date:20050128









 

 

-Original Message-



BLAINE: 
Even when we are "sure" of something, it may turn out to be
wrong.  Rashly judging something such as the Shroud of Turin to be a fake,
or the Book of Mormon, another example, puts one out on a limb from which it is
sometimes difficult to extract oneself.  Called eating crow!

 

 

The Shroud of Turin could feasibly be
the real thing—unlikely, but within the realm of possiblity.  The
BoM is about as real as the Starship Enterprise.
In fact, maybe that’s where it originated. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching









=
If either Judy or Slade stays gone I will miss them.  I learned from them
both.  Hopefully, they will reconsider.
Terry

Same
here.  Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Stirring up the fallow ground-used to be What is a Ch ristian?

2005-01-28 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]



BLAINE:  I would not ask for religious help, neither have I asked for such help 
from sources outside my own beloved stake and ward leaders.  Well, sometimes I 
ask my wife.  (:>)  Sorry you felt I was whining. Bytheway, I thought we on TT 
were trying to avoid pesonal attacks???


 
  
H.
You do not want help you want to whine

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



KEVIN wrote:
Do you think he would be thinking of spiritual things weeks later?
Do you think he would have complained it to a stranger?
Many Christians would tell the man "yeah stupid SP"
Instead take the opportunity to share the word.
Sometimes we have to dig up that fallow ground before someone can plant seed.

BLAINE: Tha's an interesting thought, Kevin. But do I know any Mormons who 
have, after seeing their sacred undies waved in the air, chased a street 
preacher down to get further feedback and wisdom recently? Hmmm. can't bring 
anything up right off hand...maybe you could help me. My reaction to street 
preachers ranges from benign amusement to a feeling of righteous indignation. I 
think that is maybe...typical?  



--
"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] Shroud of Turin older than thought

2005-01-28 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]


BLAINE:  Even when we are "sure" of something, it may turn out to be wrong.  
Rashly judging something such as the Shroud of Turin to be a fake, or the Book 
of Mormon, another example, puts one out on a limb from which it is sometimes 
difficult to extract oneself.  Called eating crow!

Turin Shroud Older Than Thought


The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long-believed to have been wrapped 
around Jesus' body after the crucifixion, is much older than radiocarbon 
tests suggest, according to new microchemical research.

Published in the 20 January issue of Thermochimica Acta, a peer-reviewed 
chemistry journal, the study dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 
dating.

At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, 
Arizona, concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline of the body 
of a man is indelibly impressed was a medieval fake dating from 1260 to 
1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the shroud in 

1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed, the patch was very 
carefully made. The yarn has the same twist as the main part of the cloth, 
and it was stained to match the colour," says Raymond Rogers, a retired 
chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP 
(Shroud of Turin Research Project) team of US scientists that examined the 
Shroud in 1978.

The presence of a patch on the shroud doesn't come as a surprise. The linen 
cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in 
France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532.

Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who patched burn holes and 
stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth now known as the Holland cloth.

The latest research

In his study, Rogers analysed and compared the radiocarbon sample with other 
samples from the controversial cloth.

"As part of the STURP research project, I took 32 adhesive-tape samples 
from 
all areas of the shroud in 1978, including some patches and the Holland 
cloth. I also obtained the authentic samples used in the radiocarbon 
dating," Rogers says.

It emerged that the radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical 
properties than the main part of the shroud, Rogers says.

"The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most likely to match the colour of 
the older, sepia-coloured cloth. The sample was dyed using a technology that 
began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to 
the Mameluke Turks in 1291.

"The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the 

age determined by carbon-14 dating in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is 
actually much older," says Rogers.

Microchemistry reveals a different date

Evidence came from microchemical tests, tests that use small quantities of 
materials, often less than a milligram or a millilitre.

These revealed the presence of vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the 
Holland cloth, but not in the rest of the shroud.

Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical 
compound of plant material including flax, and levels decrease and disappear 
with time. It is easily detected on medieval linens, but cannot be found in 
the very old ones, such as the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls.

"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud 

is between 1300 and 3000 years old," Rogers writes.

According to Tom D'Muhala, the president of the American Shroud of Turin 
Association for Research, the new chemical tests produced "conclusive 
evidence".

"They indicate that the linen shroud is actually very old, much older than 

the published 1988 radiocarbon date," D'Muhala says.

Shrouded in mystery

Scientific interest in the linen cloth began in 1898, when it was 
photographed by lawyer Secondo Pia. The negatives revealed the image of a 
bearded man with pierced wrists and feet and a bloodstained head.

In 1988, the Vatican approved carbon-dating tests. Three reputable 
laboratories concluded that the shroud was medieval, dating from 1260 to 
1390, and not a burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

But since then a growing sense that the radiocarbon dating might have had 
substantial flaws emerged among shroud scholars.

The history of the cloth has been steeped in mystery. It has survived 
several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, 
including a mysterious fire at Turin Cathedral in 1997.

Kept rolled up in a silver casket, it has been on display only five times in 
the past century. When it last went on display in 2000, more than three 
million people saw it. The next display will be in 2025.


Source: ABC.net.au
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1289491.htm

--
"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

I

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

2005-01-28 Thread ttxpress

ï


 
..orthodoxy is central to not 
only to sound teachg and preachg, but to the peculiarity of the KoG and its 
circle of Friends--unfortunately, that jt's (now your) notion of the WoG is 
'orthodox' is suspect--restrictive..cultic..in some sense orthodoxy is 
accommodation; it must reasonably accomodate whatever biblical revelation, 
scripture, and preaching allows within the Church..e.g., acc to the biblical 
Apostles, the WoG restricts the Church only by whom it accomodates..e.g., 
'God so loved the world..' 'whosoever will may come'..
 
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:56:37 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  myth (revisionist; jt could not 
  teach 'the WoG' to anyone today apart from specific 20th c. 
  representations she disparaged..this comment cloaks your own 
  view of the WoG that it equates to the 16th-19th c. biblical lit 
  and interpetation, in which, mainly current cult and 
  political factions remain steepd)
   
  On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:54:01 -0500 
  "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>Judy..stood up for the Word 
  of God...attempted to help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of 
  God.

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

2005-01-28 Thread ttxpress

ï


T:
> I learned from them both.
 
me 
too
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:23:09 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

myth (revisionist; jt could 
not teach 'the WoG' to anyone today apart from specific 20th c. 
representations she isparaged..this comment cloaks your own 
view of the WoG that it equates to the 16th-19th c. biblical lit 
and interpetation, in which, mainly current cult 
and political factions remain steepd)
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:54:01 -0500 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>Judy..stood up for the Word 
of God...attempted to help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of 
God.=If 
  either Judy or Slade stays gone I will miss them.  I learned from them 
  both.  Hopefully, they will reconsider.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  myth (revisionist;
jt could not teach 'the WoG' to anyone today apart fromÂspecific 20th
c. representations she isparaged..thisÂcommentÂcloaksÂyour own view of
the WoG that it equates toÂthe 16th-19th c.Âbiblical lit
andÂinterpetation,Âin which,ÂmainlyÂcurrentÂcult and political
factionsÂremain steepd)
  Â
  On Fri, 28 Jan 2005
12:54:01 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Judy..stood up for the Word of God...attempted to help others
reconcile their teachings with the Word of God.

=
If either Judy or Slade stays gone I will miss them.Â I learned from
them both.Â Hopefully, they will reconsider.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

2005-01-28 Thread ttxpress

ï



myth (revisionist; jt could not 
teach 'the WoG' to anyone today apart from specific 20th c. representations 
she isparaged..this comment cloaks your own view of the WoG that 
it equates to the 16th-19th c. biblical lit 
and interpetation, in which, mainly current cult and 
political factions remain steepd)
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:54:01 -0500 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>Judy..stood up for the Word of 
God...attempted to help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of 
God.

Re: [TruthTalk] The Fall of Man

David wrote    
>    Question.  It seems to me that the incarnational 
theology you have blessed us with requires the idea of the fall.  The 
idea of a Savior who encompasses all of humanity to save it seems to 
require the idea of a man who caused the fall of humanity.  Otherwise, 
if we deal only with individual sins, then the Savior only applies on an 
individual basis.  The understanding of the incarnation which I know 
you have would fall apart, would it not?

I doubt it. You see, David, I am not a 
foundationalist. Moreover, I am very confident in my teachers, even when I am 
incompetent to explain to others their positions. And so, I doubt that anything 
is in danger of falling apart. But if something I believe today turns out to be 
inadequate, no problem, I will adjust accordingly and tomorrow believe just as 
strongly something else. Why? because the failure on my part will be one of 
ignorance and not hubris. 

As far as falling apart goes, I think you will find 
that very few of us are, in fact, foundationalists; most of them have died off 
-- couldn't take falling apart, I guess :>) 

But were I a foundationalist, I would not 
expect my understanding of the incarnation to fall apart on this 
one. The go'el is a major theme which runs throughout the entire Old 
Testament. For go'el to be meaningfully significant in the minds of the Hebrews 
we would expect to find that they had been reared under the rubric of 
Representational Kinship. That is in fact exactly what we do discover in the OT 
narrative leading up to the birth of Christ: Adam, the representative of 
humanity; Noah, the representative of the righteous; Abraham, the representative 
of the covenant community; David, the representative of Israel against Goliath, 
the representative of the Philistines; and on and on and on.

Now, with that said, I do not think the fall was a 
prerequisite to the advent of Emmanuel. It was to adoption that humanity was 
predestined IN CHRIST. I have yet to see any reason why our adoption 
necessitates Adam's fall. Christ was coming anyway. Adam, and in him humanity, 
did not have to fall in order that we be adopted in Christ. What 
the fall did was necessitate Christ's death, in order that the 
unnecessitated adoption might still take place in him.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places 
in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having 
predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the 
good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by 
which He has made us accepted in the Beloved" (Eph 1.3-6).

Anyway, I hope this is helpful,

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Fall of 
Man
> Bill wrote:> > I for one am somewhat apathetic 
about> > John's position. ... As far as John goes,> > if he 
wants to question the orthodoxy> > of the fall, I say let him do 
so.> > Thanks for the explanation, Bill.  I really do 
appreciate it.> > Question.  It seems to me that the 
incarnational theology you have blessed > us with requires the idea of 
the fall.  The idea of a Savior who encompasses > all of humanity to 
save it seems to require the idea of a man who caused the > fall of 
humanity.  Otherwise, if we deal only with individual sins, then the 
> Savior only applies on an individual basis.  The understanding of 
the > incarnation which I know you have would fall apart, would it 
not?> > Romans 5:15> (15) ... if through the offence of one 
many be dead, much more the grace of > God, and the gift by grace, which 
is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded > unto many.> > 
Peace be with you.> David Miller. > > > 
--> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you 
will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.>

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2

BLAINE SAYS I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean "sticks" is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood.
The Hebrew word ates is used 300 times. It is translated "stick" fourteen times, sometimes it is translated "planks," 100 times it means "wood" or "timber" and it is translated "tree" 163 times. But never is ates translated as "scroll."
Ezek knew the difference between wood and a scroll a roll of the book, (megillah a roll)see EZ 2:9
Is 34:4 uses the Hebrew word pronounced 'sepher' for "Scroll"
The Hebrew words for scroll, roll, book, or writing, include Sepher, Dabar, Sephar, and Siphrah, megillah NOT ates
WHY Ezek can not be reffering to BOM
Told to write on wood not metal plates
Told what to write "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." nothing more nothing less
Ezek was told to write; not Nephi!
BoM proves that Lehi was of Manasseh NOT Ephraim Ezek. 37:16
"And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren" Alma 10:2-3.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean "sticks" is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. In this case, it seems clear it is referring to written materials on a stick, or scroll. This is pretty much conceded by most Christian and Jewish writers, I understand, altho they are not sure why it was even written or given such prominance as a prophecy. It does seem to be fulfilled in the coming together of the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of the prominant tribe of Israel known as Ephraim, and the Bible, written mostly by those with tribal connections to the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. I will look up the word, if you like--can't recall what it was at the moment.BlaineRB -- "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:I've heard teachings stating the two
sticks represent the House of Judah andthe House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all amatter of perspective...Kay-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, butfails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses fromthe Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts becauseout of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for whichyou are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do notsupport the doctrinal position that you claim they support."[EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem nebulousas to what they mean--but please
consider the possibility that the meaningascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or atleast one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical passagesthat most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The passagesconcerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If these donot refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of Mormon andthe Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never read of anyexplanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormoninterpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner,so please, tell me/us, OK?BlaineRB-- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Perry wrote:>>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture>>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in
Mormonism>>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants>>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them into>>Bible.>>DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally come>to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible>interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like Kay)>ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures,>but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why you>have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes>with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it>prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my explanations...but>is that a problem for you?My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses fromthe Bible that you quote in support of
LDS doctrine to be prooftexts becauseout of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for whichyou are seeking Biblical support, but within their conte

Re: [TruthTalk] The Fall of Man

Bill wrote:
> I for one am somewhat apathetic about
> John's position. ... As far as John goes,
> if he wants to question the orthodoxy
> of the fall, I say let him do so.

Thanks for the explanation, Bill.  I really do appreciate it.

Question.  It seems to me that the incarnational theology you have blessed 
us with requires the idea of the fall.  The idea of a Savior who encompasses 
all of humanity to save it seems to require the idea of a man who caused the 
fall of humanity.  Otherwise, if we deal only with individual sins, then the 
Savior only applies on an individual basis.  The understanding of the 
incarnation which I know you have would fall apart, would it not?

Romans 5:15
(15) ... if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of 
God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded 
unto many.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement

WRONG Guy Blaine
Read the Bible!
http://www.biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm
"... from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias"... . What could Jesus be referring to? Well, Abel was murdered in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. And Zacharias? What book is his murder related in? Well let's look at our third text, a parallel passage, first:

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Note that Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of taking away the key of knowledge. What key is that? And what is God requiring of that generation? The answer is in the phrase "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ...". Well, again, Abel was slain in the first book of the Bible (Gen 4:8). Now those Protestants who anticipate the answer might begin looking for the murder of Zacharias in the book of Malachi. Why? Because Jesus is again referring to the full breadth of the scriptures (the key of knowledge, the oracles of God), from the first book of the Old Testament, to the last book of the Old Testament. A Protestant therefore, might well open their Bible to search in the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, for the martyrdom of Zacharias. However, Malachi is not the last book of the Hebrew TaNaKh! What? That is correct. The Hebrew Bible, though identical in content to the Protestant Old Testament, is not
in the same order as Protestant or Catholic Bibles. In the Hebrew Bible the last book is the book of Chronicles. That is where we find the murder of Zechariah between the altar and the temple:

2 Chr 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada* the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.2 Chr 24:21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.2 Chr 24:22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.

It is worth noting that while Abel was the first martyr, Zechariah is not the last in the Old Testament, chronologically speaking. That was the prophet Urijah, killed by king Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 26:20-23, more than a century after the martyrdom of Zechariah:

King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple's court (2 Chr 24:20-22), was the 13th king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782 B.C.
King Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah with a sword (Jer 26:20-23), was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.
Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said - from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then according to this, Kay, John's (the Baptist) father, righteous Zacharias, was a false prophet--so were many others.Matthew 23:34-35: "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets,and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.""That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of Righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the alter."BlaineRBI think Scripture says the false prophet is to be killedKay --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Different Jesus

BLAINE SAYS I don't get it, Kevin, why did you take the time to write all the below, which is exactly how we believe?
You are either under the prophet or not
They either speak Authoratively or not
That is the point.
They speak for Mormonism, you speak for you
They speak as god, you speak your opinion
You can baptise me all you want, it won't take.
I have been baptised by the Holy Ghost.
Your baptism with your white suits will just get me wet!"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't get it, Kevin, why did you take the time to write all the below, which is exactly how we believe? I mean, you usually write contrary-to-Mormon-doctrine stuff! The below is correct in all aspects, and is actually how it is! You are getting wierd! I no longer have faith in you taking the anti-Mormon view--if you are going to continue to write supportive-to-Mormon-doctrine stuff, why not just throw in the towel completely and let Dave H. or I baptise you? (:BlaineRBThis settles it since the "Prophet" speaks as the "word of God" This then is definitive."Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world's perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine." (Hinckley Ensign, November 2001, p.5) "We acknowledge without hesitation that there are differences between us [and other faiths].
Were this not so there would have been no need for a restoration of the gospel" (Hickley Ensign, May 1998, p.4). "As a church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say." Hinckley G C 2002 April "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 ) Bernard P. Brockbank First Quorum of the Seventy "It is true that
many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example from the Church of England's Articles of Religion, article one, I quote: 'There is but one living God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.' We cannot obtain salvation and eternal life by worshipping fake Christs. The belief that God has no body parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain" ("The Living Christ," Ensign, May, 1977, pp. 267). --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Sources of Truth

David wrote to John   >We have a difference of opinion here.  I consider
this teaching to be a doctrine of demons.  I do not say this to evoke an
emotional outburst from you or anyone else.  I speak this soberly and
prophetically.

I have a question for you, David. If you are speaking this prophetically,
what difference ought it make to John (and the rest of us, for that matter)
what you consider it to be? It seems to me that the only pertinent
consideration ought to be that of God himself. On the other hand, if it was
not directly from his lips that you spoke, then, again, it seems to me that
you may have been better off to have cut it short with your opening
statement: "We have a difference of opinion here."

May I also say that I say this not to evoke an emotional outburst from you
or anyone else -- this is, after all, my first experience with receiving
prophecy -- but I would have expected a "Thus saith the Lord" or something
similar, you know, something less opened to confusion? Anyway, FWIW --

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sources of Truth

> John wrote:
> > Your views and mine, if true, come to us
> > FROM OTHERS.  There is no escaping
> > this reality.
>
> We have a difference of opinion here.  I consider this teaching to be a
> doctrine of demons.  I do not say this to evoke an emotional outburst from
> you or anyone else.  I speak this soberly and prophetically.
>
> The idea that truth comes to us only through others assumes that physical
> reality is the only reality.  It is a spin off of the sciences which does
> not believe in revelation.  The Scriptures testify to what many of us have
> experienced, a revelation of truth that comes apart from others.  Jesus
> Christ is truth, and he has given some of us a Spirit of Truth which
teaches
> us and reveals Christ to us, apart from the input of others.  This is not
> done in a way that is exclusive of the input of truth from others, but it
> can and does happen independently from the input of others.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>

--
"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] Sinning Christians

C'mon Johnathan, how about some of that grace that you are filled with, instead of all this Vinegar.
Abuse? Let's talk about others who are not on TT.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,Jonathan here sitting at Lance's desk. I noted that you changed the titleto Sinning Christians. The implication is that Slade sinned by leaving theforum without notifying its owner. While it may have been hasty and perhapsnudged against rudeness it certainly was no sin especially considering howsome here have treated him, especially yourself. For the record we have noactual proof that Slade has left the forum other than that he has not postedlately. Do we have proof that he has unsubscribed?Secondly, why turn this topic into another 'I am David Miller hear medeclare to everyone how RIGHT I am' thread? I am continually amazed at thegrace John Smithson gives you each day as you bully away. Your forum is inshambles; you completely mishandled the abuse of this forum by Judy. AsLance says you are completely deficient in
discernment. Other than someterrific posts by Debbie there has not been a constructive or beneficialpost on this forum in over 3 weeks (actually G's post on Barth was prettygood too). All this 'we are so much better than the Mormon's even thoughChrist has no impact on our own lives' threads are useless and just entrenchpeople in their beliefs. It is your responsibility as a moderator to takeconversations and move them forwards in a beneficial manner. Your postsagainst the members on this forum display argumentation, not dialogue. Ibeg you: either take this responsibility seriously or drop the forumaltogether.Izzy, allow David to take responsibility for this forum and do not reply tothis post.Jonathan- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: January 28, 2005 13:55Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinning Christians> Lance
wrote:> > This departure, along with it's circumstances> > was visible a mile away.>> While this is true, this does not mean that one leaves in such an> irresponsible way. I am usually surprised when Christians sin. I guessyou> expect it. Do you think God expects us to sin? If you are inclined tosay> yes, then I guess that would mean that God is not disappointed when a> Christian sins, because he expected it.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller.>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.>--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism




David wrote to John  
>  From my perspective, it seems inconsistent for some of you to 
get so emotional over the eternal sonship doctrine, something that is popular 
(pop?) theology, but not necessarily an orthodox necessity from my 
perspective, while at the same time appear apathetic about the idea that maybe 
there was no fall of man in the garden.  For the sake of relationship, 
I'm seeking to reconcile my understanding about this. 
 
I for one am somewhat apathetic about John's position. I am (1) aware of 
the historic sequence under which the doctrine of the fall took place. 
Moreover, I also (2) know that Christ is infinitely greater than Adam and 
that whatever the effect of the fall, it is dwarfed by the New man, the 
Christ event -- his life, death, resurrection, ascension and continued 
priestly mediation on our behalf and in our place, the one and the many, the one 
for the many, the many in the one. And so I don't get nearly as worked up over 
threats against the person and work of Adam as I do against that of the person 
of Christ, the Lord of the universe. 
 
In a case like this one, what I am is curious, but not offended. I will say 
this: I expect the same thing from John as I do you or anyone who challenges 
orthodoxy, myself included, and that is to present his case and do it in a way 
that is persuasive. The burden of proof is on him, just as it was on you 
when you denied the eternal Sonship of Christ. I did not find your arguments at 
all compelling; they were certainly not persuasive enough to overthrow the 
wisdom of the greatest post-apostolic teachers in the Church's history. I 
also know that throughout our history, the vast majority of Christians have 
agreed with the teaching of those greats, and that is why the doctrine of 
Christ's eternal Sonship is considered to be and upheld as the one and only 
orthodox position on the matter. Perhaps someday the church at large will shift 
its teaching and deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. On that day I will find 
myself on the side of heterodoxy, and the burden of proof will have shifted. On 
that day the responsibility will be mine, and the burden too, to stand 
against "orthodoxy" and thus the church, and prove why the it is wrong. 

 
As far as John goes, if he wants to question the orthodoxy of the fall, I 
say let him do so. Who is Adam but the old man? When Christ died, we died with 
him  -- and the old man died, too. The debt of the old is paid by the 
New. Thank you Jesus! If John persuades me that the church has been wrong in 
regards to the fall, then I will stand with him in the heterodoxy of our 
position and attempt to convince the Church that it needs to repent. If not, 
then I view his position as tertiary to the greater work of Christ and the Good 
News of his salvation. In other words, it's not worth getting all worked up 
about. He's got the Spirit to guide him; he'll come around soon enough.
 
Bill
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 10:09 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
  
  Hi John.  I don't have a lot of time, so my 
  response is in red.  This is becoming much too personal, so I think we 
  should just drop this exchange until you are able to reason together with me 
  without it being personal.
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:23 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Evangelism
In a message dated 1/27/2005 8:45:22 AM 
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Miller wrote:>>What about your 
  perspective that there>>was no fall of man in the 
  garden?>>Isn't that part of modern pop theology?John 
  wrote:>Why ask that question?Because I was surprised to 
  hear you say that there are no pop theologies in this forum.  I 
  would consider a disbelief in the fall of man to be pop 
theology.
So what?  I strive for that which is sensible in 
light of my understanding of scripture.   But maybe I do not know 
the doctrine of the fall?  Teach it to me David.   It's 
Miller time for the truth  !!!  What was 
man, prior to this "fall,"   David?   How was he 
different from us today?   What in man's human nature is counted 
as "fallen?
I was only asking a 
question because I am interested in what you believe.  I have no desire 
to teach you about the fall right now.  I'm interested in what you and 
others think about the fall of man being orthodox doctrine or pop 
theology.  From my perspective, it seems inconsistent for some of you 
to get so emotional over the eternal sonship doctrine, something that is 
popular (pop?) theology, but not necessarily an orthodox necessity from 
my perspective, while at the same time appear apathetic about the idea that 
maybe there wa

Re: [TruthTalk] Sinning Christians

2005-01-28 Thread Lance Muir

Hi David,

Jonathan here sitting at Lance's desk.  I noted that you changed the title
to Sinning Christians.  The implication is that Slade sinned by leaving the
forum without notifying its owner.  While it may have been hasty and perhaps
nudged against rudeness it certainly was no sin especially considering how
some here have treated him, especially yourself.  For the record we have no
actual proof that Slade has left the forum other than that he has not posted
lately.  Do we have proof that he has unsubscribed?

Secondly, why turn this topic into another 'I am David Miller hear me
declare to everyone how RIGHT I am' thread?  I am continually amazed at the
grace John Smithson gives you each day as you bully away.  Your forum is in
shambles; you completely mishandled the abuse of this forum by Judy.  As
Lance says you are completely deficient in discernment.  Other than some
terrific posts by Debbie there has not been a constructive or beneficial
post on this forum in over 3 weeks (actually G's post on Barth was pretty
good too).  All this 'we are so much better than the Mormon's even though
Christ has no impact on our own lives' threads are useless and just entrench
people in their beliefs.  It is your responsibility as a moderator to take
conversations and move them forwards in a beneficial manner.  Your posts
against the members on this forum display argumentation, not dialogue.  I
beg you: either take this responsibility seriously or drop the forum
altogether.

Izzy, allow David to take responsibility for this forum and do not reply to
this post.

Jonathan

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: January 28, 2005 13:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinning Christians

> Lance wrote:
> > This departure, along with it's circumstances
> > was visible a mile away.
>
> While this is true, this does not mean that one leaves in such an
> irresponsible way.  I am usually surprised when Christians sin.  I guess
you
> expect it.  Do you think God expects us to sin?  If you are inclined to
say
> yes, then I guess that would mean that God is not disappointed when a
> Christian sins, because he expected it.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>

--
"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] Street Preaching

Yes, I find it very starnge
 
If he did leave w/o notice.
Since he accepted the responsibility of moderating.
He should have notified David.
Only takes a second.
MT 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone other than me NOT find it strange that Slade 'exited stage left'without contacting David? DAVID:WHATEVER GOD MAY HAVE GIFTED YOU WITH, HEDID NOT, I REPEAT not GIFT YOU WITH DISCERNMENT!! This departure, along withit's circumstances was visible a mile away. I think it must be that 'last toknow' thingy.Illustration #2: Your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING vis a vis Jon Stewart.Do any ofyour 'kiddies' teach a course in cultural awareness. If so, take it.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: January 28, 2005 12:54Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching> Izzy wrote:> >> They weren’t the first to go—Judy is gone, too.>> John wote:> > Not before she did her damage.>> John, please do not
 disparage Judy. This only forces me to respond and> defend my sister.>> Judy did no damage. She stood up for the Word of God. She attempted to> help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of God. She did not> always do that perfectly, but she did as good as any of us in thisdifficult> process. I miss her presence here.>> While I'm saying this, I should perhaps also say that I am verydisappointed> to learn that Slade has unsubscribed from the list. I was not aware ofthis> until you had posted this information to the list. I find it very strange> that a moderator of this list would just up and quit like this without> communicating with me. So thank you for alerting me to this change.>> If anyone has an interest in moderating this list, please write to me. My> time is limited and Slade's leaving may necessitate me having to take the> list down at some
 point in the future.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller.>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
 subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats

Did you learn your trade by simply reading a book?  Have you become a caring husband via the same process?  Driving a car?  Learning to walk  --   Terry the Sufficient learning to walk on his own.   Terry  --  there is nothing that you know in this life that has come your way apart from your association with others.   AND, you are no more a full blown student of the Word than I   --    that is something that I do know.    Salvation is not a trade or locomotion
 
The Bible is a living bookNot so these other books.The Holy Spirit works through the Bible. Not so the drivers manual.Unless you are driving a chariot of fire 2 Kings 2:11
Everything I have learned about Eternity, the spiritual World and the world to come, has come not thru others but thru God's word.
How do we know which "others" to recieve from?
The Bible gives us warning about MANY False Teachers, Preachers, Prophets, and Apostles!
Should we go to others like RAMTHA?
groups that have the truth? UFO cults, LDS, JW's
What is the measure of Truth, The Holy Bible!
If you measure with out it you will make a Eternal mistake.
 
Thanks for your comments Terry The Bible is the only safe place.
Community can be a Judas Goat! 
 
Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Are you comparing the Bible to a drivers manual?Somewhat, I suppose, but much more.  A better way to put it is that is my only source of absolute truth; about God, about morality, about community, about eternity.  Some truth undoubtedly exists outside the Bible, but so does all the lies of the devil, disguised as truth.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Sinning Christians

Lance wrote:
> This departure, along with it's circumstances
> was visible a mile away.

While this is true, this does not mean that one leaves in such an 
irresponsible way.  I am usually surprised when Christians sin.  I guess you 
expect it.  Do you think God expects us to sin?  If you are inclined to say 
yes, then I guess that would mean that God is not disappointed when a 
Christian sins, because he expected it.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats





Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Are you comparing the Bible to a drivers manual?
  
  


Somewhat, I suppose, but much more.  A better way to put it is that is
my only source of absolute truth; about God, about morality, about
community, about eternity.  Some truth undoubtedly exists outside the
Bible, but so does all the lies of the devil, disguised as truth.

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

2005-01-28 Thread Lance Muir

Does anyone other than me NOT find it strange that Slade 'exited stage left'
without contacting David? DAVID:WHATEVER GOD MAY HAVE GIFTED YOU WITH, HE
DID NOT, I REPEAT not GIFT YOU WITH DISCERNMENT!! This departure, along with
it's circumstances was visible a mile away. I think it must be that 'last to
know' thingy.

Illustration #2: Your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING vis a vis Jon Stewart.Do any of
your 'kiddies' teach a course in cultural awareness. If so, take it.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: January 28, 2005 12:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching


> Izzy wrote:
> >> They werenât the first to goâJudy is gone, too.
>
> John wote:
> > Not before she did her damage.
>
> John, please do not disparage Judy.  This only forces me to respond and
> defend my sister.
>
> Judy did no damage.  She stood up for the Word of God.  She attempted to
> help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of God.  She did not
> always do that perfectly, but she did as good as any of us in this
difficult
> process.  I miss her presence here.
>
> While I'm saying this, I should perhaps also say that I am very
disappointed
> to learn that Slade has unsubscribed from the list.  I was not aware of
this
> until you had posted this information to the list.  I find it very strange
> that a moderator of this list would just up and quit like this without
> communicating with me.  So thank you for alerting me to this change.
>
> If anyone has an interest in moderating this list, please write to me.  My
> time is limited and Slade's leaving may necessitate me having to take the
> list down at some point in the future.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"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] Truth as viewed by one of the greats

Bill wrote:
> As it pertains to Judy's statement, "[Jesus] wasn't
> a son before the incarnation and he hasn't been
> that since the resurrection," I'm sure she made it
> in the heat of the moment and upon reflection
> would want to be able to take some of it back.

I hope that is the case too, Bill.  I have not read anyone who rejects the 
eternal sonship doctrine who now thinks he is no longer the Son.  I 
certainly accept the idea that once a son, always a son, even when one is 
glorified and takes on other roles as well, such as fatherhood.  In other 
words, although I am a father of five children, I am not going to be 
offended if an elderly gentleman like Terry called me son.  :-)

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

Izzy wrote:
>> They werenât the first to goâJudy is gone, too.

John wote:
> Not before she did her damage.

John, please do not disparage Judy.  This only forces me to respond and 
defend my sister.

Judy did no damage.  She stood up for the Word of God.  She attempted to 
help others reconcile their teachings with the Word of God.  She did not 
always do that perfectly, but she did as good as any of us in this difficult 
process.  I miss her presence here.

While I'm saying this, I should perhaps also say that I am very disappointed 
to learn that Slade has unsubscribed from the list.  I was not aware of this 
until you had posted this information to the list.  I find it very strange 
that a moderator of this list would just up and quit like this without 
communicating with me.  So thank you for alerting me to this change.

If anyone has an interest in moderating this list, please write to me.  My 
time is limited and Slade's leaving may necessitate me having to take the 
list down at some point in the future.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: FW: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bi...

That is a mouthful[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And here we are biting and devouring one another.   A shame.   JDIn a message dated 1/28/2005 5:54:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>From: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bibles>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:45 -0500>X-SID-PRA: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>X-SID-Result: TempErrorX-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGpKh0AZapsFtxb+datfBOsb/72+bfg23g=Received: from listserver.townhall.com ([66.208.39.160]) by mc2-f28.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);  Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:25:37 -0800From: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing BiblesDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:45 -0500MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="ISO-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitList-Unsubscribe: Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2005 04:25:38.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B142940:01C504F1]China: Executed for Distributing BiblesBrought to you by Voice of the Martyrs  When 34-year old Jiang Zongxiu went to her neighboring market last June in Guizhou Province, China. Along with her mother-in-law, Jiang went through the marketplace, taking opportunities to hand out Bibles and Christian literature and telling people about Jesus. Only this day they had an encounter with the Chinese police. The two Christian women were handcuffed together and brought to the police station. They were interrogated throughout the evening of the 17th. The next morning they were sentenced by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) to 15 days incarceration for "suspected spreading of rumor and disturbing the social order." Jiang and her mother-in-law knew the risk of
 spreading Christian literature in communist China. Both had been active in their church for more than 10 years and dared to go forth. Even when they were arrested, interrogated and sentenced to serve 15 days, they were willing to accept the consequences of their actions-all from a government that claims to have "freedom of religion." But it was not enough for the PSB to arrest and beat these two Christian women for the crime of passing our Christian literature. In the afternoon of June 18th, Mrs. Jiang Zongziu was pronounced dead by the PSB office of Tongzi County. They claimed she died of "natural causes." The fact is she was beaten to death. The Voice of the Martyrs has received video testimony from the surviving family, photos of Jiang body showing her bruised body, and a copy of the actual arrest document. All of this had to be smuggled out of China as the authorities continue to attempt to hide their systematic persecution of Christians. An international
 campaign is now under way on behalf of the surviving family. Much of the world would like you to believe Christians are no longer persecuted. Sister Jiang's family would disagree. Now you can stay informed of what is really happening to your Christian brothers and sisters in countries like China and even discover practical ways to help, with a FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs monthly newsletter. Don't turn your back on today's persecuted church. Subscribe today. Click here to receive your FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs award-winning newsletter.  Conservative News and Information at townhall.com.
Subscription Information
You were sent this email as a subscriber to conservative-alert as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You subscribed on 02/21/03To unsubscribe, visit hereQuestions, comments, or having difficulties with your email subscription?Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.©2005 Townhall.com. All rights reserved.Townhall.com is a project of the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org)214 Massachusetts Ave. NEWashington, DC 20002 


		Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

Damage?
Was she a Resister?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/28/2005 6:42:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They weren’t the first to go—Judy is gone, too.  IzzyNot before she did her damage.J 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats

Are you comparing the Bible to a drivers manual?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by yourself.  I realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less than kind, but that is not what I am saying about you.  It is what I hear you saying about yourself.  We all suffer from this shortcoming to one degree or another, and we all have our own methods of dealing with our shortcomings.  Yours seems to be to seek the opinions of authors and friends, while mine is to dig deeper into the Bible.  You find that your way works to some degree.  I find that my Lord will give me all I can grasp at the proper time.  When my cup is full, He allows me to digest that which He has given, then He pours out more.  His timing is perfect.  I do not yet have all truth, but I am confident that I
 am headed in the right direction.  What I do have in the way of truth gives me confidence to share what I believe with others.  Put another way, I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I should believe.  I believe that my way, in this instance, is better than yours, and humbly suggest you try it.TerryI appreciate the spirit in which the above is written.   Not a communality on TT.   Much appreciated.   I really do not want this to be about me, but what I actually said.   In the above, you have a point of view that explains at least three passages of scriptures referred in my text.   If you came into my library, you would a set on books on the shelf that  get used on a daily basis  --   they are greek grammars, four or five greek interlinears,  the Greek New Testament (which contains a critical analysis of many problematic phrases and words of the
 N.T. scripture), several gk-english lexicons, Kittles 9 volume greek word studies, and a host of other related material.    My point?    These are the books I use  --  not commentaries.    I have listened for nearly a year, now, to a few, a very few, charge me with being somewhat mindless in ability and dysfunctional in my search techniques  --   when, in fact, the very opposite is true.   When was the last time anyone member of the opposition spent hours studying a single greek nuance.   When was the last time someone  read every pertinent biblical passage on a given subject (yes, I do use a concordance -   Young's).    There is absolutely no one on this forum who is more concerned about or spends more time in study of the biblical message.   Not one person.  Your quote " I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I should
 believe"  is not something I view as desirable  --  in terms of being a truth seeker.   Did you learn your trade by simply reading a book?  Have you become a caring husband via the same process?  Driving a car?  Learning to walk  --   Terry the Sufficient learning to walk on his own.   Terry  --  there is nothing that you know in this life that has come your way apart from your association with others.   AND, you are no more a full blown student of the Word than I   --    that is something that I do know.    But more importantly -- let's go to the very scriptures you say you study more than I:  Community is ordained by God through Christ (apostles and the like)  and is such "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,  to the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the
 truth (we need each other BY DIVINE APPOINT, Terry) and of the knowledge of the Son of God (yes, Judy, He remains the Son even after He is "gone'), to a mature man (something that is not yet a reality), to the measure of the stature which belongs to fulness of Christ   ..    but speaking the truth in love  (TO EACH OTHER) we are to grow up in all respects  into Him , who is the head, even Christ"   (Eph 4:12-15).  From a pastoral point of view, this discussion reveals a certain immaturity that (a) hard to impossible to admit on this forum and (b) a problem for us all.   There is nothing that I believe that is not grounded in scripture.    Nothing.   Do I have room for group  --  yes.   Is that easy to admit?   Well, there are certainly others on TT who simply cannot go that route. 
 John__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism

Izzy wrote:
> The "Good News" is that we are now FREE
> from sinning, and FREE to live in the Spirit!
> Oh, what a happy thought for starting the
> day!!!

Amen.  Preach it sister.  This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The kingdom 
of God is here!

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sources of Truth

John wrote:
> Your views and mine, if true, come to us
> FROM OTHERS.  There is no escaping
> this reality.

We have a difference of opinion here.  I consider this teaching to be a 
doctrine of demons.  I do not say this to evoke an emotional outburst from 
you or anyone else.  I speak this soberly and prophetically.

The idea that truth comes to us only through others assumes that physical 
reality is the only reality.  It is a spin off of the sciences which does 
not believe in revelation.  The Scriptures testify to what many of us have 
experienced, a revelation of truth that comes apart from others.  Jesus 
Christ is truth, and he has given some of us a Spirit of Truth which teaches 
us and reveals Christ to us, apart from the input of others.  This is not 
done in a way that is exclusive of the input of truth from others, but it 
can and does happen independently from the input of others.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism

Izzy wrote:
> JD you have associated yourself with your Triad friends.
> And since when do the "Righteous" proclaim that they
> sin every day?

LOL.  Excellent point, Izzy.  And since when do the righteous proclaim a 
vulgar and profane man like Jon Stewart to be a prophetic voice into our 
culture?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism




Hi John.  I don't have a lot of time, so my 
response is in red.  This is becoming much too personal, so I think we 
should just drop this exchange until you are able to reason together with me 
without it being personal.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:23 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
  In a message dated 1/27/2005 8:45:22 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  David Miller wrote:>>What about your 
perspective that there>>was no fall of man in the 
garden?>>Isn't that part of modern pop theology?John 
wrote:>Why ask that question?Because I was surprised to hear 
you say that there are no pop theologies in this forum.  I would 
consider a disbelief in the fall of man to be pop 
  theology.
  So 
  what?  I strive for that which is sensible in light of my understanding 
  of scripture.   But maybe I do not know the doctrine of the 
  fall?  Teach it to me David.   It's Miller time for the 
  truth  !!!  What was man, prior to this 
  "fall,"   David?   How was he different from us 
  today?   What in man's human nature is counted as 
  "fallen?
  I was only asking a question because I am 
  interested in what you believe.  I have no desire to teach you about the 
  fall right now.  I'm interested in what you and others think about the 
  fall of man being orthodox doctrine or pop theology.  From my 
  perspective, it seems inconsistent for some of you to get so emotional over 
  the eternal sonship doctrine, something that is popular (pop?) theology, but 
  not necessarily an orthodox necessity from my perspective, while at the 
  same time appear apathetic about the idea that maybe there was no fall of man 
  in the garden.  For the sake of relationship, I'm seeking to 
  reconcile my understanding about this.  
  
  Do you consider your theology about there not being a fall 
to be orthodox? What about you, Jonathan, and Lance too, and Bill 
Taylor?  Do you guys consider this theology of no fall of man to be 
orthodox?  It seems to me that this fall of man doctrine is a much 
more important consideration than the eternal sonship 
  doctrine.
  Tha's it 
  David  --   introduce so many variables into this discussion 
  that staying on track eventually becomes impossible.    
  
   
  Sorry, John.  It does not seem 
  that complicated to me.  I will back off to prevent information 
  overload.
   
  One being more 
  important than the other.   For you, maybe.  For me, each is 
  equally important,   Out of respect for my friends in the 
  Righteous Triad  (I like that more than "liberal, don't you?),  I 
  believe that I am the only one who has fallen from the "fall."   It 
  fits in with the equation  Lance, Jonathan, Billy T   and poor 
  old John Smithson.   
  I would like to hear what they 
  think about your falling from the fall.  Gary answered, but as usual, I 
  cannot decipher his encrypted post well enough to know what he thinks.  
  Perhaps he disagrees but is not passionate about it.
  John wrote:>You have heard this before>-- 
where and when?I have heard it many times for the last 20 years, 
especially from theistic evolutionists.  It has gained popularity 
as evolutionary theory as gained acceptance as the best explanation for 
origins.
  I like 
  your tactics.   We are not having a discussion.  We are having 
  a tactical echange for the sake of others.   An so you try to force 
  me onto the defensive with the "pop theology" charge;  you try to tie my 
  view to others, hoping to pounce onto some revealed confusion-in-the-ranks as 
  the lefties move to counter The Prophet's guilt by association maneuver;  
  you advance this "guilt by association" theme by comparing  my views to 
  "theistic evolutionshists";  and in the next paragraph, you will 
  associate me with the Church of Christ  --   another "guilt by 
  association" aspect of your "argument. 
   
  You seem to forget that I was trying to answer your 
  question.  I did not care to bring this up at all.  You 
  asked for where and when I have heard this.  I answered.  
  No need to imply evil motives or shady debate tactics on my part.  
  This is an ad hominem fallacy.  As for my 
  mentioning of "Church of Christ," I know your background there and figure that 
  you are familiar with this favorite hermeneutic of theirs.  Guilt by 
  association has nothing to do with my question.  I was simply attempting 
  to communicate in terse form.  You answered no.  So how could it be 
  guilt by association?So, do me a favor and give me some of 
  these quotes theistic evolutionist community that preaches what I 
  presented.   After doing this, please answer this 
  quesiton:   " so what?"  
I don't care to do your homework 
  for you.  If you are not interested, fine.  Let's just drop 
  it.
  
  
John 
wrote:>Speaking for mys

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats




A hardy AMEN on this one, John. I am confident that 
others will read this and agree.
 
As it pertains to Judy's statement, "[Jesus] wasn't a son before the incarnation and he hasn't 
been that since the resurrection," I'm sure 
she made it in the heat of the moment and upon reflection would want to be able 
to take some of it back. I think we should give her the freedom to do so if the 
opportunity arises. Certainly the Son of God the Father is still the Son of God 
the Father. How else ought we understand the Apostle's words here, written 
perhaps fifty years after Jesus' resurrection? "Grace, mercy, and peace 
will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. ... For many deceivers 
have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the 
flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. ... Whoever transgresses and 
does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the 
doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son" (2 Joh 3, 7, 
9).
 
Good job, John. Don't get discouraged.
 
Bill
 
 
 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 8:58 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed 
  by one of the greats
  In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:36:07 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem 
to be saying that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by 
yourself.  I realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less 
than kind, but that is not what I am saying about you.  It is what I 
hear you saying about yourself.  We all suffer from this shortcoming to 
one degree or another, and we all have our own methods of dealing with our 
shortcomings.  Yours seems to be to seek the opinions of authors and 
friends, while mine is to dig deeper into the Bible.  You find that 
your way works to some degree.  I find that my Lord will give me all I 
can grasp at the proper time.  When my cup is full, He allows me to 
digest that which He has given, then He pours out more.  His timing is 
perfect.  I do not yet have all truth, but I am confident that I am 
headed in the right direction.  What I do have in the way of truth 
gives me confidence to share what I believe with others.  Put another 
way, I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I should 
believe.  I believe that my way, in this instance, is better than 
yours, and humbly suggest you try it.TerryI 
  appreciate the spirit in which the above is written.   Not a 
  communality on TT.   Much appreciated.   I really do not 
  want this to be about me, but what I actually said.   In the above, 
  you have a point of view that explains at least three passages of scriptures 
  referred in my text.   If you came into my library, you would a set 
  on books on the shelf that  get used on a daily basis  
  --   they are greek grammars, four or five greek interlinears,  
  the Greek New Testament (which contains a critical analysis of many 
  problematic phrases and words of the N.T. scripture), several gk-english 
  lexicons, Kittles 9 volume greek word studies, and a host of other related 
  material.    My point?    These are the books I 
  use  --  not commentaries.    I have listened for 
  nearly a year, now, to a few, a very few, charge me with being somewhat 
  mindless in ability and dysfunctional in my search techniques  
  --   when, in fact, the very opposite is true.   When was 
  the last time anyone member of the opposition spent hours studying a single 
  greek nuance.   When was the last time someone  read every 
  pertinent biblical passage on a given subject (yes, I do use a concordance 
  -   Young's).    There is absolutely no one on this 
  forum who is more concerned about or spends more time in study of the biblical 
  message.   Not one person.  Your quote " I can tell them what I 
  believe instead of asking them what I should believe"  is not something I 
  view as desirable  --  in terms of being a truth seeker.   
  Did you learn your trade by simply reading a book?  Have you 
  become a caring husband via the same process?  Driving a car?  
  Learning to walk  --   Terry the Sufficient learning to walk on 
  his own.   Terry  --  there is nothing that you know in 
  this life that has come your way apart from your association with 
  others.   AND, you are no more a full blown student of the Word than 
  I   --    that is something that I do 
  know.    But more importantly -- let's go to the very 
  scriptures you say you study more than I:  Community is ordained 
  by God through Christ (apostles and the like)  and is such "for the 
  equipping of the saints for the work of service,  to the building up of 
  the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity

RE: [TruthTalk] Evangelism









 

 

 

JD, Yes, we HAVE sinned, which is why we need a Savior, to
deliver us from the penalty and effects of sin, and to free us from the bondage
of having to continue sinning. 



You draw a distinction between past sins and the continual sin circumstance
when you capitalize "HAVE" in the above.   two things wrong
with this:   you ignore the present time part of the same
passage  (and are falling short of [His glory] ), not to mention the fact
that past time, HAVE sinned, is used for a very different reason than you
suppose   --  it is used to describe the certainty that all are
falling short because ALL HAVE SINNED   -   including the
millions and millions that were not living 200 years ago and are not alive
yet.  Past time in Ro 3:23 has nothing to do with this myopic view of the
sin condition of man and everything with the fact of sin IN our lives, a fact
that is as certain as the past in spite of the realization that it has not yet
occurred.    If it included future sinners, it is not a stretch to
see that included future sin.  

JD

 

JD, I am
not ignoring the fact that we still sin when we forget our freedom to walk in
the Spirit instead of in the flesh/sin nature.  You, on the other hand,
seem to ignore the fact that we no longer have to walk in sin daily.  In
fact, you state that it is something we should expect to do every day, and
offer yourself as proof.  (Not good news!) Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: FW: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bi...

And here we are biting and devouring one another.   A shame.   JD

In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:54:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>From: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bibles
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:45 -0500
>

X-SID-PRA: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-SID-Result: TempError
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGpKh0AZapsFtxb+datfBOsb/72+bfg23g=
Received: from listserver.townhall.com ([66.208.39.160]) by mc2-f28.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);
  Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:25:37 -0800
From: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bibles
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
List-Unsubscribe: 
Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2005 04:25:38.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B142940:01C504F1]

China: Executed for Distributing Bibles
 Brought to you by Voice of the Martyrs

When 34-year old Jiang Zongxiu went to her neighboring market last June in Guizhou Province, China. Along with her mother-in-law, Jiang went through the marketplace, taking opportunities to hand out Bibles and Christian literature and telling people about Jesus. Only this day they had an encounter with the Chinese police. 

The two Christian women were handcuffed together and brought to the police station. They were interrogated throughout the evening of the 17th. The next morning they were sentenced by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) to 15 days incarceration for "suspected spreading of rumor and disturbing the social order." 

Jiang and her mother-in-law knew the risk of spreading Christian literature in communist China. Both had been active in their church for more than 10 years and dared to go forth. Even when they were arrested, interrogated and sentenced to serve 15 days, they were willing to accept the consequences of their actions-all from a government that claims to have "freedom of religion." 

But it was not enough for the PSB to arrest and beat these two Christian women for the crime of passing our Christian literature. In the afternoon of June 18th, Mrs. Jiang Zongziu was pronounced dead by the PSB office of Tongzi County. They claimed she died of "natural causes." The fact is she was beaten to death. 

The Voice of the Martyrs has received video testimony from the surviving family, photos of Jiang body showing her bruised body, and a copy of the actual arrest document. All of this had to be smuggled out of China as the authorities continue to attempt to hide their systematic persecution of Christians. An international campaign is now under way on behalf of the surviving family. 

Much of the world would like you to believe Christians are no longer persecuted. Sister Jiang's family would disagree. Now you can stay informed of what is really happening to your Christian brothers and sisters in countries like China and even discover practical ways to help, with a FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs monthly newsletter. Don't turn your back on today's persecuted church. Subscribe today. 

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs award-winning newsletter.  

Conservative News and Information at townhall.com.

Subscription Information

 You were sent this email as a subscriber to conservative-alert as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
You subscribed on 02/21/03

To unsubscribe, visit here

Questions, comments, or having difficulties with your email subscription?
Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.

 ©2005 Townhall.com. All rights reserved.
Townhall.com is a project of the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org)

 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats

In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by yourself.  I realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less than kind, but that is not what I am saying about you.  It is what I hear you saying about yourself.  We all suffer from this shortcoming to one degree or another, and we all have our own methods of dealing with our shortcomings.  Yours seems to be to seek the opinions of authors and friends, while mine is to dig deeper into the Bible.  You find that your way works to some degree.  I find that my Lord will give me all I can grasp at the proper time.  When my cup is full, He allows me to digest that which He has given, then He pours out more.  His timing is perfect.  I do not yet have all truth, but I am confident that I am headed in the right direction.  What I do have in the way of truth gives me confidence to share what I believe with others.  Put another way, I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I should believe.  I believe that my way, in this instance, is better than yours, and humbly suggest you try it.
Terry


I appreciate the spirit in which the above is written.   Not a communality on TT.   Much appreciated.   I really do not want this to be about me, but what I actually said.   In the above, you have a point of view that explains at least three passages of scriptures referred in my text.   If you came into my library, you would a set on books on the shelf that  get used on a daily basis  --   they are greek grammars, four or five greek interlinears,  the Greek New Testament (which contains a critical analysis of many problematic phrases and words of the N.T. scripture), several gk-english lexicons, Kittles 9 volume greek word studies, and a host of other related material.    My point?    These are the books I use  --  not commentaries.    I have listened for nearly a year, now, to a few, a very few, charge me with being somewhat mindless in ability and dysfunctional in my search techniques  --   when, in fact, the very opposite is true.   When was the last time anyone member of the opposition spent hours studying a single greek nuance.   When was the last time someone  read every pertinent biblical passage on a given subject (yes, I do use a concordance -   Young's).    There is absolutely no one on this forum who is more concerned about or spends more time in study of the biblical message.   Not one person.  Your quote " I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I should believe"  is not something I view as desirable  --  in terms of being a truth seeker.   

Did you learn your trade by simply reading a book?  Have you become a caring husband via the same process?  Driving a car?  Learning to walk  --   Terry the Sufficient learning to walk on his own.   Terry  --  there is nothing that you know in this life that has come your way apart from your association with others.   AND, you are no more a full blown student of the Word than I   --    that is something that I do know.    

But more importantly -- let's go to the very scriptures you say you study more than I:  

Community is ordained by God through Christ (apostles and the like)  and is such "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,  to the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the truth (we need each other BY DIVINE APPOINT, Terry) and of the knowledge of the Son of God (yes, Judy, He remains the Son even after He is "gone'), to a mature man (something that is not yet a reality), to the measure of the stature which belongs to fulness of Christ   ..    but speaking the truth in love  (TO EACH OTHER) we are to grow up in all respects  into Him , who is the head, even Christ"   (Eph 4:12-15).  

From a pastoral point of view, this discussion reveals a certain immaturity that (a) hard to impossible to admit on this forum and (b) a problem for us all.   

There is nothing that I believe that is not grounded in scripture.    Nothing.   Do I have room for group  --  yes.   Is that easy to admit?   Well, there are certainly others on TT who simply cannot go that route.  

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

In a message dated 1/28/2005 6:42:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

They werenât the first to goâJudy is gone, too.  Izzy



Not before she did her damage.

J

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism

In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:28:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JD, Yes, we HAVE sinned, which is why we need a Savior, to deliver us from the penalty and effects of sin, and to free us from the bondage of having to continue sinning. 

You draw a distinction between past sins and the continual sin circumstance when you capitalize "HAVE" in the above.   two things wrong with this:   you ignore the present time part of the same passage  (and are falling short of [His glory] ), not to mention the fact that past time, HAVE sinned, is used for a very different reason than you suppose   --  it is used to describe the certainty that all are falling short because ALL HAVE SINNED   -   including the millions and millions that were not living 200 years ago and are not alive yet.  Past time in Ro 3:23 has nothing to do with this myopic view of the sin condition of man and everything with the fact of sin IN our lives, a fact that is as certain as the past in spite of the realization that it has not yet occurred.    If it included future sinners, it is not a stretch to see that included future sin.  

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Fruit of Mormonism

In a message dated 1/28/2005 3:32:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Would someone be so kind as to post photographs of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn and, about a thousand other 'servants of the one true god'? Some would prove a worthy rival for 'top honors' over the photo posted herein. Just what point does the 'poster' expect to make through such foolishness?
  
Please take note that THERE IS NO MORE CENTRAL QUESTION FOR ALL OF TT'S PARTICIPANTS THAN THIS: WHO IS JESUS CHRIST?
  
Every TT participant understands this differently. Though there is but one Jesus each articulates their answer differently. In the end this question is THE QUESTION: WHO DO (WO)MEN SAY THAT I AM?
  
Whatever the question the answer is Jesus. 


These dirty old liberals   ---   they have to go foul things up with their constant nagging about this Jesus thingy.  No matter what we might say about the "truth," we know this" there is truth that is conceptual (and we will never agree in total on this) and truth that springs from a relationship with Another (something for which "agreement" is not the workig principle.)  

If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know, but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him  I Co 8:2-3

JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats









===
To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying
that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by yourself.  I
realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less than kind, but that
is not what I am saying about you.  It is what I hear you saying about
yourself.  We all suffer from this shortcoming to one degree or another,
and we all have our own methods of dealing with our shortcomings.  Yours
seems to be to seek the opinions of authors and friends, while mine is to dig
deeper into the Bible.  You find that your way works to some degree. 
I find that my Lord will give me all I can grasp at the proper time.  When
my cup is full, He allows me to digest that which He has given, then He pours
out more.  His timing is perfect.  I do not yet have all truth, but I
am confident that I am headed in the right direction.  What I do have in
the way of truth gives me confidence to share what I believe with others. 
Put another way, I can tell them what I believe instead of asking them what I
should believe.  I believe that my way, in this instance, is better than
yours, and humbly suggest you try it.
Terry

 

 

The happy news, at least, is that you a
both seeking Truth.  Izzy

 

Luke 11: 9"So I say to
you, (A)ask,
and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be
opened to you.

[TruthTalk] [Fwd: FW: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bibles]

From: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: China: Christian Woman Executed for Distributing Bibles
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:45 -0500

--- Begin Message ---
Title: Townhall.com Conservative Alert

  China: Executed for Distributing 
  Bibles
  Brought to you by Voice of the 
  Martyrs

  When 34-year old Jiang Zongxiu went to her 
  neighboring market last June in Guizhou Province, China. Along 
  with her mother-in-law, Jiang went through the marketplace, 
  taking opportunities to hand out Bibles and Christian 
  literature and telling people about Jesus. Only this day they 
  had an encounter with the Chinese police. 

  The two Christian women were handcuffed together and 
  brought to the police station. They were interrogated 
  throughout the evening of the 17th. The next morning they were 
  sentenced by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) to 15 days 
  incarceration for "suspected spreading of rumor and disturbing 
  the social order." 

  Jiang and her mother-in-law knew the risk of spreading 
  Christian literature in communist China. Both had been active 
  in their church for more than 10 years and dared to go forth. 
  Even when they were arrested, interrogated and sentenced to 
  serve 15 days, they were willing to accept the consequences of 
  their actions-all from a government that claims to have 
  "freedom of religion." 

  But it was not enough for the PSB to arrest and beat 
  these two Christian women for the crime of passing our 
  Christian literature. In the afternoon of June 18th, Mrs. 
  Jiang Zongziu was pronounced dead by the PSB office of Tongzi 
  County. They claimed she died of "natural causes." The fact is 
  she was beaten to death. 

  The Voice of the Martyrs has received video testimony 
  from the surviving family, photos of Jiang body showing her 
  bruised body, and a copy of the actual arrest document. All of 
  this had to be smuggled out of China as the authorities 
  continue to attempt to hide their systematic persecution of 
  Christians. An international campaign is now under way on 
  behalf of the surviving family. 

  Much of the world would like you to believe Christians 
  are no longer persecuted. Sister Jiang's family would 
  disagree. Now you can stay informed of what is really 
  happening to your Christian brothers and sisters in countries 
  like China and even discover practical ways to help, with a 
  FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs monthly 
  newsletter. Don't turn your back on today's persecuted church. 
  Subscribe today. 
  Click here 
  to receive your FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs 
  award-winning newsletter. 

  Conservative News and Information at townhall.com.

Subscription 
Information
You were sent this email 
as a subscriber to conservative-alert as: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] You subscribed on 02/21/03To unsubscribe, visit hereQuestions, 
comments, or having difficulties with your email 
subscription?Contact us via email, 
phone, fax, or postal mail.
©2005 Townhall.com. All rights 
reserved.Townhall.com is a project of the 
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org)
214 Massachusetts Ave. 
NEWashington, DC 20002 

--- End Message ---

Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:52:05 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  It
is my contention that an awareness/assurance  of "truth" is not
possible apart from the sharing of ideas (read "truth").  In this
remark, obtaining truth and having the assurance that I possess the
"truth"  is the same thing.  And I am NOT speaking of the "whole range
of truth."  
  
  
Theory:
Truth in the past is "fact"  --  truth in the present is the
speculative moment or a relational circumstance   --   truth in the
future is a mystery (to we humans) but  God's reality. It has differing
forms and must be revealed by others.   
  
Application:  
And with  Debbie in mind  [four hours after writing these opening
words, I must confess I was only using Debbie as an excuse to
contemplate] ,  I want to add a thought or two.   It seems to
me that community (call it counsel or fellowship ) is all the more
important, even critical, when we realize that truth, i.e. the "full
range of truth,"  is so large, that it cannot be understood by those
who stand in its presence  --  the "forest and the tree kind of thing.   
As I see it, we have time in three dimensions: the past, the present
and the future  (I hasten to add that I did not come up with this
idea)   Perhaps truth in the past is "fact."  "Truth" in the present is
not so very different from the speculative moment   (thus
dynamic to the max and as fleeting as good looks)  --  how could it not
be in view of the fact that the present is no larger than a pin point 
-   a point in time, a single point in time in which nothing
else exists except what is happening. If truth exists in the
"present,"  is can only exist as something associated with life, not
conceptually.   There is nothing in the "present" that is fixed.  
Everything is in transition.  When Paul  claims that the truth is in
Jesus Himself  (Eph 4:21) -   he makes the only conclusion about
"truth" that is possible  --  that, if it exists in the present,  it is
the living form of Christ Himself.   
  
But, to move on:  "truth" in the future is only a mystery (to us). On
the surface, it seems to have little bearing on us except as we
understand that the furture is the birth place for all that we consider
as life (present) and fact (past).  It is pregnant with everything that
is about to happen.   To combine the past with the present is to create
the opportunity for prediction.   At least this is how it works for the
created.   The Creator's circumstance is very different from the
created.   His existence includes the future.   It (the future)
is full of what is about to happen because of the Creator's decision 
-- it is His reality and our mystery.   
  
Outside of me thinking outloud, what is the effect of this discussion
with myself?   Truth as it exists in the past, cannot be separated from
the present because the present is transitional,   and is a part of
God's reality if we consider its existence in the furture.   Truth,
then, has more than one form and is larger than our own abilty to
consider it   because it is intimately related to itself in the past,
present and future.  It has a conceptual reality, a Living
Circumstance and revelatory unveiling.  And most importantly,    there
is a time when it must be revealed by another (God or God at
work in ciurcumstance and community).   We embrace it, a moment at
a time, as it fits into our limited and physical paradigm  
    a thing we call the "present."   This "revealing"
gives the impression that "truth changes."   And while we all reject
this thinking as being the very antithesis of truth, it continues as a
nagging consideration   ---   what I "know" today may change 10
years from now, or 10 minutes from now.  But, perhaps,  what we see as
change is only truth as a continuing revelation  --   birthing from the
future through our present into the conceptual possibilities of the
past.   And if, after years, those concepts are all we have, nothing
more,   we are left with a graveyard of ideas with no Life.    Christ
is the way, the truth and the life.  Think about it  -- 
actually I am getting a little excited here  -- the "way" is always
predictive, is it not?   "This is the way to your friends house."  
"This is the way to solve this problem."    It is pregnate with ideas,
plans, goals  -  a future in the truest sense of the word.  The "truth"
may very well be the conceptual ideas of the Divine as embrace in the
Christ. If so, we would understand history as His Story  (corny, I
know) and the Old Scriptures as the very specific accounting for the
His incarnation.   The "life" is what Christ can only be in present
time.    
  
How far off am I?   Perhaps some will offer an opinion.  Understand
that I am nothing more than a California Okie trying, from time to
time, to understand the philosophical implications of (in this case)
"truth" as it relates to me and my God.  
  
Aristotle on the Bottle,  
  
The Smit

RE: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching









 

 

Blaine  --  hate to say it but Slade, Kay and Jeff
have moved on.   Got tired of the ranker and insults of a
few.   they left several days ago.   I will venture to say
that Slade would have enjoyed your response.  

John

 

They weren’t the first to go—Judy
is gone, too.  Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Evangelism









- 
Adam sinned and we share
in his sin BECAUSE we all have sinned.  
JD

 

JD, Yes, we HAVE sinned,
which is why we need a Savior, to deliver us from the penalty and effects of
sin, and to free us from the bondage of having to continue sinning.  We not longer HAVE to live in the flesh;
now we are FREE to live in the Spirit if we choose.  If we choose to stay in
the flesh it shows that the Spirit does not dwell in us.  We will always choose to continue to live in the flesh/sin
if we falsely are taught that we have no other option.  The “Good
News” is that we are now FREE from sinning, and FREE to live in the Spirit! J Oh, what a happy thought
for starting the day!!! Izzy

Rom 8: 2For (D)the law of the Spirit of life in (E)Christ Jesus (F)has set you free from the law of sin
and of death.     
   3For (G)what the Law could not do, (H)weak as it was through the flesh, God
did: sending His own Son in (I)the likeness of sinful flesh and as
an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the
flesh,     
   4so that the (J)requirement of the Law might be
fulfilled in us, who (K)do not walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit.    
   5For those who are according to
the flesh set their minds on (L)the things of the flesh, but those
who are according to the Spirit, (M)the things of the Spirit.   

   6(N)For the
mind set on the flesh is (O)death, but the mind set on
the Spirit is life and peace,    
   7because the mind set on the flesh is (P)hostile toward God; for it does not
subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,   

   8and those who are (Q)in the flesh cannot please God.    

   9However, you are not (R)in the flesh but in the Spirit, if
indeed the Spirit of God (S)dwells in you But (T)if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to Him.     
   10(U)If Christ is in you, though the body
is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.    

   11But if the Spirit of Him who (V)raised Jesus from the dead dwells in
you, (W)He who raised (X)Christ Jesus from the dead will also
give life to your mortal bodies [a]through His Spirit who dwells in you.    

   12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live
according to the flesh--     
   13for (Y)if
you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the
Spirit you are (Z)putting to death the deeds of the
body, you will live.

Re: [TruthTalk] Marriage is Sinfull





Dave Hansen wrote:

  
DAVEH:   Hmmwas that a lip of the finger, Terry?   You did
mean movement, didn't you!   
:-) 
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  



Yep.  Had a senior moment.
  

=
No, I meant moment.  The bottom end still functions well.  It is the
top end where the drive belts are starting to slip.

  
  
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fruit of Mormonism