fallen from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. David, There are hundreds of scriptures which say otherwise. What do you mean??? Lets no[t] get mixed up on earning salvation vs the rewards of pleasing God in this life and the next. ||
