[TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Kevin Deegan wrote: No dave you are an unbeliever in God's word You are not of God. You will not enter in because of UNBELIEF. DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. jt: Headers, chapter and verse divisions and all that are not and never were sacred text Daveh, so what's the problem? Daveh: I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. jt: Possibly because you eat up every word in the BofM and are totally uncritical of anything in it or anything having to do with the person of Joseph Smith who is very controversial and who never went to a sinner's cross for you. Daveh: If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? jt: The Bible isn't a kindergarten book Daveh and it's a closed book to some and open to others according to their heart attitude toward the author. When ppl with no heart for truth begin trying to subject God's Word to their carnal reasoning, then God Himselfsends STRONG DELUSIONthat they might believe the lie.judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? inerrant Bible
No the material Blaine posted has to do with a heretic taking a copy and changing the words in that copy sometimes 10 different times and different handwritings.I can take a copy of your mortgage and change it 100 times what does that have to do with the terms of your mortgage CONTRACT?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Show me one error.DAVEH: Hm...have you been reading what Blaine posted, Kevin? Read to the bottom of this post. You have replied to it several times now, and it remains pretty much as Blaine posted it. The material Blaine quoted suggested there are quite a few parts of the Bible that were changed (added or subtracted) by somebody in the evolution of the translation process over the centuries. I don't know if the below material is accurate or not, but you seem to think it is in error merely by its association with the JWs. I'm just trying to find out if your preconceived prejudices are reflected in your answer, or if there really is something wrong with what Blaine posted. As I've said before, when I hear stuff from other LDS folks, I suspect it is biased and may not factually represent what is believed outside the LDS realm. If you know it is wrong, please explain why and how. Otherwise, it seems pretty good evidence that the Bibles we have today are not inerrant as many TTers have suggested. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: I already answered this see other postDAVEH: Really??? Is your below comment the post you are referring to.. Perhaps you should take a second look. take your own advice. or have you converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you visit Jehovah Witness sites regularly?Do you follow their other teachings also?...If that isn't your answer, then perhaps I failed to see it.or recognize it if I did see it. Would you be so kind as to explain it again, Kevin. (Copy/paste if you would, please.) This info is in error.DAVEH: Does your other post explain why/how it is in error, Kevin? Your above/below comment certainly doesn't explain it. You seem to take great delight in attacking LDS theology. Now, how about devoting as much enthusiasm explaining your own beliefs.. Maybe you two groups (LDS JW) should combine forces and cast dispersion on God's word. You could call it the "Yea hath God said society"DAVEH: Nobody is questioning what God said, Kevin. What is in question is whether what is in the Bible today is the same as what God said several thousand years ago. You have already acknowledged that some (the headings) is not inerrant or from God. And we have seen before that some translations (viz the NIV) do not include all the material that the KJV offers. So it seems apparent that God has not specifically protected each translation we have today. At some point, problem material has been allowed (by God) to enter into what we consider the Bible today. My question to you is where you safely draw the line.the line (time) that says before this we can trust everything that is printed in the Bible, and after this time (line) errant material may have been introduced or inerrant material may have been deleted. Is there a time you can say such, Kevin? If not, then it seems one has to conclude that the Bible is not necessarily inerrant. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Raymond Bothoms hence; you Got your information from a Jehovah Witness site http://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious.htmDAVEH: Whether or not the author is a JW (or whether the site is JW related), is the material he offered correct, Kevin? IF it is correct, would that not suggest the Bible is not as inerrant as some TTers have professed? IF his information is not correct, how do you explain it? Are you joining? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond Bothoms is just another one of us good old boys from Utah. By the way, Kevin, where do you live? Georgia? Alabama? Mexico? LOL Blaine: The Bible seems to have some problems, at least according to what Iread below. Perhaps those whose religion is founded on the assumption thatthe Bible is inerrant should take a second look. Pehaps you should take a second look. take your own advice. or have you converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you visit Jehovah Witness sites regularly? Do you follow their other teachings also?- Forwarded message --From: Raymond Bothoms To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:13:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: [Jewish-Roots-BoM] Suspected Interpolations in the New TestamentMessage-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]These suspected interpolations are found athttp://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious.htm (See alsohttp://www.friktechcom/rel/canon/nttexts.htm)SPURIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENTOn Authority of Professor C. Tischendorf's notes on the readings of thetwo oldest Greek manuscripts: The Sinaitic and the Vatican #1209The following words, found in our Common Version (King James Version) arenot found in the Oldest Manuscripts, and are
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? inerrant Bible
The mss from the Recieved or Majority text do not have a common ancestor. They were found in every part of the globe. Suppose you told 1000 people a story, which they separately then repeated to a second party.Who then repeated to a third party and so on. The TRANSMISSUION of the scriptures was done in a parrallel fashion not in a serial fashion.When you have many parrallel paths they all agree it is apretty foolproof check. Now the corrupt mss VATICANus SAINATICUS are obviously corrupt on their face (words crossed out, diff handwritings) They also do not agree with each other their testimony is impugned by this fact. They belong back in the trash heap they were found in. Why do you suppose someone threw them in the trash, in the first place? If you have read your Bible, you know there were rules God established for testimony. When the religious leaders went after Jesus, they suborned the testimony against him. Acts 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. This is what these 2 mss are suborned testimony of some heretics, who did not like the diety of Jesus Christ. Why did God command to use multiple witnesses? 1 Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Du 19;15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. What if these witnesses disagree between themselves over 2000 times in their testimony? This is what happened in the testimony against Jesus. The witnesses, could not agree. Mark 14:6 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. Their witness was trash. This is what lawyers try to do when they call witnesses and crossexamine. They are looking for contradictions. If the witness is full of contradictions it is trash testimony. So we have many thosands of mss from parrallel sources every corner of the world, that agree with each other in every detail. We have a small minority that are disfigured on their face, and disagree among themselves. their testimony is trash. There is more testimony we could consider than just the mss. The Bible i hold in my hands is the Word of God. Provs 15 EVERY WORD of God is Pure What if these witnesses isagree between themselves over 2000 times in their testimony? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Whether or not the author is a JW (or whether the site is JW related), is the material he offered correct, Kevin? IF it is correct, would that not suggest the Bible is not as inerrant as some TTers have professed? IF his information is not correct, how do you explain it? Dave below find my previous post,DAVEH: Thank you, Kevin. I vaguely remember seeing it, but apparently skipped through it due to a shortage of time. So.even though it comes from an older manuscript, you have rejected it simply because it reflects a lot of changes in subsequent manuscripts? Unless I'm missing something on this Kevin, that seems a dangerous position to adopt. What if the scribe of the second set of manuscripts decided to change things, or had bad eyesightor whatever? Then.any subsequent manuscripts to his would have all shared his common errors, would they not? (I know I am simplifying this a bit, but I do so for the sake of illustration.) If scholars point such out, are they automatically labeled liberals because of your preconceived biases? Or.is there any room for scholarly thought in your theological realm? I guess my question to you, Kevin, is why do you feel the Bible has to be so inerrant? Does it destroy your belief in Jesus if it is not inerrant? with ONE CORRECTION BELOW "Now TWO Mormons" HOLY BIBLE says Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly diving the Word of truth Where can I find this word? DAVEH: As always, God reveals his word to his servants, the prophets. It is obvious that the original manuscripts have long since disappeared, and what exists now in the various translations of the Bible may or may not contain errors. BTW..Your below explanation could have been a bit clearer and addressed Raymond Bothom's comments a bit more succinctly, but I think it is sufficient for me to make the above comments. I assume you not agree with his comment.The Sinaitic Manuscript is perfect andcomplete and is the oldest known [complete] copy of the Scriptures,having been written (it is believed) in the year 331 A.D ROTFL The two manuscripts are TRASHit is obvious to everyone but some liberal intellectuals and at least 1 mormon. Blaine would you accept a check with 10 different handwritings on it? that is the quality of these mss,they have been tampered
Re: [TruthTalk] Inerrant Bible
2 Sam 22:27 With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Thank you for pointing that out, Kevin. QuestionWhy do you think God let those errant chapter headings be placed in his presumably inerrant work to mislead folks? He put it there for Folks like you:DAVEH: Don't let me put words in your mouth, Kevin..But from your reply it seems as though you think God is purposely trying to mislead some people. Is that what you are saying? He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. IS 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. IS 28 yet they would not hear But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men Mt 13;15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.DAVEH: Now I understand that a lot of TTers believe I have my eyes closed and my ears aren't listening and my heart is cold.but, I'm hearing conflicting things on TT and I'm trying to sort out why/how you (or other TTers) rationalize it to make sense in your mind. On one hand you claim the Bible is inerrant, and then qualify that it is only inerrant when one only considers the ancient texts, and not the modern Bible translations that may contain errors. (If I haven't assessed that correctly, let me know, Kevin.) And, I've been told that God has been very precise about what he has put into the Bible to make it inerrant. When I have suggested in the past that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, I have been severely derided and chastised. From these posts of late, I don't understand why those who disagree with me take such offense that I do not see this matter in the same light. It seems to me that IF the Bible is inerrant, one should not have to make excuses and exceptions to that inerrancy. Yet is that not what you are doing? From what I'm seeing, it seems quite reasonable for one to question the inerrancy of the Bible, IF at the time it was originally penned it was (presumably) inerrant, and now it is not. At what point did God decide to stop preventing errors from creeping into the translations? Is that not a fair question??? Let me FTR post my belief, as I have before but not during the tenure of many current TTers: I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. I do believe the Bible material was originally revealed in its inerrant form, but through the ages some has been lost and added, subtracted, changed or not even included for a variety of reasons. The Lord specifically warned folks not to change specific revelations included in the Bible, which alone logically suggests that He (God) was not going to make sure the Bible remained inerrant indefinitely. In the past week or so there have been a few TT posts that certainly have pointed out the fallacy of the inerrant Bible as we know it today. SoI have to wonder why many TTers find it so difficult to discuss such a possibility, let alone accept it. Kevin.Does it really threaten your faith to think God has not protected the Bible (from error) as much as Protestant tradition wants you to believe? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Just pointing out the Numbers of the verses, the chapter headings, the chapter divisions and anything outside the text of the Word of God are not inerrant.DAVEH: Thank you for pointing that out, Kevin. QuestionWhy do you think God let those errant chapter headings be placed in his presumably inerrant work to mislead folks? The reason I ask is that several TTers have suggested the Lord would not have allowed error to enter into the Bible, yet that seems to be exactly what happened. Logically, IF he allows errant material to enter the Bible at this late date, why could he not have let it enter at an earlier date as well? If we did not have Gods inerrant word someone on this earth he could not hold us responsible for doit what it says.DAVEH: Hmmm..Were you thinking about Paul Hill when you penned this? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Then how does one explain that some Bibles contain errant headings IF God would not allow it? According to SB (today's radio broadcast), Hebrews is not the only book in question. I just found out today there is a
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Kevin. As I mentioned before, I believe God's word as far as it is translated correctly. Apparently, you share a somewhat similar belief, since you do not believe the headers were part of the original text. You believe they were added to God's word, and are possibly errant. You reason like a 5 year old. I share no "somewhat similar" belief. Simply unbelieveable that an adult would think: we have the name Jesus in our church name that makes us christians A printer printed 10,000 bibles with some errors in it therefore the bible has errors The devils believe in one god certainlyI dont want anything to do with that verse .Prov 10:31 The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: No dave you are an unbeliever in God's word You are not of God. You will not enter in because of UNBELIEF.DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? You have the spirit of error. You do not trust Gods wordDAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Kevin. As I mentioned before, I believe God's word as far as it is translated correctly. Apparently, you share a somewhat similar belief, since you do not believe the headers were part of the original text. You believe they were added to God's word, and are possibly errant. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God's word says your unbelief amounts to no more than a hill of beans. Let God be true! JN 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words:DAVEH: Notice he did not say VOICE. ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.1 JN 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.DAVEH: Interestingly, the NT did not exist when these words were penned. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Were you thinking about TTers when you wrote this, Judy?!?!?!? ;-) God wrote it DaveH!DAVEH: God may have been the author, but Judy posted it. Read it yourself maybe he was thinking of TTers, especially you unbelievers!DAVEH: Ahh Kevin.just as I was beginning to think you had a sense of humor, you disappoint me! Do you not observe/recognize smilies!?!?!?! =-O FTR...I am a believer, Kevin. I just don't believe quite the same way you do. HOLY BIBLE Romans 3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy Taylor wrote: Well folks I went to the movie and saw parts of it; it was much more We nolonger know Jesus after the flesh.DAVEH: ??? What do you mean by this, Judy? Last I heard the movie had already made $200,000.00DAVEH: Hm..I would think he will make a bit more than a couple hundred grand for all that effort! :-D - so Mr. Gibson has his reward. Let God be God and every man a liarDAVEH: Were you thinking about TTers when you wrote this, Judy?!?!?!? ;-) Grace and Peace, Judy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Very well said Judy Amen!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]Kevin Deegan wrote: No dave you are an unbeliever in God's word You are not of God. You will not enter in because of UNBELIEF. DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. jt: Headers, chapter and verse divisions and all that are not and never were sacred text Daveh, so what's the problem? Daveh: I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. jt: Possibly because you eat up every word in the BofM and are totally uncritical of anything in it or anything having to do with the person of Joseph Smith who is very controversial and who never went to a sinner's cross for you. Daveh: If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? jt: The Bible isn't a kindergarten book Daveh and it's a closed book to some and open to others according to their heart attitude toward the author. When ppl with no heart for truth begin trying to subject God's Word to their carnal reasoning, then God Himselfsends STRONG DELUSIONthat they might believe the lie.judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Terry wrote, "Where did you get the goofy idea that we can reproove or rebuke in love? Is something like that hidden so deep in the Bible that SOME Christians cannot see it?" Yeah, Terry, if it is there, it must be deeply imbedded. I didn't know what to do with this one, so I leftit alone. I figured it would have to stand or fall pretty much on its own weight. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry, thatI do not fit your little Butter Cup christianity. That is right,I forgot,we are supposed to "prophesy SMOOTH things" I do not want to work thru the things that divide us. I am interested in staying divided heretics on one side christians on the other. Which side are you? The bible never tells us to find what things we have in common with unbelievers. It is not like any of us here do not believe the bible? What have you been reading. Maybe you posted to the wrong group. I will take your email under advisement as far as it is translated correctly. No reproving, nor rebuke, even if the bible says so. It is unbecoming on a Modern christian, right? Philosphy? Nothing to offer? Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. I prefer the bible. maybe you think it has nothing to offer. =
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? = Dave, most of the believers I know feel that the Bible was given by God to different men at different times, and that they recorded the message that they received from Him. These messages did not have headers and they did not have numbered verses. Those were added by men at a later date. Why did God allow that? For the same reasons that He allows abortion and other forms of murder. For the same reasons that He allows men to curse His name. For the same reasons that He allows people to worship Allah, or Buddha. What are those reasons? I do not know. His ways are higher than my ways. Could men have also perverted the scriptures? If God allowed it, they could. Did He allow it? No one is qualified to say. All that you or I can do is make assumptions. If we assume that some portion of God's Holy word is incorrect, then we must pick and choose what we want to believe. I believe that to be an unacceptable course for myself, because I do not have the wisdom to do that. I doubt that anyone does. In my opinion, the safe way is to believe the whole Word is true, and to live by it. God looks at the heart. If you live for Him with all your heart, He will not send you to an eternity in Hell because you did your best to follow Him, using the information you had available. We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I don't think that you believe in a literal Hell, but I hope the rest of this makes sense to you. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me.
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let everyone see that you are gentle and kind. The Lord is coming soon. Do not worry about anything, but pray and ask God for everything you need, always giving thanks. And God's peace, which is so great we cannot understand it, will keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Brothers and Sisters, think about the things that are good and worthy of praise. Think about the things that are true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected. Do what you learned and received from me, what I told you, and what you saw me do. And the God who gives peace will be with you. -- Philippians 4.5-9 (NCV). Hi Judy, Before I respond to some of your comments, I would like to apologize to you. I have not been as patient with you as I should have been; I have been rude at times; and I have been proud, when I should have been sorry. The passage above has been convicting myheart, and rebuking me. I am truly sorry and ask your forgiveness. I too will try not to smear the name of our Lord. jt: No problem Mr. Bill - I'm learning to forgive as I am forgiven - and that it's good to keep short accounts, His Peace to you and yours, judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Terry wrote, We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. So wonderful is it to know that we are saved by him! I fear that when the emphasis shifts from Christ to the Jesus-and-me of modern Christianity, then what becomes finally important is 'my faith,' 'my decision,' 'my conversion,' and not really Christ himself. Please don't take any of this the wrong way. I know that I am bucking against the goads here. If I'm all wet, then shake me off or toss me towel. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? = Dave, most of the believers I know feel that the Bible was given by God to different men at different times, and that they recorded the message that they received from Him. These messages did not have headers and they did not have numbered verses. Those were added by men at a later date. Why did God allow that? For the same reasons that He allows abortion and other forms of murder. For the same reasons that He allows men to curse His name. For the same reasons that He allows people to worship Allah, or Buddha. What are those reasons? I do not know. His ways are higher than my ways. Could men have also perverted the scriptures? If God allowed it, they could. Did He allow it? No one is qualified to say. All that you or I can do is make assumptions. If we assume that some portion of God's Holy word is incorrect, then we must pick and choose what we want to believe. I believe that to be an unacceptable course for myself, because I do not have the wisdom to do that. I doubt that anyone does. In my opinion, the safe way is to believe the whole Word is true, and to live by it. God looks at the heart. If you live for Him with all your heart, He will not send you to an eternity in Hell because you did your best to follow Him, using the information you had available. We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I don't think that you believe in a literal Hell, but I hope the rest of this makes sense to you. Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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.
[TruthTalk] Please Hear Me Out Before Ousting Me
Judy, if you haven't already read my first message like this one, please read this one instead. I have corrected some typos in this one. The content remains intact. jt: No problem Mr. Bill but I hope you don't mind if I respond mainly to your newer points for the sake of brevity. Judy, If you will bear with me through a short anecdote, I will try to spin it into something that explains my fears regarding the direction in which I see this discussion taking us. After Augustine the Church went in a decidedly different direction from where it had been heading prior to the Pelagian v. Augustinian controversy.big snip I can see the damage it did to the Church. Because after Augustine, to say anything that may have gotten the church back on track, was to say something that might just get you labeled a Pelagian. Hence the Church, and I mean all the Church, is now influenced wrongly by these two men. jt: How so? And why does that need be? I've not spent a lot of time studying the "Church Fathers" they are OK when I need some historical information but not for doctrine. We have the scriptures same as Israel did and this is where we should go fordoctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness. If men want to follow the errors of other men then everyone is going to wind up in the ditch. bt: Where Augustine ended on his positions about sin, humanity, the grace of God, predestination, and free will, cemented and thereby cursed the entire Church ever after him. jt: I don't know if I would paint with as wide a brush Mr. Bill; I don't see the RCC as "the entire Church" in fact during the 4th and 5th centuries and from then on they were into the dark ages which some today attempt to deny. bt:I do think we should be asking ourselves a question that Augustine may have missed: How can I be right and at the same time be wise about it? jt: For a start we can refuse to allow the RCC to elevate either of us todoctor of the Church and/or part of their magisterium.:) jt: I wrote and continue to believe that "It is impossible to understand spiritual concepts using natural reasoning - the apostle Paul taught that "we should use words that the Holy Ghost teaches comparingspiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13); so it may help to take a look and see if when God is speaking of natural or spiritual generation when he uses the word "seed" (because I keep hearing on TT that the reason Jesus had to have sinful flesh going all the way back to the first Adam is because he was the seed of the "woman" (Mary). bt: I think Mary assumed a fallen nature from Adam, this is sure, but the promise in the proto-evangel was given to Eve. She is the one who received the promise of the Seed who would crush the Serpent's head. Immediately following the account of Adam and "Womans" disobedience (Gen 3.8-15), and in their first post-fall encounter with God, rather than smiting them dead, God blessed Woman for her honest confession (v. 13); this He did in two ways: (1) by putting hostility (v. 15) between her and the serpent, whom she had trusted; and (2) by placing the same hostility between her Seed (masculine singular) and the serpents seed (feminine singular; by the way, this is the only time in the Scriptures where the Hebrew word zera is used with a feminine ending). God then predicts that Hethe Seed of Womanwill crush the serpent. (Assuming I did slip up when talking about Eve by calling her Mary, I hope this was helpful.) jt: I don't know who slipped up but I understand what you are saying. I see the scenario in the garden a little differently. By the time God came calling them both AE had been invaded by "another kingdom" a dishonest one and immediately they began to show it's fruit by avoiding taking responsibility for their actionsand accusing others (both traits of unregenerated fallen man); the woman blamed the serpent, the man blamed both the woman and God (for giving her to him). I had never heard of the Hebrew gender thing but it doesn't change anything. Satan is only a femalein Mel Gibsons movie. wt:snip If you will follow the genealogy of Jesus through the unfolding of the OT, you will also see a concerted effort on behalf of the evil one to cut-off, i.e., to destroy, the bloodline leading to the birth of the Holy One of Israel. I think this is so because we can also see that the serpent of old took the promise of pending judgment to heart. jt: This may be how it appears in retrospect - however Satan does nothing without permission from God and even then only when we (mortals)open a door or give him ground to become involved (Proverbs 26:5). Because of the cross he has lost the authority given him by the first Adam. bt: After the "curse" and the promise of a Seed to come, Eve gave birth to a son. Look at her words, "I have been given a Man from the Lord" (Gen 4.1). That "man" was Cain. Now look what happened in the drama of the
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Is this deeply embedded? 2 Tim 3;16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ALL Scripture is given for what? doctrine: and some of you need some good doctrine Reproof: And some of you need REPROOF Correction: and some of you need correction Instruction: this too prov 25:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. 1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Amos 5;10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. Prov 25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Herod put John in prison for reproving him in Luke 3;19 Rev 3;19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry wrote, "Where did you get the goofy idea that we can reproove or rebuke in love? Is something like that hidden so deep in the Bible that SOME Christians cannot see it?" Yeah, Terry, if it is there, it must be deeply imbedded. I didn't know what to do with this one, so I leftit alone. I figured it would have to stand or fall pretty much on its own weight. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry, thatI do not fit your little Butter Cup christianity. That is right,I forgot,we are supposed to "prophesy SMOOTH things" I do not want to work thru the things that divide us. I am interested in staying divided heretics on one side christians on the other. Which side are you? The bible never tells us to find what things we have in common with unbelievers. It is not like any of us here do not believe the bible? What have you been reading. Maybe you posted to the wrong group. I will take your email under advisement as far as it is translated correctly. No reproving, nor rebuke, even if the bible says so. It is unbecoming on a Modern christian, right? Philosphy? Nothing to offer? Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. I prefer the bible. maybe you think it has nothing to offer. = Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
[TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
From: Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry wrote, We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. jt: If we have the right kind of faith then it is the faith of Christ, after all it is He who is both author and finisher of same. wt: It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. jt: Without faith it is impossible to please the Father who calls an unbelieving heart evil... How can we be sure we are In Him? wt: So wonderful is it to know that we are saved by him! I fear that when the emphasis shifts from Christ to the Jesus-and-me of modern Christianity, then what becomes finally important is 'my faith,' 'my decision,' 'my conversion,' and not really Christ himself. jt: Is it totally out of the ballpark to take responsibility for oneself? bt: Please don't take any of this the wrong way. I know that I am bucking against the goads here. If I'm all wet, then shake me off or toss me towel. jt: Just contributing something different for consideration since you may be reacting to the faith movement where ppl are taught to have faith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- 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.
[TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
I like these scriptures - all of them and IMO speaking the truth to someone IS loving them even when they don't appreciate it. I someone on the radio quoting Martin Luther who once said "Whenever the devil is challenged he starts weeping and talking about love" judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this deeply embedded? 2 Tim 3;16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ALL Scripture is given for what? doctrine: and some of you need some good doctrine Reproof: And some of you need REPROOF Correction: and some of you need correction Instruction: this too prov 25:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. 1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Amos 5;10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. Prov 25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Herod put John in prison for reproving him in Luke 3;19 Rev 3;19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry wrote, "Where did you get the goofy idea that we can reproove or rebuke in love? Is something like that hidden so deep in the Bible that SOME Christians cannot see it?" Yeah, Terry, if it is there, it must be deeply imbedded. I didn't know what to do with this one, so I leftit alone. I figured it would have to stand or fall pretty much on its own weight. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Wm. Taylor wrote: Terry wrote, We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. First I will agree, then I will explain. Jesus said I am the alpha and the omega. That means that He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Every book in the Bible points to Jesus. It is Jesus, cover to cover, front to back, beginning to end. If there is no Jesus, there is no one to place your faith in, no reason to expect salvation. If there is no Jesus, there is no God, no Savior. Having said all that, Jesus Himself said.Your FAITH has saved you (Luke 7:50 ). I don't think I will argue with Him. If He says faith saves, then faith saves. Terry :-) -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Judy wrote Just contributing something different for consideration since youmay be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to havefaith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? I say It's fine to contribute, Judy, do that to your hearts content -- but I'll put words in my own mouth,thank you very much. No, I was not thinking of the "faith" movement here. If you'll look at what I did say, you'll see it is quite the opposite of that. Indeed, I said what I wanted to say, and that was that maybe there is a way of looking at salvation such that it lets JesusChristbe the object ofit all. This is hardly faith in faith. Where did you come up with something like that? Did you even read what I said before starting in on me? I thought we had gotten beyond that stuff. Since you included Martin Luther in one of your other posts, I'll do the same here. Luther said that "faith" is like eyes. Eyes do not createwhat theysee; they seewhat is alreadycreated. Faith does not create salvation; it sees thesalvation already created in Christ Jesus. Bill. - Original Message - From: "Judy Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry wrote, "We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith." I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. jt: If we have the right kind of faith then it is the faith of Christ, after all it is He who is both author and finisher of same. wt: It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. jt: Without faith it is impossible to please the Father who calls an unbelieving heart evil... How can we be sure we are "In Him?" wt: So wonderful is it to know that we are saved by him! I fear that when the emphasis shifts from Christ to the Jesus-and-me of modern Christianity, then what becomes finally important is 'my faith,' 'my decision,' 'my conversion,' and not really Christ himself. jt: Is it totally out of the ballpark to take responsibility for oneself? bt: Please don't take any of this the wrong way. I know that I am bucking against the goads here. If I'm all wet, then shake me off or toss me towel. jt: Just contributing something different for consideration since you may be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to have faith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- "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 Passion of the Christ
Fair enough. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ Wm. Taylor wrote: Terry wrote, We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. First I will agree, then I will explain. Jesus said I am the alpha and the omega. That means that He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Every book in the Bible points to Jesus. It is Jesus, cover to cover, front to back, beginning to end. If there is no Jesus, there is no one to place your faith in, no reason to expect salvation. If there is no Jesus, there is no God, no Savior. Having said all that, Jesus Himself said.Your FAITH has saved you (Luke 7:50 ). I don't think I will argue with Him. If He says faith saves, then faith saves. Terry :-) -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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] Questions set the tone
Judy Taylor wrote: I like these scriptures - all of them and IMO speaking the truth to someone IS loving them even when they don't appreciate it. I someone on the radio quoting Martin Luther who once said "Whenever the devil is challenged he starts weeping and talking about love" judyt A'int no doubt about it. There is a time for just about everything; truth , love, reproof, correction. I just look at verbal stoning as a last resort. Terry
[TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Is that what you would call what goes on here Terry? I know Kevin's style (and mine at times) is kind of cut and dried but I have come to appreciate the time he puts into doing his homework and his zeal for God's Word. Going through all that Mormon stuff must be so boring; how does one deal with a situation like this ione in love? Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] A'int no doubt about it. There is a time for just about everything; truth , love, reproof, correction. I just look at verbal stoning as a last resort.Terry Judy Taylor wrote:Ilike these scriptures - all of them and IMO speaking the truth to someone IS loving them even when they don't appreciate it. I heard someone on the radio quoting Martin Luther who once said "Whenever the devil is challenged he starts weeping and talking about love" judyt
[TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote Just contributing something different for consideration since youmay be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to havefaith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? wt: I say It's fine to contribute, Judy, do that to your hearts content -- but I'll put words in my own mouth,thank you very much. jt: Goodness, we are touchy today - not the qualifier above. I was not putting anything in your mouth Sir. wt: No, I was not thinking of the "faith" movement here. If you'll look at what I did say, you'll see it is quite the opposite of that. Indeed, I said what I wanted to say, and that was that maybe there is a way of looking at salvation such that it lets JesusChristbe the object ofit all. jt: Of course he's the object of it all since there is no salvation outside of Him; what would make you think Terry was alluding to something else? wt:This is hardly faith in faith. Where did you come up with something like that? Did you even read what I said before starting in on me? I thought we had gotten beyond that stuff. jt: Just trying to be helpfuland yes I did read what you wrote. wt: Since you included Martin Luther in one of your other posts, I'll do the same here. Luther said that "faith" is like eyes. Eyes do not createwhat theysee; they seewhat is alreadycreated. jt: And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things that are not seen... wt: Faith does not create salvation; it sees thesalvation already created in Christ Jesus. jt: Can youdescribe this? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study - Original Message - From: "Judy Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry wrote, "We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith." I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. jt: If we have the right kind of faith then it is the faith of Christ, after all it is He who is both author and finisher of same. wt: It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. jt: Without faith it is impossible to please the Father who calls an unbelieving heart evil... How can we be sure we are "In Him?" wt: So wonderful is it to know that we are saved by him! I fear that when the emphasis shifts from Christ to the Jesus-and-me of modern Christianity, then what becomes finally important is 'my faith,' 'my decision,' 'my conversion,' and not really Christ himself. jt: Is it totally out of the ballpark to take responsibility for oneself? bt: Please don't take any of this the wrong way. I know that I am bucking against the goads here. If I'm all wet, then shake me off or toss me towel. jt: Just contributing something different for consideration since you may be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to have faith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- "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] Questions set the tone
Maybe if they are doing it at all, Peter and Paul are doing just what Terry suggested. Maybe they are"using verbal stoning as a last resort." Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Is that what you would call what goes on here Terry? I know Kevin's style (and mine at times) is kind of cut and dried but I have come to appreciate the time he puts into doing his homework and his zeal for God's Word. Going through all that Mormon stuff must be so boring; how does one deal with a situation like this ione in love? Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] A'int no doubt about it. There is a time for just about everything; truth , love, reproof, correction. I just look at verbal stoning as a last resort.Terry Judy Taylor wrote:Ilike these scriptures - all of them and IMO speaking the truth to someone IS loving them even when they don't appreciate it. I heard someone on the radio quoting Martin Luther who once said "Whenever the devil is challenged he starts weeping and talking about love" judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
No, I'll let Luther speak for himself, but when I see Luther I'll ask him for you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:01 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote Just contributing something different for consideration since youmay be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to havefaith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? wt: I say It's fine to contribute, Judy, do that to your hearts content -- but I'll put words in my own mouth,thank you very much. jt: Goodness, we are touchy today - not the qualifier above. I was not putting anything in your mouth Sir. wt: No, I was not thinking of the "faith" movement here. If you'll look at what I did say, you'll see it is quite the opposite of that. Indeed, I said what I wanted to say, and that was that maybe there is a way of looking at salvation such that it lets JesusChristbe the object ofit all. jt: Of course he's the object of it all since there is no salvation outside of Him; what would make you think Terry was alluding to something else? wt:This is hardly faith in faith. Where did you come up with something like that? Did you even read what I said before starting in on me? I thought we had gotten beyond that stuff. jt: Just trying to be helpfuland yes I did read what you wrote. wt: Since you included Martin Luther in one of your other posts, I'll do the same here. Luther said that "faith" is like eyes. Eyes do not createwhat theysee; they seewhat is alreadycreated. jt: And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things that are not seen... wt: Faith does not create salvation; it sees thesalvation already created in Christ Jesus. jt: Can youdescribe this? judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study - Original Message - From: "Judy Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry wrote, "We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith." I say, at the risk of alienating myself from the friends I have, I would like weigh in on this one. Maybe it is not our faith that saves us - but Christ in whom we have faith. jt: If we have the right kind of faith then it is the faith of Christ, after all it is He who is both author and finisher of same. wt: It was the object of our faith who lived, died, rose again, and ascended to sit next to his Father. We are in him now, as he mediates and sanctifies our poofahs. jt: Without faith it is impossible to please the Father who calls an unbelieving heart evil... How can we be sure we are "In Him?" wt: So wonderful is it to know that we are saved by him! I fear that when the emphasis shifts from Christ to the Jesus-and-me of modern Christianity, then what becomes finally important is 'my faith,' 'my decision,' 'my conversion,' and not really Christ himself. jt: Is it totally out of the ballpark to take responsibility for oneself? bt: Please don't take any of this the wrong way. I know that I am bucking against the goads here. If I'm all wet, then shake me off or toss me towel. jt: Just contributing something different for consideration since you may be reacting to the "faith" movement where ppl are taught to have faith in their faith Mr. Bill. I don't believe from what I've read from Terry that he is one of these. Terry? judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- "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] Please Hear Me Out Before Ousting Me
Well, Judy, I am sorry you could not see you were sinking. I threw you a rope, hoping to pull you ashore. What did you do? You used it to hang yourself. The good news is, there is resurrection. I'm thankful for the opportunity you have given me to help you, though. Maybe others will not be so brazen to miss Augustine. Til next time, Bill P.S. I will reply to one of your comments and then let it go. Judy wrote In ChristJews have no advantagebecause all must come by faith and we (Gentiles) are adopted, being wild we are graftedinto the tree with Jesusthe root. How do you reconcile being adopted with this doctrine of "natural generation"? I reply I don't remember calling it "natural generation." Are you putting words in my mouth again?Jews and Gentiles alike are included in Abraham by way of their inclusion in Christ (and this goes back to the go'el discussion), becausehe is the true Jew, the only Jew. All others are counted in him, and it is not just Isaac's descendents who are included (i.e. the jews) but gentiles as well. This inclusion is adoption. The adoption is in Christ to the Father. The Gospel makes us aware of our adoption, and faith is the means by which we participate in our adoption, and eternal life is the inheritance of our adoption, and onand on; but the adoption itself is in Christ. I think maybe part of the disconnect you are going through may have something to do with the way in which you are dichotomizing the idea of personhood. It's not like spirit and body are segregated, the spirit being completely separate and set away from the body, and the body from the spirit. The human body is an integrated whole. There is spirit, yes; and there is body. The two make a whole -- it's kind of like there is mind and body, distinct but interrelated. When Christ defeated the spiritual aspects of fallenness, he defeated the physical aspects, as well. He rose in the body, too, remember. Salvation saved the whole man and not just his spirit. The resurrection will include some sort of physicality -- restored, recreated, glorified, however one might sayit,but always physical, alwaysspiritual, always the whole man. Judy, if you haven't already read my first message like this one, please read this one instead. I have corrected some typos in this one. The content remains intact. jt: No problem Mr. Bill but I hope you don't mind if I respond mainly to your newer points for the sake of brevity. Judy, If you will bear with me through a short anecdote, I will try to spin it into something that explains my fears regarding the direction in which I see this discussion taking us. After Augustine the Church went in a decidedly different direction from where it had been heading prior to the Pelagian v. Augustinian controversy.big snip I can see the damage it did to the Church. Because after Augustine, to say anything that may have gotten the church back on track, was to say something that might just get you labeled a Pelagian. Hence the Church, and I mean all the Church, is now influenced wrongly by these two men. jt: How so? And why does that need be? I've not spent a lot of time studying the "Church Fathers" they are OK when I need some historical information but not for doctrine. We have the scriptures same as Israel did and this is where we should go fordoctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness. If men want to follow the errors of other men then everyone is going to wind up in the ditch. bt: Where Augustine ended on his positions about sin, humanity, the grace of God, predestination, and free will, cemented and thereby cursed the entire Church ever after him. jt: I don't know if I would paint with as wide a brush Mr. Bill; I don't see the RCC as "the entire Church" in fact during the 4th and 5th centuries and from then on they were into the dark ages which some today attempt to deny. bt:I do think we should be asking ourselves a question that Augustine may have missed: How can I be right and at the same time be wise about it? jt: For a start we can refuse to allow the RCC to elevate either of us todoctor of the Church and/or part of their magisterium.:) jt: I wrote and continue to believe that "It is impossible to understand spiritual concepts using natural reasoning - the apostle Paul taught that "we should use words that the Holy Ghost teaches comparingspiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13); so it may help to take a look and see if when God is speaking of natural or spiritual generation when he uses the word "seed" (because I keep hearing on TT that the reason Jesus had to have sinful flesh going all the way back to the first Adam is because he was the seed of the "woman" (Mary). bt: I think Mary assumed a fallen nature from Adam, this is sure, but the promise in the proto-evangel was given to Eve. She is the one who received the promise of the Seed who would crush the Serpent's head.
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Judy Taylor wrote: Is that what you would call what goes on here Terry? I know Kevin's style (and mine at times) is kind of cut and dried but I have come to appreciate the time he puts into doing his homework and his zeal for God's Word. = It's not a you and Kevin thing Judy. The Lord knows that I am no diplomat. I have been guilty of coming down a little hard on those aggrevatin' people who can't see how right I am and how wrong they are. We all do it to some extent. I think that probably Kevin is still learning and still growing ( If he is not there is something wrong) and I think he will learn to be more like Jesus and less like a pharisee as he matures spiritually. What excuse you and I can offer I do not know. I am seventy years old and have been a Christian for twenty-three years now. I should have arrived! All I can offer as an excuse is that the Lord made me plain spoken. If I think I see something wrong, I say so. I do not apologize for that. I just apologize for not doing it in a less offensive manner. You should have heard me when I first started my walk. I made Kevin look like a pussy cat. Stay tuned. One of these days I will be perfect. Hopefully, He will return soon. I am tired of waiting. In the meantime I am looking for a better way than verbal stoning. Been there, done that. Not good. Terry
[TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Hey David Miller, Did you get the book? Have you read it yet? You sure are quiet. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy Like I said before, there is a time for everything. This was a time for rebuke, yet Jesus was very kind and patient with the woman at the well and the other woman brought to Him to test HIm. Both adultresses, both guilty, but He did not jump on them or put on a holier than thou face. There is no argument that the Mormons are lost sinners, but I expect sinners to act like sinners, and Kevin seems to expect them to act like saints. You can scream at them all the verses you can think of, but if the Holy Spirit isn't leading the way, you are making enemies instead of converts. That is fitting for someone full of subtilty and mischief, but these guys are not full of mischief. Someone has filled them with bull, and they went for it. It is very tempting to sell them a bridge I own over San Francisco bay. Just kidding, I think we would all do better to pray for them. That's just my opinion. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh." (Ether 3:16) Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God John 1:18 No ma! n hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jesus DECLARED him Jn 1:18 (not "shown" as in a body) How did He declare him? 1) MESSAGE Jn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 2) WORKS Jn 5:19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Blaine: Jesus also said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine, the number of witnesses is impressive...but the book is a fraud, so why would anyone believe the witnesses, or even that there were witnesses. Show up in any court in the south and say "I'm a Mormon and the book of Mormon says there were 12 witnesses, so it is true", and you will quickly find out what the Southern Baptists believe. You can't use a false document to prove itself! Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:26:14 -0700 Blaine: The problem is, you didn't give it a fair trial. In any court in America (most courts, except maybe in Southern states where all those Baptists hang out--lol), the testimony of two witnesses is enough to prove innocence--or guilt. The BoM has three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters (Urim and thummim), and the compass used by Lehi and his group to guide them to the Promised Land, called the Liahona--plus eight more witnesses who saw the gold plates. counting Joseph Smith himself, that makes a total of 12 witnesses. No court--not even in Alabama--could deny this record. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine It is on trial and is FOUND WANTING! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, he ceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. Have you ever considered that the whole thing was a sad joke? Not a crystal ball? What was it there for then? Who taught JOe to read the ball or writing? Where did the writing come from? Did it just appear, out of nothing? I do not
[TruthTalk] Please Hear Me Out Before Ousting Me
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, Judy, I am sorry you could not see you were sinking. I threw you a rope, hoping to pull you ashore. What did you do? You used it to hang yourself. The good news is, there is resurrection. I'm thankful for the opportunity you have given me to help you, though. Maybe others will not be so brazen to miss Augustine. jt: Do you mean "dismiss" Augustine? Is he smarter than the Holy Spirit? wt: P.S. I will reply to one of your comments and then let it go. Judy wrote In ChristJews have no advantagebecause all must come by faith and we (Gentiles) are adopted, being wild we are graftedinto the tree with Jesusthe root. How do you reconcile being adopted with this doctrine of "natural generation"? wt: I reply I don't remember calling it "natural generation." Are you putting words in my mouth again? jt: Actually I should be more accurate and say 1/2 natural generation by way of "the woman" Isn't this what you've been telling me? That Jesus was a halfway leavened passover sacrifice? wt:Jews and Gentiles alike are included in Abraham by way of their inclusion in Christ (and this goes back to the go'el discussion), becausehe is the true Jew, the only Jew. All others are counted in him, and it is not just Isaac's descendents who are included (i.e. the jews) but gentiles as well. jt: Let's not get carried away here Bill. Only the ones who come his way are included. The others will be left saying "Lord, Lord." wt: This inclusion is adoption. The adoption is in Christ to the Father. The Gospel makes us aware of our adoption, and faith is the means by which we participate in our adoption, and eternal life is the inheritance of our adoption, and onand on; but the adoption itself is in Christ.I think maybe part of the disconnect you are going through may have something to do with the way in which you are dichotomizing the idea of personhood. jt: Excuse me? Disconnect? Actually I am not dichotomizing - if you had been paying attention you would understand that I am trichotomizing, same as scripture. You have your Pelagius and Augustine. I have the holy writ. wt: It's not like spirit and body are segregated, the spirit being completely separate and set away from the body, and the body from the spirit. The human body is an integrated whole. There is spirit, yes; and there is body. The two make a whole -- it's kind of like there is mind and body, distinct but interrelated jt: Actually there is spirit - and there is soul - and there is body - we are born withall three and we need allthreeto be sanctified (sorry, you are one short).. wt:When Christ defeated the spiritual aspects of fallenness, he defeated the physical aspects, as well. He rose in the body, too, remember. Salvation saved the whole man and not just his spirit. The resurrection will include some sort of physicality -- restored, recreated, glorified, however one might sayit,but always physical, alwaysspiritual, always the whole man. jt:He triumphed and now it is our turn to triumph in Him because when he returns he expects us to be conformed to his image... So now it is our turn to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine Borrowman wrote: Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL === C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. One day soon, the Father is going to turn to the Son, and say,"Go get 'em". When that happens, it will be too late to change, so I suggest that as soon as you get those DNA results back, you put all this Mormon stuff behind you and be born again. If you did, Kevin would have to embrace you as a brother. You could become a wealthy man just selling tickets to that event. Think about it. Terry What you
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Oh No they are taking over Fastest growing CULT in America!Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine, the number of witnesses is impressive...but the book is a fraud, so why would anyone believe the witnesses, or even that there were witnesses. Show up in any court in the south and say "I'm a Mormon and the book of Mormon says there were 12 witnesses, so it is true", and you will quickly find out what the Southern Baptists believe. You can't use a false document to prove itself! Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:26:14 -0700 Blaine: The problem is, you didn't give it a fair trial. In any court in America (most courts, except maybe in Southern states where all those Baptists hang out--lol), the testimony of two witnesses is enough to prove innocence--or guilt. The BoM has three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters (Urim and thummim), and the compass used by Lehi and his group to guide them to the Promised Land, called the Liahona--plus eight more witnesses who saw the gold plates. counting Joseph Smith himself, that makes a total of 12 witnesses. No court--not even in Alabama--could deny this record. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine It is on trial and is FOUND WANTING! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, he ceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. Have you ever considered that the whole thing was a sad joke? Not a crystal ball? What was it there for then? Who taught JOe to read the ball or writing? Where did the writing come from? Did it just appear, out of nothing? I
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
There you go a perfect picture of LDS Kindergarten TheologyBlaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh." (Ether 3:16) Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God John 1:18 No ma! n hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jesus DECLARED him Jn 1:18 (not "shown" as in a body) How did He declare him? 1) MESSAGE Jn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 2) WORKS Jn 5:19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Blaine: Jesus also said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."God says He is NOT A MAN Hos 11:9 I am God, and not man Neither is he a son of a man! Blaine: exactly--he was not a common man, or a son of a man, but the Son of God--an exceptional man!!! Num 23:19 God is not a
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine, The Mormon shuffle, again, Blaine. The "other flock" happens to be the gentiles. Do you have any supporting biblical evidence that states otherwise? You see, this is nothing more than one of the LDS prooftexts I often complain about. This type of prooftexting really slanders the Word and attempts to deceive those to whom it is spewed. Blaine: LOL!! What I hear you spewing is one more of the traditional doctrines inculcated in Protestants without biblical support, being the doctrines of men and not God. The Bible says that the gospel was not taken to the Gentiles until Peter received the revelation to do so.(Acts 10:28) Christ never preached to the Gentiles. They NEVER heard his voice, unless they happened to be around when he taught the House of Israel--ONLY! As he said when a Canaanite woman (a gentile) came begginghim to heal her daughter, who was vexed with devils: (Matt 15: 23-26) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,saying, "send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." He answered her, and said, "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Of course he had mercy on her and healed her daughter, but only because she showed such great faith in him. This is the ONLY exception to the rule he otherwise strictly adhered to throughout his ministry. Can you show evidence otherwise? You see, there were Jews and Gentiles, from the Jewish perspective. And, to whiom was Jesus speaking? Go back to Jn 9:40 to see that. The Pharisees. And who did they represent? The jews. And who was the "other flock"? That is, who besides the Jews was the gospel given to? The gentiles. Blaine: Eventually, the gospel was given to the Gentiles, but only after the Lord expired on the cross, andthe revelation was given to Peter to do so. The Gentiles never heard the Lord Preach--yet he says, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice . . . He was revealing his determination to seek out the lost tribes of Israel as they were then scattered throughout the world--in Ireland, in England, on the isles of the sea, and in the Americas!! The Hawaaians called him LONO, the Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana--the Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs called him Viracocha, etc, etc, I could show many references for this phenomenon. In all cases he was described as being a tall white man with a beard who was reverenced by those who met him. He promised to return in the future and bring world peace and prosperity. The Hopis had even been taught certain handshakes with which to identify him when he returned. (More about this later). Get on Google. Read about Captain Cook's experiences among the Pacific Islanders, read about the Spanish Conquistadors when they entered Mexico, read about Easter Island and the stone statues, read The Kon Tiki Expedition, by Thor Hyerdahl. Read The Hopi by (I will have to find this book around the house for the author), read, Tales of the Seven Seas (likewise, for the author). I am serious and sincere. You have been led astray long enough. I think it is time the truth got told about what has been going on in the world outside the dogmas of the Protestant tradition. Kevin, you can stop weeping now...I solved the "mystery". LOL Perry No, don't wipe the tears away yet, Kevin. I have just begun...to enlighten your darkened mind. LOL Blaine From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:12:01 -0700 Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus speaking) "And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. " (John 10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking about? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Were you reading Aesops again? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsome Italian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin. (:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will see that Jacob was pretty
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
I would welcome that event. But in the meantimeI will revel in all the conversions right outside the SLC Temple gates. See you in April Blaine.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine Borrowman wrote: Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL === C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. One day soon, the Father is going to turn to the Son, and say,"Go get 'em". When that happens, it will be too late to change, so I suggest that as soon as you get those DNA results back, you put all this Mormon stuff behind you and be born again. If you did, Kevin would have to embrace you as a brother. You could become a wealthy man just selling tickets to that event.Think about it.Terry What you Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
Did you finish Aesop's yet?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine, The Mormon shuffle, again, Blaine. The "other flock" happens to be the gentiles. Do you have any supporting biblical evidence that states otherwise? You see, this is nothing more than one of the LDS prooftexts I often complain about. This type of prooftexting really slanders the Word and attempts to deceive those to whom it is spewed. Blaine: LOL!! What I hear you spewing is one more of the traditional doctrines inculcated in Protestants without biblical support, being the doctrines of men and not God. The Bible says that the gospel was not taken to the Gentiles until Peter received the revelation to do so.(Acts 10:28) Christ never preached to the Gentiles. They NEVER heard his voice, unless they happened to be around when he taught the House of Israel--ONLY! As he said when a Canaanite woman (a gentile) came begginghim to heal her daughter, who was vexed with devils: (Matt 15: 23-26) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,saying, "send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." He answered her, and said, "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Of course he had mercy on her and healed her daughter, but only because she showed such great faith in him. This is the ONLY exception to the rule he otherwise strictly adhered to throughout his ministry. Can you show evidence otherwise? You see, there were Jews and Gentiles, from the Jewish perspective. And, to whiom was Jesus speaking? Go back to Jn 9:40 to see that. The Pharisees. And who did they represent? The jews. And who was the "other flock"? That is, who besides the Jews was the gospel given to? The gentiles. Blaine: Eventually, the gospel was given to the Gentiles, but only after the Lord expired on the cross, andthe revelation was given to Peter to do so. The Gentiles never heard the Lord Preach--yet he says, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice . . . He was revealing his determination to seek out the lost tribes of Israel as they were then scattered throughout the world--in Ireland, in England, on the isles of the sea, and in the Americas!! The Hawaaians called him LONO, the Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana--the Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs called him Viracocha, etc, etc, I could show many references for this phenomenon. In all cases he was described as being a tall white man with a beard who was reverenced by those who met him. He promised to return in the future and bring world peace and prosperity. The Hopis had even been taught certain handshakes with which to identify him when he returned. (More about this later). Get on Google. Read about Captain Cook's experiences among the Pacific Islanders, read about the Spanish Conquistadors when they entered Mexico, read about Easter Island and the stone statues, read The Kon Tiki Expedition, by Thor Hyerdahl. Read The Hopi by (I will have to find this book around the house for the author), read, Tales of the Seven Seas (likewise, for the author). I am serious and sincere. You have been led astray long enough. I think it is time the truth got told about what has been going on in the world outside the dogmas of the Protestant tradition. Kevin, you can stop weeping now...I solved the "mystery". LOL Perry No, don't wipe the tears away yet, Kevin. I have just begun...to enlighten your darkened mind. LOL Blaine From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:12:01 -0700 Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus speaking) "And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. " (John 10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking about? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages MormonsWere you reading Aesops again? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsome Italian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin. (:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will see that Jacob was pretty much
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 12:21 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus speaking) "And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking about? Blaine I read it and rejoice Blaine because here he is referring to theGentiles (and that's me). He was first (?) sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel judyt Blaine: Where does it say that? He was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel--he said so himself--read it in Matt 15-24--"I am sent but to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The gospel did not go to the Gentiles until after Jesus expired on the cross--note he said "I must bring," and "they shall hear my voice." Neither happened during his ministry at any time--please show chapter and verse where it says otherwise. Please also note that he said "the LOST sheep of the House of Israel"-- referring to the ten tribes who had been led out of the land 700 years earlier by the Assyrians, and many Jews who had been taken to Babylon during the Babylonian captivity about 600 years earlier. The Jews who were in Jerusalem in his time were only a fraction of those who neverreturned at all. They remained in foreign lands.Also there were other dispersions, such as the onediscussed at length in the Book of Mormon. The BoM tells all about his visit, as would be expected if he is the God of all Israel, not just the God of the Jews in Jerusalem. His new covenant had to be given to ALL of the House of Israel. They were all included in the promises to receive hisdeliverance from the Law of Moses.There are evidences all over the place if you will open up your heart and mind to see them. But if you prefer to stick to the safe but unsound dogmas of the Protestant tradition, I can't help you. Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Were you reading Aesops again?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsomeItalian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin.(:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will see that Jacob was pretty much hairless, while his twin brother Esau was very hairy. Ring a bell? Not all Jews are hairy, huh? IN fact, I happen to know a Jew, Victor was his first name, who had no beard at all--at least not when we were 18 yrs old and in Basic training in the USAF. He had dark hair, and a very clear, peachy complexion. The BoM describes Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being white and fair above all women--probably a beautiful blonde, or a very fair redhead. Many Jews are not only white, but have blonde hair and even freckles. You have to remember that th! e BoM people who came from Jerusalem in 600 BC were a small select group. They may not have been typical dark, hairy fellows like many Jews we see in New York, or crying at the wailing wall. Barbara Streasand is a very fair Jew, as are others I have seen--Danny Kay for another. Jesus was supposedly described as having blue eyes and reddish blonde hair. But, as to the American Indian, it is plainly evident he has much oriental blood in him. That seems undeniable. Yet, in many other ways, he seems to have something else--he seems to have a heritage based upon a totally different religious outlook.When the White man first arrived in the Americas, most Indian Tribes seemed totally unfamiliar with the concept of property and land ownership--this is in keeping with the BoM record that they lived the United Order--had all things in common--for at least three generations after being visited by Jesus Christ. Which reminds me,how do you account for the many legends among the Indian tribes of both North and South America of being visited by a White God? The Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana. The Aztecs called him Viracocha, and the and Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl. This is also true of the Hawaiians, who
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Kevin Deegan wrote: Oh No they are taking over Fastest growing CULT in America! DAVEH: ??? You've lost me on this Kevin.What are you trying to say? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
Blaine: Is this your best shot Kevin--a put down? If you can't handle the truth, at least be a gentleman and admit it. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? There you go a perfect picture of LDS Kindergarten TheologyBlaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the ! temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto my
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Terry Clifton wrote: C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Dave wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Terry Clifton wrote: Look at how the apostle Paul dealt with a similar situation in Acts 13:10 he said "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord" Then there was Peter with the newly baptized Simon in Acts 8:22 Peter told him to "Repent of thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" Do you believe that both Peter and Paul were walking in the spirit and in the bond of peace and love here, or were they verbally stoning these people? Judy Like I said before, there is a time for everything. This was a time for rebuke, yet Jesus was very kind and patient with the woman at the well and the other woman brought to Him to test HIm. Both adultresses, both guilty, but He did not jump on them or put on a holier than thou face. There is no argument that the Mormons are lost sinners, DAVEH: Sinners.yes. Lost?.Can one be lost if he endures to the end? but I expect sinners to act like sinners, and Kevin seems to expect them to act like saints. You can scream at them all the verses you can think of, but if the Holy Spirit isn't leading the way, you are making enemies instead of converts. DAVEH: Have you considered the HS may not find what you are offering the direction the HS wants to lead. That is fitting for someone full of subtilty and mischief, but these guys are not full of mischief. Someone has filled them with bull, and they went for it. It is very tempting to sell them a bridge I own over San Francisco bay. Just kidding, I think we would all do better to pray for them. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your prayerful concerns Terry. That's just my opinion. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Terry Clifton wrote: Dave wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: Your comment interests me, Terry. Where does it say that? Second Thessalonians, 2:3 New KJV DAVEH: Thanx Terry.Let me quote it... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. .Now let me quote your comment, Terry.. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. .My question is to find out why you believe that falling away will happen in the last days? Could the falling away have started much earlier.perhaps in the RCC times prior to the Reformation? Or, could it have began with the persecution of the Primitive Christians? What makes you think the falling away is relegated to the last days as opposed to a much earlier time? Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Terry Clifton wrote: DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? = Dave, most of the believers I know feel that the Bible was given by God to different men at different times, and that they recorded the message that they received from Him. These messages did not have headers and they did not have numbered verses. Those were added by men at a later date. Why did God allow that? For the same reasons that He allows abortion and other forms of murder. For the same reasons that He allows men to curse His name. For the same reasons that He allows people to worship Allah, or Buddha. What are those reasons? I do not know. His ways are higher than my ways. Could men have also perverted the scriptures? If God allowed it, they could. Did He allow it? No one is qualified to say. DAVEH: Seems to me that the Bible itself foretells that likelihood. In several places, specific warnings are given to those who would add, subtract or pervert specific parts of the Bible. If God were to prevent it from happening, those warnings would have little importance. Read Rev 22:18-19 and ask yourself if it sounds like the Lord meant to protect the Bible from people he is warning in those verses. All that you or I can do is make assumptions. If we assume that some portion of God's Holy word is incorrect, then we must pick and choose what we want to believe. DAVEH: So what's new? Isn't that what most Christians do anyway? That would explain the diversity of doctrines and beliefs. IOW, don't Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant pick and choose the doctrines they believe and observe? Seems like we've seen some of that right here on TT, have we not? As I see it, assuming the Bible is absolutely inerrant may cause one to rationalize (some TTers have used the term harmonize) and possibly blindly accept something that may be misleading. Isn't that what some may do IF they accept the headings as being inerrant? I wish Dean were still with usI wonder if he considers the headings to be inerrant? He seemed to be so strong willed, I would not be surprised if he did. I believe that to be an unacceptable course for myself, because I do not have the wisdom to do that. I doubt that anyone does. In my opinion, the safe way is to believe the whole Word is true, and to live by it. God looks at the heart. If you live for Him with all your heart, He will not send you to an eternity in Hell because you did your best to follow Him, using the information you had available. We are not saved by being inerrant. We are saved by faith. I don't think that you believe in a literal Hell, DAVEH: That is incorrect, Terry. I do believe in a literal hell. I just don't believe the description of the lake of fire and brimstone believed by many Christians is a literal description of hell, but rather symbolic of the effect hell will have on those who experience it. but I hope the rest of this makes sense to you. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: With one purpose, they (including the HS) form the Godhead..which purpose is encompassed in the plan of salvation. At least that's how I see it, DavidM. The problem with simplifying the discussion to saying that they were one in purpose only DAVEH: Who used the term ONLY??? is that it does not explain why someone like Moses would not also be God. Under this viewpoint, you would surely view Joseph Smith as God too. DAVEH: Let me ask you, DavidM.what do you perceive oneness to mean as it is used in Jn 17:21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. ...Do you believe that the oneness referred to by Jesus is not referring to or has anything to do with purpose? To carry this a bit further, do you think our Heavenly Father's purpose is different than that of his Son, Jesus? Andshould our purpose be any different than theirs? From my perspective, what you do with the Godhead is exactly what the Homosexuals are doing to marriage. You are un-defining it by saying that it only has to do with purpose. DAVEH: Please go back and read my posts, DavidM. Did I at any time suggest it ONLY has to do with purpose. Sowhy would you say I am un-defining it??? A homosexual looks at marriage as simply defining a lifelong union of two people that confers certain legal advantages. A Christian looks at marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman who become one flesh. The Christian view of marriage goes far beyond the homosexual view, especially because we believe it typifies and explains the Godhead. DAVEH: OK.I understand that. Now I am trying to find out what oneness (of God, Jesus and us) means to you IF you think it means something other than purpose. So.do you disagree with me, DavidM.Does the oneness that describes God, Jesus and us have nothing to do with purpose??? Here's the deal, DavidM.The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of God. I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible. At first, Perry objected to my use of purpose to define oneness, and then he came back with an answer that included purpose. I read Jn 17 and to me defining oneness as used there as purpose sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Passion of the Christ
Judy Taylor wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Deegan wrote: No dave you are an unbeliever in God's word You are not of God. You will not enter in because of UNBELIEF. DAVEH: Until I heard Steve Brown's broadcast, I believed Paul wrote Hebrews. Now some TTers are in agreement with SB and are suggesting the headers may be errant. jt: Headers, chapter and verse divisions and all that are not and never were sacred text Daveh, so what's the problem? DAVEH: The problem is some people may think it is part of the inerrant text. I did. I wonder if many of the KJVOnly folks do too? And, from what DavidM said.. There are some 1611 King James folks who think that is inerrant. I think Kevin is in this camp. ...Perhaps Kevin believes such as well. I'd sure appreciate Kevin commenting on this. Which way do you believe, Kevin..Do you believe the headings are inerrant??? Daveh: I'm trying to figure out why so many TTers have been so opposed to me suggesting there may have been errors introduced into the Bible, when they agree that the headers were introduced in such a way. jt: Possibly because you eat up every word in the BofM DAVEH: I'm not sure why you would say that, Judy. Do you recall me quoting any BoM words here? (I have.but only to specifically respond to questions regarding what the BoM says about a specific topic.) and are totally uncritical of anything in it or anything having to do with the person of Joseph Smith DAVEH: While you may have your suspicions, you really do not know whether I am uncritical or not of JS. For you to make that unsubstantiated claim does not make logical sense. Though I am not here to defend or promote JS, it would not be prudent of me to criticize anything I might think about him to in this Forum. What I may do or not do outside of this Forum is something you simply are not privy to, Judy. AndJust because other TTers want to criticize JS or anybody else is not reason for me to jump onto their bandwagon even IF I were to have critical thoughts to offer. who is very controversial and who never went to a sinner's cross for you. DAVEH: What's that all about??? I've never considered JS a substitute for Jesus and his sacrifice of grace. This comment simply puzzles me, Judy. Daveh: If the headers may be errant, then it logically follows that at some point God stopped preventing errant material from being included in the Bible, Kevin. Where do you think that point of time is drawn? jt: The Bible isn't a kindergarten book Daveh and it's a closed book to some and open to others according to their heart attitude toward the author. DAVEH: As I see it, you've got the two perspective switched around, Judy. IMHO, it is those who think the Bible is inerrant and the heavens are sealed from further revelatory Scripture that have closed their ears to the Word of God. When ppl with no heart for truth begin trying to subject God's Word to their carnal reasoning, then God Himselfsends STRONG DELUSIONthat they might believe the lie. DAVEH: Care to explain that for those of us with a kindergarten mentality, Judy? Are you suggesting God is deluding me into believing a lie? judyt God allows the devil to raise up heretics to make his people study -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
